HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181001plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 10/1/2018
Document dates: 9/12/2018 – 9/19/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 14, 2018 10:58 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Jocelyn Dong; Jason Green; price@padailypost.com
Subject:City Council Agenda #8, September 17, 2018
Attachments:Cool_Block_PAN_09142018.pdf
September 14, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
At the September 6 meeting of the Palo Alto Neighborhoods, we voted unanimously to send a letter to Council
questioning the wisdom of investing the City’s currently scarce funds in an unproven program like Cool Block. We have
several points we feel compelled to make:
1. Isn’t Cool Block frankly redundant? In the Utilities department, there are other city programs engaged in the
reduction of energy use. And emergency preparation education, organization and drills began with volunteers 25 years
ago and led to the founding of the City’s Office of Emergency Services. OES coordinates e‐prep with our residential
volunteers through our Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinators and Block Preparedness Coordinators. What would
happen if the money dedicated to Cool Block went toward strengthening the already existing operations that provide
these services?
2. The City faces a critical budget shortfall. There are many cuts to budget items that currently serve the residents
well. To name only a few: omitting the Google search engine from the city web site has deteriorated the user
experience by increasing the user’s time‐to‐find desired information; plus eliminating publication of city announcements
in the Weekly curtails the number of households that can easily access this valuable information. The cost of publishing
in the Weekly is comparable to the $25K mentioned in this proposal as direct costs to the city. Is paying for Cool Block
really the best use of the City’s funding, given that the City is slashing existing budget to items that are already proven
and working?
3. What about the $75,000 in indirect costs to be borne by staff? This $75,000 worth of productivity represents
opportunity costs for projects that staff should or could be doing instead. We assume that staff currently does not have
$75,000 of time, during which they are idle, that they can devote to Cool Block.
4. Part of the $25,000 that the City proposes to contribute to Cool Block will go for “project management” and the
Empowerment Institute will “pay $75,000 (For community organizing which includes recruiting, training and coaching
block leaders; and training and interface with City staff).” Are we now outsourcing to and paying EI for work that has
been done by City staff and by a significant number of volunteers, who have contributed countless hours to building up
our volunteer emergency response teams?
5. The staff report only mentions costs for this budget year. It does not address future costs, and whether the
program will be cost effective if implemented city‐wide.
6. The RFP and the responses were never released. This lack of transparency is concerning in a democratic
process.
7. As pointed out in our previous letter in March, the data frankly does not support the allocation of funding –
direct or indirect to Cool Block. There was no control group, so we don't know how many of the desired behavior
2
changes might have occurred anyway. The results appear to be self‐reported rather than verified by independently‐
obtained measurements, such as reductions in metered utility consumption – an excellent metric. Only 97 households
reported data and yet approximately 175 are said to have participated, raising questions of both the completeness of
the reported results and whether non‐reporting households achieved positive results at all. The calculation of carbon
savings is not explained.
In light of these concerns, PAN recommends the City Council vote “no” on Cool Block or at least remove it from Consent
so the item can be discussed in a public forum.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Sanders, Co‐Chair PAN
Sheri Furman, Co‐Chair PAN
Re: City Council Agenda #8, September 17, 2018
September 14, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
At the September 6 meeting of the Palo Alto Neighborhoods, we voted unanimously to send a letter to Council
questioning the wisdom of investing the City’s currently scarce funds in an unproven program like Cool Block.
We have several points we feel compelled to make:
1. Isn’t Cool Block frankly redundant? In the Utilities department, there are other city programs engaged in the
reduction of energy use. And emergency preparation education, organization and drills began with
volunteers 25 years ago and led to the founding of the City’s Office of Emergency Services. OES
coordinates e-prep with our residential volunteers through our Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinators
and Block Preparedness Coordinators. What would happen if the money dedicated to Cool Block went
toward strengthening the already existing operations that provide these services?
2. The City faces a critical budget shortfall. There are many cuts to budget items that currently serve the
residents well. To name only a few: omitting the Google search engine from the city web site has
deteriorated the user experience by increasing the user’s time-to-find desired information; plus eliminating
publication of city announcements in the Weekly curtails the number of households that can easily access
this valuable information. The cost of publishing in the Weekly is comparable to the $25K mentioned in this
proposal as direct costs to the city. Is paying for Cool Block really the best use of the City’s funding, given
that the City is slashing existing budget to items that are already proven and working?
3. What about the $75,000 in indirect costs to be borne by staff? This $75,000 worth of productivity represents
opportunity costs for projects that staff should or could be doing instead. We assume that staff currently
does not have $75,000 of time, during which they are idle, that they can devote to Cool Block.
4. Part of the $25,000 that the City proposes to contribute to Cool Block will go for “project management” and
the Empowerment Institute will “pay $75,000 (For community organizing which includes recruiting, training
and coaching block leaders; and training and interface with City staff).” Are we now outsourcing to and
paying EI for work that has been done by City staff and by a significant number of volunteers, who have
contributed countless hours to building up our volunteer emergency response teams?
5. The staff report only mentions costs for this budget year. It does not address future costs, and whether the
program will be cost effective if implemented city-wide.
6. The RFP and the responses were never released. This lack of transparency is concerning in a democratic
process.
7. As pointed out in our previous letter in March, the data frankly does not support the allocation of funding –
direct or indirect to Cool Block. There was no control group, so we don't know how many of the desired
behavior changes might have occurred anyway. The results appear to be self-reported rather than verified
by independently-obtained measurements, such as reductions in metered utility consumption – an excellent
metric. Only 97 households reported data and yet approximately 175 are said to have participated, raising
questions of both the completeness of the reported results and whether non-reporting households achieved
positive results at all. The calculation of carbon savings is not explained.
In light of these concerns, PAN recommends the City Council vote “no” on Cool Block or at least remove it from
Consent so the item can be discussed in a public forum.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Sanders, Co-Chair PAN
Sheri Furman, Co-Chair PAN
1
Carnahan, David
From:Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 16, 2018 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cool Block Support Letter from Gwen Luce, BPC Laguna Way
Gwen Luce, Realtor®
DRE License #00879652
Direct Line: 650.566.5343
gluce@cbnorcal.com
Dear Council Members:
I understand that you will be voting on Monday on whether to fund the Cool Block.
I want to express my enthusiastic support for the Cool Block program that my block on Laguna Way just
completed!
As Block Preparedness Coordinator, I struggled to get my neighbors engaged in disaster preparedness but,
now, as a result of Cool Block, we are a much more connected and disaster ready neighborhood:-)
We had a terrific turnout at our National Night Out event in August. Almost all the households on our cul-
de-sac turned out—including a few who hadn’t participated in block activities in years. Coordination with
the Police Public Affairs Officer resulted in attendance from the Police Chief, Assistant Chief, our future
City Manager and several First Responders – and their goodie bags with safety items were a huge success!
After our Cool Block experience, we, on Laguna Way, feel more secure that our social connections
developed during the program will be vital to our survivial in the event of a major disaster.
Progress also was substantial in reducing our carbon by Cool Block activities such as switching out
lightbulbs, turning down our thermostats and reducing waste.
Thanks so much for your attention - and I hope positive action supporting this wonderful program!
2
Sincerely,
Gwen Luce
4065 Laguna Way
Palo Alto 94306
Gwen Luce
650-566-5343
gluce@cbnorcal.com
www.gwenluce.com
Powered by e-Letterhead
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to
confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a
real estate contract via written or verbal communication.
3
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Meyer <meyere@concentric.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 16, 2018 5:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent Item 8, Contract with Enlightenment Institute
Honorable Members of the City Council:
Re: Contract C18170224 with Enlightenment Institute September 17, 2018
Please remove Item 8 from the Consent Calendar. It requires further legal and financial scrutiny.
It seems odd that we are contracting on an environmental project with an organization whose IRS Mission
Statement is:
"To Improve The Quality of Life of Individuals and Families Who Are Socially, Economically
And/Or Culturally Disadvantaged, Including Persons With Disabilities And Others With
Meaningful Employment Barriers." (IRS Form 990, filed in 2016)
DBA: Please also note that the organization is legally Doing Business As the "Asian Vocational Center."
__________________________________
Unbudgeted Costs
While the proposed contract mentions $25,000 many times (6 times on page 14 alone)
implying that this is a total cost, this is misleading.
Additional costs include
* A staff person, unnamed; or is it $75,000 of unnamed staff time? page 14.
This is a very odd concept. Normally, a project would be specific about who the person is (or at
least their position), how many hours would be involved, whether the $75,000 includes
overhead, how that time will be scheduled, to whom they report, where they will work, etc.
* Reimbursable expenses-no limit or definition given. "to be negotiated." pages 14-15.
* Additional services - may be authorized; page 2, Sec.4.
* 50-50 cost-sharing for "data, information, and collateral developed" page 12.
* The contract twice refers to possible construction costs - Sec. 9 page 3, and Sec. 26 page 8.
What is this?
* Video production, page 14.
__________________________________
As someone with years of experience administering a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, it isn't hard for me to
spot a questionable situation. It seems strange to funnel precious city funds through an organization with
dubious credentials to work with our neighborhoods. https://coolblock.org/about-us
If the City wants to support programs to reduce the city's carbon footprint, there are many experts in town,
many of whom would volunteer their expertise, and who already do volunteer.
4
The Utility Department is also deeply involved in this issue.
This contract has been revised from its previous version, except that the responsible individual remains David
Gershon who will have "supervisory responsibility."
The Global Action Plan for Earth is a "'research arm' of the Empowerment Institute."
This is a tiny group of people, not an established organization. It has only 3 officers.
David Gershon
Gail Straub - Gershon's wife
Josie Maran - a cosmetics manufacturer
______________
Straub is paid approximately $175,000/year; Gershon $50,000/year
Josie Maran Cosmetics (Drew Maran's sister) - company funds the Empowerment Inst.
Transparency
Based on his past association with the Empowerment Institute, I trust the City Manager will recuse himself from
discussion of this item. On the Cool Blocks website, https://coolblock.org/about-us Mr. Gershon refers to
our City Manager Keene as a
STRATEGIC PARTNER and "A key advisor to the Cool City Challenge." and
..."Jim is also one of the country's most eloquent philosopher kings."
____________________________________________________
Sincerely yours,
Elaine Meyer meyere@concentric.net
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, September 14, 2018 10:58 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Eggleston, Brad; Raschke,
Matt
Subject:9/17 Council Agenda Questions for Item 9
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the September 17, 2018 council meeting
agenda.
Item 9: Approval of Fire Station 3 Replacement Design Contract Amendment No. 1
– CM Tanaka
Item 9: Approval of Fire Station 3 Replacement Design Contract Amendment No. 1
– CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Why was the project delayed?
A. 1. The initial expected schedule for Fire Station 3, which anticipated
construction to begin in February 2017, was delayed due to the lengthy design
review process with the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The design review
process involved a study session with the Historic Resources Board (HRB), a
preliminary hearing with the ARB, three Design Review Committee meetings with
staff, and three formal hearings with the ARB. The contract with Shah Kawasaki
Architecture (SKA) did not reflect this lengthy process. The project is currently
proceeding according to the schedule presented with Council’s approval of the
construction contract in November 2017, with completion expected in early
2019. Ideally, staff should have amended SKA’s contract at that time to add the
additional time.
Q. 2. Was the initial project timeline inaccurate, and why?
A. 2. The initial project timeline for design did not include the time required for
the additional formal ARB hearings or the time required for City staff review and
revisions between the additional hearings.
Q. 3. Why does the architectural fee go up by 20% because construction is
delayed?
2
A. 3. The increase in construction phase services cost is not due to construction
beginning later than originally anticipated. As described in the staff report, the
time spent on Construction Administration services by SKA has significantly
exceeded the estimates on which the original contract was based, and staff agrees
that it is appropriate to amend the contract to provide additional budget. One
factor in the additional time is a specific change to the building design that was
required during the ARB process, creating a very low internal ceiling height within
the second‐floor bedroom area. This low ceiling has caused construction
difficulties and prompted the contractor to issue numerous Requests for
Information (RFIs) to SKA. SKA’s ability to provide timely and accurate
Construction Administration services benefits the project by assuring the quality
of the construction and avoiding delays.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 15, 2018 3:47 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:September 17, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #10: Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 9.68
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
September 15, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SEPTERMBER 17, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #10
ORDINANCE AMENDING PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.68
Dear City Council:
Before you vote in favor of the proposed ordinance, I urge you to amend
Section 2 by:
1. Amending 9.68.035(a) to change "50 or more rental units" to "5 or
more rental units";
2. Eliminate the restriction on household income by:
(a) deleting 9.68.035(c) in the proposed ordinance; and
(b) (i) replacing the text before the table in 9.35.035(d) in
the proposed ordinance with the text before the table in 9.68.035(c) in
the draft ordinance in the City Attorney report dated August 27, 2018, on
PDF page 13 of 19 at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66507; and
(ii) replacing all of 9.68.035(d)(1) in the proposed
ordinance with all of 9.68.035(c)(1) in the draft ordinance in the City
Attorney report dated August 27, 2018, on PDF page 13 of 19 at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66507.
If your vote in favor of the proposed ordinance on September 17, 2018 is a
new first reading of the ordinance, then I urge you to direct staff to
place the second reading of the ordinance on the Consent Calendar of the
2
October 1, 2018, City Council agenda so that it will become effective on
November 1, 2018, when it is adopted on October 1, 2018.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Carnahan, David
From:Respicio, Maryknol <mrespicio@rutan.com>
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 3:44 PM
To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Tim Franzen; Alex Stanford; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; 'Andrew Zacks'; Lanferman, David; Roy,
Alyssa
Subject:9/17/18 City Council Meeting
Attachments:2018 0917 Letter to Mayor, City Council and City Clerk re 9_17_28 City C....pdf
Please see attached letter from David Lanferman.
Thank you.
Maryknol Respicio
Assistant to David P. Lanferman
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Ste. 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 320-1500 x7723
mrespicio@rutan.com
www.rutan.com
RUTAN
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(18 USC §§ 2510‐2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the
intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the
electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly
prohibited.
RUTAN
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
September 17, 2018
VIA E-MAIL and HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Mayor Li z Kniss
and Members of the City Council of Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City Clerk
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: CITY COUNCIL MEETING -September 17, 2018
David P. Lanferman
Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507
E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com
PROPOSED Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.68 (Rental
Housing Stabilization) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code to Require Relocation Assistance for No-fault Eviction
for Multifamily Housing Developments Containing 50 or More Rental Units,
Either: (1) on SECOND READING of the Ordinance Adopted on FIRST
READING on August 27, 2018, OR (2) on FIRST READING of a Revised
Ordinance on the Same Topic
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council:
We previously submitted comments and objections to the proposed adoption of proposed
emergency and non-emergency legislation on these subjects when they first appeared on Council
agendas on August 27, 2018, and again on September 10, 2018 . To the extent that Council may
be considering the second reading or other extension of those ordinances, we respectfully renew
our comments and objections as previously stated. To the extent that the Council may consider
the "First Reading of a Revised Ordinance on the Same Topic" including substantial parts of the
previously proposed ordinances, we would also reiterate our prior objections. A copy of our letter
dated August 27, 2018 with detailed objections is attached hereto for your review and inclusion in
the record.
To the extent that the Council may consider or adopt a "Revised Ordinance on the Same
Topic" that would eliminate the income-eligibility requirements for payments of tenant relocation
assistance contained in the existing emergency ordinance, we would reiterate our prior objections.
We would further note that such change to eliminate any form of income eligibility would be
inconsistent with the stated purpose of Chapter 9.68 , and that mandating universal relocation
assistance payments without regard to the financial resources or incomes of affected tenants would
be contrary to state law, arbitrary, unreasonable, and not supported by substantial evidence.
Further study of the economic, environmental, and housing supply impacts, including review under
Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 , Palo Alto, CA 94306
650.320.1500 I Fax 650.320.9905
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com
2644/034460-000 I
12850256.1 a09/17 /18
RUTAN ---·---
RUTAN & T UCKER, LLP
August 27, 2018
VIA E-MAIL and HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss
and Members of the City Council of Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City Clerk
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: CITY COUNCIL MEETING -August 27, 2018
Agenda Item# 8:
David P. Lanfennan
Direct Dial: ( 650) 320-1507
E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com
Consideration of an "Emergency Ordinance" and a non-emergency
Ordinance to Amend P AMC Chapter 9.68 to Require-for Multifamily
Housing Developments of 50 Units or More-Relocation Assistance and Other
Restrictions (Cause for Eviction) on Termination of Tenancies and Evictions.
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ACTIONS
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of our client, AJ Capital Management LLC ("AJ Capital"), we respectfully
object to the proposed actions and request these matters be rejected.1 The staff report confirms
that these new ordinances are being rushed for adoption, at least in pati, in reaction to objections
from some of the tenants being required to vacate the President Hotel building at 488 University
A venue, which AJ Capital is now planning to aesthetically restore and return to its historic and
intended use as a hotel. Since the tenants of the President Hotel have previously been served with
notices requiring that they vacate the premises by mid-November, none of the proposed new
ordinances could be lawfully applied-retroactively-to impair the existing leases or notices of
non-renewal-even if adopted by Council this evening.
This agenda item unquestionably involves very imp01iant housing issues that deserve
appropriate and thoughtful consideration by the City Council and the entire Palo Alto community.
Unfortunately, however, this item is being unnecessarily rushed to the Council without adequate
We refer collectively to both the proposed "Emergency Ordinance" and the substantively
identical non-emergency "Ordinance" to require relocation assistance payments, as well as the
alternative variant of the proposed emergency and non-emergency ordinances to require "just
cause" for evictions as the "Action," unless otherwise stated.
Rutan & Tucker, LLP I Fiv e Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 I 650-320-1500 I Fax 650-320-9905
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com
27 86/034460-000 I
12775153.1 a08/27/18
RUTAN
RUTA,. A. TUCKCR l.Lr
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss
City Clerk
Page 2
public notice, without critical analysis or evidence, and without providing sufficient time for
members of the Council-or members of the public-to consider or respond to the very significant
issues raised by this proposed legislation. The significant issues, and potential long-term impacts,
raised by the proposed new ordinances will not lawfully apply to AJ Capital.
While it may understandably be tempting for the City to consider some new form of
governmental intervention in the private rental marketplace, it is very questionable whether the
proposed ordinances would effectively, or lawfully, promote the City's stated housing goals. At
the same time, they would create new burdens that are likely to further drive up rents and
discourage the creation of more rental housing and dis-incentivize the improvement and
maintenance of the existing housing supply.
There are many procedural and substantive legal grounds for objection to the proposed
actions, including (without limitation) those summarized below. Since the Staff Report was not
provided until late Thursday August 23, 2018, there has only been limited time to review, analyze,
and respond to these proposals, and the points summarized below are consequently abbreviated.
(1) The ordinances would violate constitutional rights to due process of law,
especially if applied retroactively to the existing tenancies or to previously-served notices of
non-renewal: It is fundamental that newly-adopted legislation operates prospectively, and that
constitutional principles of Due Process would preclude the retroactive application of the new
ordinances (even if adopted) to impair existing rights or contractual relationships, or previously-
commenced proceedings for reclaiming possession of rental properties. (U.S. Const., art. I,§ 10;
Cal. Const., art. I,§ 9; De Anza v. Palm Springs Rent Review Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d
116 [court of appeal held that local rent adjustment guidelines could not be retroactively effective
to bar a property owner from relying on the law as it had existed at the time of his previous
application of a rent increase].)
(2) The proposed new ordinances would violate and be preempted by State law
governing residential tenancies and notices of non-renewal: State law governs, and preempts
the relevant subject matter including termination of residential tenancies, notices, and evictions.
(E.g., Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1 976) 17 Cal.3d 129 [Supreme Court struck down that portion
of a local ordinance that imposed additional procedural requirements on landlords attempting
eviction] and TriCounty Apartment Assn. v. City of Mountain View (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1283
[state laws govern many aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship; a local ordinance purporting
to require a longer period of notification to tenant of increasing rent than required by state law was
preempted and declared invalid].)
(3) The proposed new ordinances would violate the Ellis Act: Similarly, State
law-i.e., the Ellis Act (Gov. Code, §7060 et seq.)-limits the terms and conditions that
municipalities may impose on property owners seeking to cease residential rental operations at
their properties. "A public entity may not impose an inevitable and undue burden ... on a
2786/034460-000 I
12775153.1 a08/27/18
RUTAN
RUlM' 6-TUCKtR, llP
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss
City Clerk
Page 3
landlord's exercise of its right under the Ellis Act to exit the residential rental business." (San
Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 479,
482 [an ordinance is preempted and void if it amounts to a substantive limit on a landlord's right
to exit the rental market].) If applied to those owners seeking to exit the residential rental market,
the proposed ordinances and new requirements for relocation assistance payments are invalid
under the Ellis Act. (Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1215;
Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley (1992) 11Cal.App.4th88, 96-100.)
( 4) The proposed ordinances would not be limited to "affordable" or rent-
controlled housing units: While the Ellis Act may allow a city to impose reasonable measures
to protect tenants of units withdrawn from rent under certain circumstances, it also provides that
those measures only apply ifthe agency "has in effect any control or system of control on the price
at which accommodations may be offered for rent or lease .... " (Gov. Code,§§ 7060.2, 7060.4.)
In the absence of an adopted rent control program, the City cannot lawfully approve the Action.
In the "Survey of California Cities that Require Relocation Assistance Payments" included in the
Staff Report, twelve of the thirteen cities cited have some form of rent control, and every
jurisdiction that bases the amount of the relocation assistance payment on the size of the unit has
rent control in place. The proposal to require payment of a relocation subsidy to tenants moving
out of market rate housing would be inconsistent with the policies behind state and local law aimed
at assisting residents of "affordable housing."
(5) The ordinances would violate constitutional rights to equal protection of the
laws, by arbitrarily discriminating against certain property owners, and irrationally
subjecting only buildings with 50 or more units to burdens differing from those imposed on
similarly situated property owners: There is no evidence, substantial or otherwise, to justify the
proposed arbitrary application of the new ordinances only to prope1iies with 50 or more units, nor
any evidence or rational basis for the discriminatory structure of the proposed ordinances. (See,
e.g., Walgreen Co. v. City & County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424, 434
[invalidating ordinance discriminating arbitrarily between pharmacies and general grocery stores];
and Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th
451 [invalidating ordinance arbitrarily limiting eligible occupants of residential second units].)
The City must provide a rational basis, supported by substantial evidence, to try to justify the
discriminatory application of the ordinances. (Fry v. City of Hayward (N.D. Cal. 1988) 701
F.Supp. 179 [invalidating initiative ordinance on equal protection grounds].)
(6) Failure to provide factual or legal justification for "emergency" legislation:
The Council may not lawfully adopt the proposed Emergency Ordinance because it does not
contain the mandatory findings required by Government Code section 65858, or Palo Alto
Municipal Code ("PAMC") section 2.04.270(d). Even if it had made the requisite findings, the
City Council's action would still fail as there is no substantial evidence in the record to support
the necessary declaration of an "emergency." To the contrary, the record acknowledges that the
sho1iage of rental housing in Palo Alto has been a "prolonged" condition, i.e., not a sudden event
2786/034460-000 I
12775153.1 a08/27/18
RUTAN
RUTAPf &. TUCKCR. llP
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss
City Clerk
Page 4
and not an "emergency."2 Similarly, Government Code section 65858 does not provide any basis
for "emergency" action as proposed. There is no evidence in the record showing that there is any
study underway regarding changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan, specific plan(s), or zoning
code that might warrant an "emergency" interim ordinance under section 65858 or otherwise.
(7) An "emergency ordinance" may not lawfully be used to stifle or burden a
specific development proposal: A city ordinance cannot be enacted for the purpose of frustrating
a developer's plans. (Sunset View Cemetery Association v. Kraintz (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 115,
123-24. Here, as in that case, the staff report acknowledges (pp. 1, 3) that the proposed ordinances
are in direct response to AJ Capital's proposal to restore the President Hotel to hotel use. To the
extent that the proposed ordinances may be intended to frustrate a particular development proposal,
they would be discriminatory, unlawful, and inapplicable to the targeted development. (Stewart
Enterprises v. City of Oakland (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 41 O; Arne! Dev. v. City of Costa Mesa
(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330; and Kieffer v. Spence (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 954.)
(8) The City must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act before
taking any action on the proposed ordinances: The proposed actions would clearly require
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") before the City could
lawfully adopt either ordinance. (Public Resources Code, §§ 21080, 21000, 21065.) There is no
evidentiary basis for the proposed finding that "it can be seen with certainty" that the proposed
actions "have no potential" for direct or indirect environmental consequences. (See, e.g., Terminal
Plaza Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892, 904-907 [City's
failure to comply with CEQA before adopting hotel conversion ordinance was "illegal."].) To the
contrary, it can be seen with near certainty that the proposed actions would have significant
potential direct or indirect environmental consequences.
(9) There is no legal or factual justification for the City to try to declare the
proposed actions "categorically exempt" from CEQA review, and the City erroneously fails
to consider the exceptions to any relevant categorical exemption: There is no substantial
evidentiary or legal support for the City to try to "exempt" these actions from any CEQA review,
and such a claim of categorical exemption would plainly be unlawful. (See, e.g., Save Our Big
Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 705 [rejecting City's unsupported claim
of categorical exemption from CEQA].) The City has the burden "to demonstrate with substantial
evidence that the (proposed action satisfies the criteria of the claimed exemption]." (Muzzy Ranch
Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386.) A petitioner bears no
2 The Palo Alto "housing shortage" is not a new phenomenon, and is often attributed to the
City's own policies. According to the City's own Comprehensive Plan (Table 5-1) the City only
produced 1,063 total housing units between 2007-2014, which was only 37 percent of its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation. Of those, only 290 units-or 16 percent of the regional goal-were
deemed "affordable."
2786/034460-000 I
12775153.1 a08/27/18
RUTAN . RUT AU 4. TUCKCR, LLP
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss
City Clerk
Page 5
burden to show a project will degrade the environment. (Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa
Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 705.) In addition, the court of appeal has emphasized that a
categorical "exemption can be relied on only if a factual evaluation of the agency's proposed
activity reveals that it applies." (Id.) And the staff report fails to consider whether any
"exceptions" to a categorical exemption might require CEQA compliance. An agency may not
invoke a categorical exemption from CEQA without considering whether it is foreclosed by an
exception. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60Cal.4th1086, 1103.) The
City cannot ignore the substantial probability of environmental consequences of this action, and
the relevance of the "unusual circumstances" exception to any categorical exemption from CEQA
(see below).
(10) It is reasonably foreseeable that adoption of the proposed ordinances will
result in direct and indirect environmental consequences and well as adverse impacts on
rents and housing supply: The City cannot lawfully disregard the many possible environmental
impacts, direct or indirect, of the ordinances. For example, if landlords are to be required to pay
relocation assistance to outgoing tenants, they are likely to offset those new costs by increasing
the rents charged to incoming tenants, or by reducing the amounts available for maintenance or
improvements. By providing some displaced tenants with the windfall of "tenant relocation"
assistance, the ordinances will inject new money into the market-rate rental market, thus inducing
other landlords to demand higher rents. By making it more difficult and costly to remove tenants,
the ordinances reduce the incentives to build or upgrade rental housing in Palo Alto, reducing both
the supply and quality of rental housing, and creating an impediment to safety upgrades such as
environmental remediation, seismic upgrades, and fire and life safety systems. This may result in
significant urban decay impacts. See, e.g., California Clean Energy Committee v. City of
Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 188 ["When there is evidence ... that economic and social
effects caused by a project ... could result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental
impact, such as urban decay or deterioration, then the CEQA lead agency is obligated to assess
this indirect environmental impact."].) In Terminal Plaza Corp., supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at 904-
907, the court of appeal rejected a city's argument that its enactment of a hotel conversion
ordinance imposing new burdens on owners of residential hotels was exempt from CEQA. The
reasonably foreseeable indirect and negative environmental impacts of the ordinances must be
analyzed before the Council acts on them.
(11) Failure to refer the proposed new ordinances for study by the Planning &
Transportation Commission: The proposed actions should be referred to the Planning and
Transportation Commission for review before any Council action, as required by Government
Code section 65864, since the ordinances would, in effect, operate like new zoning ordinances
applicable to certain properties.
2786/034460-000 l
12775153.1 a08/27/18
RUTAN
RUtAH a. TUCJU:R lU"
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss
City Clerk
Page 6
(12) The Action is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan: There is
nothing in the record to indicate, much less demonstrate, how the proposed ordinances would be
consistent with any aspect of the City's Comprehensive Plan or would promote any of the City's
established housing goals and policies. As explained above, there is no articulated public policy
reason cited in the record justifying the proposed new mandated subsidies targeted to benefit a
select group of tenants residing in market-rate rental units.
********************
In light of the serious questions, unstudied issues, and patent legal deficiencies inherent in
the proposed actions, we respectfully w-ge the City Council to reject the proposed new ordinances.
Adoption of the proposed Emergency Ordinances or Ordinances in the present form would lead to
many adverse consequences and may needlessly expose the City to the risk of costly legal
proceedings by many affected parties.
Thank you for your consideration.
DPL:mtr
cc: Tim Franzen, AJ Capital
Alex Stanford, AJ Capital
Molly Stump, City Attorney
James Keene, City Manager
Very truly yours,
Andrew Zacks, Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC
2786/034460-000 I
12775153.I a08/27/18
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Meyer <rmeyer3@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, September 15, 2018 4:56 PM
To:city.council@menlopark.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:9/15/2018 The Afternoon of A Noise in Palo Alto backyard from 68 Willow Place - a video/audio
version
Attachments:9-15-2018 NOISE in Palo AltoIMG_3103.m4v
Hi City of Menlo Park City Council Members,
Could you please ask the company at 68 Willow Place to stop using a microphone during their events?
I feel it is not very polite to ruin the afternoon of residents in a neighboring area with this kind of noise.
Thank you,
Anne Meyer
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 2:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:A Beautiful Sight
Full Cal Ave bike parking! Sometimes all that planning works. :)
Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch, 94306, 321‐7375
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, September 15, 2018 2:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Tam, Valerie; Rius, Rafael; Stump, Molly; Gal Eva; Satterthwaite Ruth;
Sheyner Gennady
Subject:Arastradero Road Bulb-outs
To all,
I have before me an article written by Gennady Sheyer in the
August 31, 2018, edition of the Palo Alto Weekly, entitled "Palo
Alto's chief transportation official resigns". In it re: "...the most
recent uproar over a new bike boulevard on Ross Road", Gennady
states: "...city leaders conceded that they should have performed
more outreach and pledged to do so for future projects". Gennady
is a thoughtful, careful reporter so I assume that his reporting is
accurate.
I recently attended a city staff community outreach meeting at the
JCC on Sept 5th pertaining to the proposed revamping of the San
Antonio/W. Charleston intersection where City staff pledged to have
another outreach meeting before any further plan is (or plans are)
developed and submitted to the PTC.
I do not recall any such city staff outreach meeting pertaining to the
unwanted, unnecessary and potentially dangerous bulb-outs on
Arastradero. Many of us have sent numerous emails to city staff
about them, and even met with two members of city staff when
Valerie Tam could not make the scheduled meeting. My
understanding is that while the bulb-outs are still under evaluation,
and that minor modifications may be made, the bulb-outs will still
be constructed.
2
So, if my understanding is correct, another Ross Road-type
"Design, Build and Defend"situation is in the making,
notwithstanding the "city leaders" commitment to conduct more and
better outreach in the future. Accordingly, I ask that a community
meeting in the Green Acres (I and II) area - say at Juana Briones
school - be undertaken BEFORE any such construction takes
place. As one Green Acres II resident wrote to city staff, the
proposed bulb-outs are "a solution in search of a problem". I agree,
as we, in the neighborhood, think they are unwanted (certainly),
unnecessary and potentially dangerous (the worst being at the
Donald Drive/Arastradero intersection) leading potentially to legal
liability for the city.
Let's have that outreach meeting before construction is undertaken,
so we can debate the advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed bulb-outs.
Joe Hirsch
Georgia Avenue
From:Cindy Alvarez
To:city.council@menlopark.org
Subject:CITY COUNCIL EMAIL EAH HOUSING FRAUD FOR PUBLIC RECORD
Date:Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:44:26 PM
This is city council email for public record. Do not delete Cindy AlvarezMarkham Plaza Tenant Association
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:24 PMFrom: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>To: Angelo.Tom@hud.govCc: kimberly.y.nash@hud.gov, scottlargent38@gmail.comSubject: Fw: Re: FW: Markham Jason Smith 2018 September
FYI, Jason does not speak for me on this. I do not know what he is refering to. I share his frustrations with the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara but I do not understand why he is upset with you. I do not see that you did anything wrong. For all I know you are following procedure and I see no problem with that. Cindy
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:32 AMFrom: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>To: "Center, Contact@DFEH" <contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov>, "Johnson, Kimberly D" <Kimberly.D.Johnson@hud.gov>, "OIG Hotline" <hotline@hudoig.gov>, "Tom, Angelo C" <Angelo.Tom@hud.gov>Subject: Re: FW: Markham Jason Smith 2018 September
Ya thanks for nothing, should I thank you guys for throwing me to the sharks NO! Just like you did with my first complaint in the first place! This is a 504 grievance against you Kimberly Johnson and Tom Angelo you are cooperating with the same agency that I am complaining about as the city does not enforce the San Jose TPO ordinance as you well know. I did not send you these complaints to go back to the city but to go to the Attorney General as you had told Cindy you were doing and I saw the email from you Tom saying that is what you were doing. I had my doubts after dealing with you both last time. Shit Kimberly telling me I was not discreet enough made me feel like I was back in the Nixon adminstration “was not discreet enough” why because I sent the letter of to everyone in my contacts?? Hell ya I did first time got anywhere but lies with EAH, the city of San Jose Housing Dept and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority!! Disscreet has no place in open government and it should have no place at HUD, since you both lie like you work for EAH, Inc I have no choice but to take this to the internation civil rights organization!! YOU are the reason we have homeless people, yes your abuse of station and authority at your jobs is a disgrace, how do look at yourselves in the mirror every morning. You are trusted with and to provide funds for the poorest, oldest and disabled members of our society, they are somebodys Grandpa, Brothe, Sisters and Moms. Whenever you put Profit before People that is EVIL and you may think it gives you power and control of your life but its you that are being lied to by the prince of lies and all that you gather in greed and depriving others of will turn to ash and blow away with the wind and then what will you have? You sold your Soul for a new car, a house, gold, diamonds, stocks?? Know that my Soul is saved, bound and sealed, locked for all eternity with Gods Holy Spirit and I fear nothing for if this fleshly body dies because I know I am returning to God Almighty and he will have a seat for me at His table.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:16 PM Johnson, Kimberly D <Kimberly.D.Johnson@hud.gov> wrote:
Hello Robert and Kristen,
Angelo has asked that I forward Jason latest email to you for review and action, as appropriate. Jason states that an unlawful detainer has been issued by EAH, and I have provided him with contact information to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.
Thanks for your assistance,
Kim
Kimberly Johnson
Senior CPD Representative
U.S. Dept of HUD
San Francisco Office
1 Sansome Street, Suite 1200 94104-4430
415 489-6594
From: Tom, Angelo CSent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:47 PMTo: Johnson, Kimberly D <Kimberly.D.Johnson@hud.gov>Subject: FW: Markham Jason Smith 2018 September
Kim: More from Mr. Smith. Angelo 9/11/2018
Angelo Tom, MBA, MA
Program Manager, Team 4
Community Planning and Development Division
San Francisco Regional Office
One Sansome Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104-4430
e-mail: angelo.c.tom@hud.gov
phone: 415-489-6596; fax: 415-489-6601
Recipient of HUD Distinguished Service Award 2014
From: Markham Plaza Tenant Association <markhamplazata@gmail.com>Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:30 PMTo: Tom, Angelo C <Angelo.Tom@hud.gov>Subject:
Tom,
I appreciate the courage you take in standing for whats right, a favorite quote I live by is “All that evil needs to grow, prosper and win is for Good men to do nothing."
Tom they have filed an UD against me which is in retaliation, for them having to be told they are funded and must comply with HUD regulations which they have denied prior to this, as did the owner David and John which they got to answer my 504 RR including shutting off the torture from mind splitting alarms.
Im attaching the Meeting Notes which was held 8-19-2018 and the flyer that they Sent out online the 8-20-18 stating they would no longer be accepting rent Payments in someone else's name for compliance well my mom pays by check and they sent it back to her stating cashier's check or money order as of 9-1-2018 as they fear that someone may claim resedency even though have it clearly stated in the léase that protects them from that. My rent check was sent back to my mom as she wrote it.
To begin with 10 days notice for a change in the lease does not even meet their own lease which says they can change the lease with 30 days notice. It is their ongoing practise of harassment, secondly they can't change the lease without HUD approval, plus not a HUD approved lease, they are not CHDO and its againt the Fair Housing act for lack of notice. Its discriminatory, abusive and since they know thats how i pay its retaliatory.
Also they are breaking the law in running this property management within the Meaning of Sections 10131(b) as stated on page 3 of the Accusation by California board of Real Estate Accusation No. H-11882 SF filee Aug 17, 2015. They are running this project just like the 4 projects that were audited in San Jose and to which they forged a real estate contract and got caught, not setting up trust funds properly, allowing deposits and withdrawls improperly.
On page 6 in the Accusation by California board of Real Estate Accusation No. H-11882 SF, pag3 6 section21(c) they comducted property management activities under the name Sierra Property Services.
Which and the stipulation agreement they shut it down.
I investigated and found that they did shut down the Sierra Property Management per the stipulation agreement but opened up Union Pacific Property Management with the same address and phone number!!
No regard for the law does bribe and corrupt officials ans did have Shawn Jackson Assualt me with intent to do great bodily harm on 8/4/2017 just 3 days since they raised the rent $42 a 8.87
the 3 day notice and if you look at the 3rd page of the 3 day notice you will see how Shelsy did accidently staple the printed out email of her request ro Todd Rothbard office asking them send me a UD, this is her way of odirecting them to send me an illegal 3 day notice to quit with no chance to cure, which is illegal by San Jose TPO and its a fineable offense. Besides the affirmative defense of retaliation, there is the fact that the lease that they say I violated is not HUD Multifamily Lease so is not compliant and even grander non-compliance is that neither EAH, Inc, Core Developments, HomeFirst not the City of San Jose are California Certifide CHDO.
Please have thd UD rescinded as they have not complied with the contract between the city and Core Developments and EHC until audited and was near 6 million short and just changed their namd to HomeFirst of Santa Clara County and even though their own audit showed they own HUD 1.2 million and have payback arrangements, yet they are still getting the most grant.
Please have the UD dropped and then can you help me get some money through the ROSS program for the tenant association to get new computer for a small business incubator to help, tenant association build capacity and further fair housing education?
Thank you T
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 16, 2018 10:27 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Architectural Review Board
Subject:comments on FCC draft order due Mon. Sep. 17
Dear Board and City officials:
On Sept. 5, the FCC released its 100-page FCC draft order “Streamlining Deployment of Next Generation
Wireless Infrastructure”. If adopted, these rules and guidance will eliminate most state and local regulatory
authority over cell towers and wireless infrastructure including “small cell” facilities in the public right of way:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/streamlining-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-353962A1.pdf (the rules begin on p. 72)
-- Comments are due no later than Monday, Sept. 17 (less than 2 weeks from draft release).
-- This rule and report will be voted on by the FCC on Sept. 26.
The short time frame eliminates the public’s and states’ and local governments’ ability to read, evaluate, react,
and comment on the proposed rules. Most of the public don’t know about this pending proposal. The draft
order is also not posted on the FCC’s home page, despite its deep impact on every community and resident In
the United States.
It is critical that the FCC:
-- Postpone Commission action on these rules until November (at least), and preferably postpone until January
in the interest of transparency and public process, to allow adequate evaluation of this proposal and its impacts
on the public, and on cities, counties, and states.
-- Open 60-90 day (minimum) public comment period on these rules, beginning immediately and for anyone
regardless of standing
-- Post the draft order on the FCC home page where it can be easily found
Instructions on how to comment directly to the FCC are below. In addition, comments should be submitted
by cities and city officials to the National League of Cities, mayors to the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
and by counties and county officials to the National Association of Counties, asking them to submit
them to the FCC on your behalf. These organizations have standing in this proceeding and can submit
comments from others per FCC staff instructions, which gives the comments more weight. AMBAG can also
submit comments to the National Association of Regional Councils for FCC submission. The organizations and
individuals that have standing are listed in Appendix B, p. 75.
This draft order/report:
-- Eliminates significant gap in coverage as a consideration in cell tower decisions
2
-- Redefines “collocation” as adding wireless infrastructure to any structure –
all small cells are now defined as collocations unless they’re on new towers,
all new cellular facilities installed on buildings are collocations
This subjects these projects to much shorter shotclocks.
-- Shortens the shotclock – the time for making a decision on an application. Currently, the shot clock for all
new facilities is 150 days.
Collocation of small cells 60 days
Collocation of other wireless facilities 90 days
Construction of new small cells 90 days
Construction of new facilities except small cells 150 days
No time extension of shotclock for batched submissions
-- All permits, including building permits, must be obtained within the shotclock
-- Missing these deadlines is now interpreted by the FCC as an “effective prohibition” of wireless service, and
court remedies are encouraged, absent “extraordinary” circumstances.
-- Reinterprets and extends protection and authorization to all wireless services and infrastructure now and in
the future, far beyond telecommunications.
-- Ignores ADA rules and access for people disabled by electromagnetic sensitivities.
-- Radically redefines prohibition of service and applies it to every aspect of regulation. All rules created by
local governments or states, including aesthetic rules, can fall under FCC’s new interpretation of “effective
prohibition” and allow carriers to sue for relief. “A state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective
prohibition if it ‘materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a
fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.’”(#79)
-- FCC warns that “excessive” fees can constitute an “effective prohibition” and therefore, are not allowed.
Institutes an implied cap on application fees on public right of way (PROW) cell towers (#75).
-- $500 maximum for 1-5 PROW towers submitted together, $100. for each
additional PROW tower – in some cities, this would only pay for 1-2 hours of staff
time per application. Current application fees can be several thousand dollars.
-- $270. maximum per site per year for all recurring fees
The FCC is telegraphing they may adopt these at a later date. This goes far beyond Senate Bill 649, which did
not affect application and other administrative fees related to wireless infrastructure.
-- These infrastructure roll-outs become an unfunded mandate, putting costs on cities, counties, states, and
local residents, reducing funding for local and state services, and reducing staff availability.
3
-- By these rules, the FCC regulates the public and state and local governments, instead of regulating the
telecom and wireless carriers per its mandate. They have flipped their mandate.
I urge you to submit comments TODAY (by Sep. 17) requesting FCC postponement of its Sept. 26 vote
and a new extended comment period open to all beginning immediately. Instructions are below.
Sincerely,
Tina Chow, Ph.D.
Barron Park
For filing FCC comments:
Per FCC instructions, put this information at the beginning of your comment. FCC staff said “EX PARTE”
should be in italics.
To Marlene Dortch
Office of the Secretary
445 12th St., SW
Washington DC 20554
EX PARTE
Your name or organization
Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment;
Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment
4
D 17-79, D 17-84
Dear Ms. Dortch:
Write your comment
----------------------------------------------
Filing comments for WT Docket No. 17-79 and WC Docket No. 17-84
The link to express filings --
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
The link to standard comments (allows you to upload your comments and documents)
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
Use either one to submit comments.
You can submit more than one comment, too.
How to get there from the main webpage:
fcc.gov
- Proceedings and actions
– Proceedings and actions overview
–- File a comment in a proceeding, learn more
–-- Standard filing or express comment
5
Express comment –
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
Proceeding: 17-79, press enter, 17-84, press enter
Name of filer: you
Primary contact email: your email address (not required)
Address:(required)
Brief comments: either type in your comments or paste your comments into the screen
(If you make a mistake, you can hit Reset)
Press, Continue to review screen
If okay, submit your comments
Print out confirmation page for your records
Standard filing – fill in these blanks --
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
Proceeding: 17-79, press enter, 17-84, press enter
Name of filer: you
Primary contact email: your email address (not required)
Type of comment: comment, you could also file a complaint
Address (required)
Upload your comments – as a doc, pdf, or other listed file type; you can attach more than one document
(If you make a mistake, you can hit Reset)
Press, Continue to review screen
If okay, submit your comments (you may have to wait a bit for it to go through)
Print out confirmation page for your records
1
Carnahan, David
From:J.M. Beckett <jmbeckett@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 3:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:denying the public the right to know
Dear city council members and Ms. Minor,
I'm writing to protest the city council decision to stop publishing its agenda (and that for other other city agencies) in the
Palo Alto Weekly. As you're aware, The Weekly is delivered to all Palo Alto households, while anyone who wants The
Post, must actively seek out a box to obtain one.
In ultra‐intense Silicon Valley ‐‐ where people work long hours and often commute long distances ‐‐ it's not realistic to
expect most people will be able to go out of their way to pick up The Post. I'm among the thousands of people who
cannot possibly access The Post; instead I rely on The Weekly for meeting notices and agendas.
The result of your decision is that fewer people will have access to these agendas and will be less likely to participate in
city government. That, rather than the $20,000 cost difference, appears to be the true goal of your actions.
I'm aware that reducing access to agendas isn't a technical violation of the Brown Act . But surely this violates the spirit
of the law. I urge you to reconsider your decision and ensure that all Palo Alto residents are able to stay informed about
actions of their city government.
best regards,
Jamie Beckett
2577 Park Blvd. #V203
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 996‐4552
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pin-Hua Ko <pinhuako@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 16, 2018 9:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:dewatering
Dear City Council members:
I noticed there is a dewatering operation currently going on for a basement construction in the Midtown on
Cowper street. The water flow to storm drains continuously day and night for weeks.
1) While we save every drop of water in buckets to reuse at home, cutting down on yard irrigation to
minimum to save water, why is the City still allowing water to be pumped freely into storm drains?
2) While there is water station at the construction site, I never saw anyone using that water. I tried to use it
once by bringing in 5 gallons buckets (5 of them) to fill the water and transporting them home by car for
irrigation. But the buckets were so heavy to carry, which made it very difficult to bring large amount of water
to my home.
I live about 15 houses from that construction site, but across from the street, plus a turn into another street. I
would like to suggest to require the basement construction to route their yellow dewatering pipe to every
neighborhood street in one mile radius around the construction site so that every house on every street in
that area can have a way to tap into that pipe and connect to household hose to irrigate their yard.
This will at least cut down the amount of water going into storm drains, and save all houses in that area from
irrigation expense for a couple of months. Don't tell me that this is going to cost more for that basement
construction. Whoever can afford a basement construction that needs dewatering can afford routing the
water to their neighbors. Plus, the cost of these ground water lost to our neighborhood is far greater than the
extra cost for routing these water through neighborhood streets.
3) It will be best if City can just not allow people to construct basement in area where dewatering is needed
for basement construction. There is no need in this climate to have basement. If people wants basement for
larger home, they should do it in an area that has higher water table without needing dewatering. Just not
allowing dewatering period will be much better for environment, for our ground water, for drought, for
neighborhood house damages, etc. It will be pretty much good for everyone. Why is City still allowing
dewatering is something I can't comprehend.
Midtown resident,
Joyce Ko
2
Robert died as result of perjury by Markham Plaza's attorney and perjury is a felony. Several other felonies were committed covering up circumstances of Robert's death which enabled EAH Housing to continue to behave
negligently and dangerously. That is why, in my opinion and the others agree that Rhonda's death was a
murder. I am not an attorney but having learned a bit about the law and history of Markham Plaza this is what I
believe from the facts as I understand them
Thank You,
Cindy
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:02 PM From: "Mary Dowd" <maresie45@gmail.com> To: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Wrong number for Angelo Tom
I filed the report after her death There are certainly coroners reports that Rhona died of a heart attack. Her daughter told me Rhonda died if that. Her daughter was deeply upset by EAH response to the incident. But they really cannot be considered murderers. Deeply negligent certainly but not murderers. I do not know the particulars about Robert I do know the
particulars about Rhonda's death because I was there
There is no way Lester can be called a murderer.
He isn't that but the whole management team are deeply negligent
They are also deeply hypocritical. They evicted Patricia for her association with Jabari Jabari
was at this apartment complex for months
I asked them.every single day to get a STOP order on him. They didn't bother
Jabari was trying to break into apartments every day. He broke all the soda machines. They had no
problem with Jabari being here they didn't lift a finger to get rid of him. They did Nothing. Yet they evicted Patricia from the building for being a victim of him You do them a huge favor by calling them murderers because then they can allege their lives are in danger. They are deeply deeply negligent in their work completely indifferent to tenants That is a long way from being a murderer. Why give them a chance to say you are a threat to them? The only threat to them is they lose their job for total incompetence. Mary
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 1:02 PM Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com> wrote:
Any copies of the reports or report numbers?
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 at 7:28 PM
From: "Mary Dowd" <maresie45@gmail.com>
To: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Wrong number for Angelo Tom
Rhonda died from a heart attack. The negligence was that all of EAH Housing were off site. She called for help and no one could get in. I don't know the specifics of Robert case but Rhonda's death was not a murder. However Rhonda did ask to be moved as a ADA issue. She was on the fourth floor and wanted to go to the first floor. They
denied it which was pretty steep because Rhonda could not walk at all.
I filed an elder abuse case on Rhonda because her caregivers were negligent. EAH Housing is mandated to
report. They didn't report that and there are plenty of other negligent caregivers at Markham. EAH
Housing report none of them. There have even been police reports on Elder Abuse none of them are
addressed
Mary
3
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 12:19 PM Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com> wrote:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2018 at 1:05 AM
From: "Tom, Angelo C" <Angelo.Tom@hud.gov>
To: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Wrong number for Angelo Tom
I advised our Inspector General’ s office of your situation.
Angelo Tom, MBA, MA
Program Manager, Team 4
Community Planning and Development Division
San Francisco Regional Office
One Sansome Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104-4430
e-mail: angelo.c.tom@hud.gov
phone: 415-489-6596; fax: 415-489-6601
Recipient of HUD Distinguished Service Award 2014
From: Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 3:07 PM
To: Tom, Angelo C <Angelo.Tom@hud.gov>
Cc: Hughes, Andrew <Andrew.Hughes@hud.gov>; Costa, Alfonso A <Alfonso.Costa@hud.gov>;
Montgomery, Brian D <Brian.Montgomery@hud.gov>; kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; Amy.Thompson@hud.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; rua@uglyjudge.com
Subject: Fw: RE: Wrong number for Angelo Tom
The Santa Clara County sheriff department has been stalking witnesses and threatening people not to put anything in writing. The stalking is being directed by Angela and James who were both on DA homicide unit in 2012 when they murdered Robert I did not understand the significance of these things until after Rhonda died. I still do not fully understand but I am learning
more every day and I fear for my life.
Cindy
4
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 at 8:48 PM From: "Tom, Angelo C" <Angelo.Tom@hud.gov>
To: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Cc: "Johnson, Kimberly D" <Kimberly.D.Johnson@hud.gov>
Subject: RE: Wrong number for Angelo Tom
My contact info is stated below. Please email me as I prefer written
documentation.
Angelo Tom, MBA, MA
Program Manager, Team 4
Community Planning and Development Division
San Francisco Regional Office
One Sansome Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104-4430
e-mail: angelo.c.tom@hud.gov
phone: 415-489-6596; fax: 415-489-6601
Recipient of HUD Distinguished Service Award 2014
From: Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 1:28 PM
To: Tom, Angelo C <Angelo.Tom@hud.gov>
Subject: Wrong number for Angelo Tom
Hello sir. the phone number for you in the email from Kimberly Johnson is incorrect. What the correct number to reach you. She accidently put a 4 digit prefix of "5489"
Thank you
Cindy
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 at 7:35 PM
From: "Johnson, Kimberly D" <Kimberly.D.Johnson@hud.gov>
To: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Subject: Automatic reply: Threatening witnesses
5
Hello,
I am out of the office today and won't have constant access to email. If this
is an urgent matter, please contact my Supervisor, Angelo Tom at 415-5489-
6596.
Thanks!
Kim
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:49 AM
To:leager; lawrence.ingrassia@latimes.com; robert.andersen; bballpod; boardmembers; Council, City;
Daniel Zack; drliu@uscmc.com; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Greg.Gatzka; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv
Weissman; jerry ruopoli; kclark; scott.mozier; mmt4@pge.com; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; nick
yovino; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; parsons@brandman.edu; russ@topperjewelers.com
Subject:Fwd: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, beachrides
<beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, bearwithme1016@att.net, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer
<mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>,
info@superide1.com, midge@thebarretts.com, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>,
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk
<newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kwalsh@kmaxtv.com, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, Leodies Buchanan
<leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
2
Date: Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:37 AM
Subject: Fwd: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:56 AM
Subject: Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, this report says
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Wed. 9‐12‐2018
Dan‐ Of interest. Bakersfield to Palmdale in 25 min. on HSR, a fourth of the current time, this says:
https://www.kget.com/news/local‐news/high‐speed‐rail‐from‐bakersfield‐and‐palmdale‐could‐take‐25‐
minutes/1433021974
This says the Board will meet in Bakersfield next month to make adjustments to the route or to approve it. I won't
be there due to the condition of Hwy 99.
45 minutes Bakersfield to Los Angeles would be huge for Bkrsfld. IF the wild fires and resulting dangerous smoke
can be addressed, then Bksfld would be transformed by 45 min. to LA. The health impact of the smoke endangers the
whole Central Valley. And the CV pollution tends to back up against the mountains in Bksfld, especially. Everybody there
knows that.
Also, the San Andreas Big Bend segment lies up in the mountains between Bakersfield and Santa Barbara, putting
both at risk of a quake there. Of course, the San Andreas puts the Bay Area at even more risk running right down the
peninsula and it has not halted growth there.
But, making Bakersfield a bedroom community for LA is a huge plus of HSR. Ditto for Fresno wrt SV, and ditto wrt
the wildfire smoke.. So what I'm saying here is that this serious health issue due to wild fire smoke is going to damage
the benefit of HSR to both Fresno and Bakersfield, since both are in the CV.
So a booming economy, and real population change with more educated people, is a prospect for Bakersfield and
Fresno when HSR runs. On those two segments, it will operate as a commuter line. Nothing wrong with that, and I'd
make that point.
When you move a lot of high income, educated people into a community, things improve a lot. East Palo Alto
used to have the highest murder rate in the U.S., and then the big surge of SV caused it to change as people sought
housing there. That gentrification was all underway in the 90's.
Big surge in the economy, an improved population mix with less crime and more money, and a non‐polluting
transportation system would all be pluses for Bakersfield. Plus there's fun stuff to do in LA. Same for SF wrt the people
of Fresno who rarely go to SF.
I drive Fresno to my dentist in San Mateo in 3 hours. To push on up 280 to SF would be another 45 minutes, but I
rarely do that. Then you have to worry about and pay to park your car when you get there, an additional negative. But
3
90 minutes Fresno to SF with no car to deal with there would be a real improvement. All of that additional drive time
and the headache of a car once you arrive are two problems HSR would solve. Even if the HSR fare costs more than the
gas costs to drive, you'd still take the HS train to SF once in a while when you never make the trip by car.
And maybe I'm weird on this point, but we supply a free military defense for all of Europe, Japan and Korea. Then,
they spend their defense money on free universities, wonderful national health care systems, and magnificent HSR
systems. Declare war on the United States, get your country flattened as a result, and then they rebuild your country
and provide a free military defense till the end of time. Not a bad deal. That just looks like blackmail to me.
If I were you, I might take the gloves off and point out the above. I know, that would be to step on the toes of
some in Congress and the President, but I think the American people should hear it.
LH
From:Nadia Naik
To:opana_news; PAN
Subject:Fwd: [New post] Should Caltrain plan to keep up with ridership growth? Board workshop next month
Date:Thursday, September 13, 2018 3:18:04 PM
Dear Neighbors,
For those of you interested in Caltrain, here's a chance to get involved in Caltrain'slong term plans for service.
What do you want Caltrain to look like in the future?
Nadia
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Green Caltrain <donotreply@wordpress.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:49 PMSubject: [New post] Should Caltrain plan to keep up with ridership growth? Board workshop
next month
New post on Green Caltrain
Should Caltrain plan to keep up with ridership growth?
Board workshop next month
by alevin
On Thursday, October 4 at 9am, the Caltrain board will hold a workshop on one of the
biggest topics to consider in the business plan for the service - how aggressively to plan
for ridership growth. Read on for more on the big questions that the Caltrain board will
be considering - and the issues to share your thoughts about with the board and
business plan team.
How big should the vision be?
Today, cities are making big plans that depend on Caltrain carrying many more
passengers - San Jose is currently planning for Google’s expansion into the Diridon
area, and San Francisco is planning to connect the tracks from 4th and King to the
Salesforce/Transbay terminal, where there were 3x as many jobs nearby as the rest of
the line combined at the last census.
The latest Caltrain ridership count shows ridership continuing to increase, and trains
continuing to be crowded.
Electrification which is under construction is expected to add over 30% more room for
people, and Caltrain has gotten funding for longer trains (though Proposition 6 puts that
funding at risk).
Big questions remain about how much growth Caltrain should plan for. Caltrain’s
electrification plans envisioned 111,000 daily riders. Spur’s Caltrain Corridor Vision Plan
urged the region to set sights higher, carrying over 300,000 passengers to fulfill pent-up
demand.
So in October, the board will be looking at factors that affect the “long pole in the tent” -
the strategic decisions that will shape the investments needed for growth.
A carbon-neutral state and increasing transit market share
Meanwhile, Governor Brown just issued an executive order committing the State of
California to carbon-neutrality by 2045. This builds on a law just passed committing to
100% clean energy by 2045. But energy accounts for only 16% of carbon emissions in
the state. Transportation accounts for about 40% of California’s emissions. This
aggressive climate goal will require not only swapping gas cars for electric cars, but
shifting more trips to transit and active transportation, and enabling more people to live
and work in places requiring less driving.
How much room in a blended system with High Speed Rail?
The initial proposal for a blended system with High Speed Rail envisioned ten trains per
direction per hour, with Caltrain service delivering six trains and High Speed Rail
delivering four trains. That service plan wouldn’t be able to move 200,000 to 300,000+
passengers. Caltrain staff have been analyzing what service plan, and what
infrastructure, would be able to keep up with growth and market share, and (we hope)
climate goals.
How much service to South San Jose/South Santa Clara County?
Another topic that’s part of the “long pole in the tent” is the amount of service to provide
to South Santa Clara County and Gilroy.
The Gilroy Extension has ~800 average weekday boardings with minimal service and
offpeak ridership is currently ~10,000 with infrequent service. Research suggests that
adding service has good likelihood to increase ridership - especially in South San Jose
where there are many residents who live near stations with very poor service.
There is funding available from Santa Clara County Measure B for some increased
service to South San Jose and South Santa Clara County, and the proposal from the
High Speed Rail Authority to electrify the line from Tamien to Gilroy, would allow even
more service. Because equipment to run that service is part of the maximum capacity,
that will be considered now as part of the picture. Refresh this page for a link to a blog
post on opportunities for more service to South San Jose and South County.
Grade separations? Dumbarton service? A second transbay crossing?
In order to provide much more service than today, it would be helpful to have more
grade separations that separate the Caltrain tracks from roads. Caltrain doesn’t make
decisions about local grade separation designs today, and doesn’t want to get involved
in those locally sensitive details in the future. BUT Caltrain could pursue a regional
strategy in partnership with cities, the region and the state to fund and fully grade
separate the corridor. Should this be part of the picture.
More topics that could affect corridor capacity needs in the longer term include
Dumbarton service. The recent SamTrans Dumbarton study envisioned a long-term
strategy to have trains from the Central Valley and East Bay crossing the Dumbarton
Corridor and continuing right or left on the main line toward San Francisco and Silicon
Valley. This would require more mainline capacity.
Another big-picture vision in the State Rail Plan is a second transbay crossing with
conventional rail, allowing intercity service from the Peninsula Corridor and San
Francisco up to Sacramento. The State Rail Plan’s analysis indicated that adding these
longer-distance trips to local service would result in many more passengers to use the
infrastructure (and fewer cars on the highways). This would also require more corridor
capacity. Caltrain isn’t the lead player in these decisions, but it would be helpful to
express a willingness to participate in megaregion and state plans.
All-day, all-week service - later in the business plan process
It also seems counter-intuitive but mid-day and evening service frequency isn’t slated to
be part of this workshop and stage of the conversation.
A decision to providing frequent service at time other than rush hour is a big, existential
question for the Caltrain corridor. Should Caltrain remain a historical Commuter Rail
focusing on peak commute times, or should it adopt the practices followed by dozens of
rail services around the globe, providing frequent, all-day service for more kinds of trips,
and helping people live with fewer cars, relieving congestion and helping meet the state
and planet’s environmental goals?
This will be a critically important decision, but won’t be a big subject of the October
workshop, because mid-day and evening service could be increased without increasing
equipment or infrastructure.
But, if you’re writing to the Caltrain board, or planning to give public comment at the
workshop, it can’t hurt to mention it if this is part of your vision for what Caltrain service
should become in the future.
Share your thoughts with the Caltrain board (and let us know)
What do you think about these topics?
How ambitious should we be to plan for ridership growth? Should Caltrain plan to
meet the pent-up demands shown in SPUR’s vision plan, with goals to take cars off
the road and carbon out of the atmosphere, or make incremental changes?
With the state’s new goal to be carbon-neutral, should Caltrain have a goal to take
more market share from solo highway driving?
Should Caltrain actively support connecting the tracks to downtown San Francisco,
which will likely move many more riders?
Should Caltrain support megaregional goals for longer-distance trips to/from the
Central Valley and Sacramento, as a smaller player in big picture decisions?
Should Caltrain play a key role in a strategy to grade-separate the corridor with
state and regional funding?
Should Caltrain support more service to South San Jose and South Santa Clara
County?
Should Caltrain support frequent all-day service for more kinds of trips (not the
subject for October but important to include while you’re corresponding.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Derek Mackay <derekcmackay@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Johnson Park Camping
Hello,
I live across from Johnson Park downtown, and there seems to be increasing numbers of people sleeping overnight in
the park. This morning, there were 3 separate people sleeping overnight in the park.
It's a small park and it affects the use of the park in the morning (one of the individuals was right in the middle of the
basketball court and refused to move for players who arrived). Is there a way to mitigate this?
Thank you.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net>
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 11:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:My tribute to Mary Gordon
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Council. Thank you for indulging me with a bit of extra
time tonite. I think it’s important for the Council and the public to fully understand the
magnitude of Mary’s contributions to the fabric of our City. Here is a copy of my
presentation. Thanks again. Emily Renzel
Mary Gordon has always been a woman ahead of her time. In the 1950’s & 1960’s, before the
Women’s Liberation Movement, Mary established her own successful landscape design business
which is continued with her daughter today.
I first met Mary when I attended Planning Commission meetings in the early 1970’s. Mary
Gordon, together with Frances Brenner, worked tirelessly for enlightened planning for Palo
Alto. In 1973, I joined Mary and Frances on the Commission and am very grateful for the many
lessons in planning that they provided. Both women were visionary and passionate in their
efforts.
The mindset of 1960’s planning, until Mary came along in the 1970’s, did not delve too deeply
into the impacts of most of the activities espoused and totally ignored the value of wetlands.
The 1962 County Parks, Recreation & Open Space Element of the General Plan said,
“Now a neglected, inaccessible area of salt ponds, marsh land, and garbage dumps, the
waterfront could be the attractive marine playground” …Shoreline parks provide in‐and‐out‐of‐
water activities for all the family: harbors for boating, swimming lagoons, fishing ponds, golf
courses, playgrounds.” The map showed Seaside homes, a Resort motel, excursion boats, etc. ‐ ‐
even a college campus in the Palo Alto Flood Basin was shown. With Mary’s efforts a new
paradigm was established to protect our Bay.
When the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, run by the County, came in for yet another dredging permit in
1975, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission required that a Master plan for
disposal of dredging spoils be adopted before they would approve the dredging. I personally
witnessed Mary’s finesse when she parried that dredge spoil plan into Palo Alto’s First Baylands
Master Plan covering the entire Palo Alto Baylands. It was brilliant…and it has served Palo Alto
well right up to today.
2
Byxbee Park, dedicated in 1965, was being used as a landfill scheduled to close in 1967. It did not
close until more than 50 years later!! The problem was that the City had not yet found an
alternative for garbage disposal. Use of Byxbee Park for garbage disposal continued, with
multiple vertical expansions, until at long last, the City closed it and began the long anticipated
park development. Mary’s Baylands Master Plan provided early guidance for this park and it
continues today.
Mary has had a passionate interest in Trail and Pathway connections between parks and open
spaces and along our creeks throughout the County. I’m vaguely recalling that Mary and Artemis
Ginzton started a group called Women’s workshop for Paths and Trails, or something like
that. They wanted the County to have a Trails and Pathways master plan that all the jurisdictions
would incorporate in their plans. Both women then served for years on the County’s Planning
Policy Committee’s Trails and Pathways subcommittee promoting their vision. Many of the
regional trails that now exist are a result of their hard work in the 1970’s.
So, Mary, my tenacious, passionate, and visionary friend, all the citizens of Palo Alto and the
greater mid‐peninsula area, indeed the whole county, are truly indebted to you for all of your
efforts.
Thank you so much for all you have done.
1
Carnahan, David
From:k jm <kjm1445@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 10:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:New thread re Castilleja on Next Door
Hello,
Many feel that they will only vote for those potential City Council members who stand with neighbors
against Castilleja's expansion. See below...
In part...
imberley Wong
, Old Palo Alto
6
Friday letter to the editor: Don’t simply apologize
As we go into another mandatory neighborhood meeting with Castilleja on October 10, let’s see if anything has
changed from the last meeting or the meeting before... or the meeting before... we have repeatedly asked the same
questions to which they repeatedly reply “we’ll just have to wait and see what the DEIR” says. Let’s hope they have
something new to share like a reduced scope of construction without a garage that can be more in align with the R-1
zone in which the school resides? Let’s see if lessons learned about really valuing the concerns of immediate
neighbors are “working” themselves into their plans. Here is my letter which can be found at
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2018/09/14/letters-to-the-editor Is an apology truly meaningful if one
doesn’t change his or her ways? We as neighbors are not resistant to changes that benefit students as long as they
do not impact our quality of life greatly. Who isn’t in support of education after all? But shouldn’t residents have a
say in what their limits are or should we leave that to the city or school to decide that for us? Why is the Head of
Castilleja and the Board so resistant to make changes that will better serve the school in the long run and allow it to
coexist peacefully in an R1 residentially zoned neighborhood? Castilleja has willfully violated their maximum
enrollment yet they stay above the limits which City Planner John Lusardi said (year 2000) that beyond which “it
would not favorably be looked upon”. Yet Castilleja still pushes forth with plans for multiyear (5+) rebuild of campus
and traffic inducing garage, increased enrollment and myriad of variances to skirt around their inadequately small
campus while asking for forgiveness for their past wrongs. Is it not better to develop compatible plans with
community benefit in mind rather than divide, destroy and alter a neighborhood then ask forgiveness later? As I
reflect on the words of the Head of School, I wonder what lessons were truly learned given that nothing has
changed.
Letters to the editor | September 14, 2018 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |
PALOALTOONLINE.COM
2d ago ꞏ 24 neighborhoods in General
2
Thanked!
18
Kj Moreau
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
Hi Kimberley, Will it make any difference if we have different City Council members? Castilleja clearly does not
care about the immediate neighbors. With 75% of the students NOT living in Palo Alto, perhaps they don't care
what we think. What can we do? Thank you Kimberley.
8 Thanks
Marilyn Messer
, Community Centerꞏ1d ago
I would think having another campus in a totally different geographical area would benefit the school among
with Palo Alto.
7 Thanks
Kerry Yarkin
, Midtownꞏ1d ago
Congratulations Kimberly. You really expressed the sentiments of so many people In the neighborhood.
3
7 Thanks
Kimberley Wong
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
A lot can be done... please write to the school, Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council, City
Manager and express your discontent with the current plans. Talk to your friends and neighbors to ask if this is
the type of project that makes sense in this neighborhood, whether building a garage truly makes sense,
whether increasing the school by only 125 students really makes sense in the mission of Castilleja to offer their
fine education to more students and offer suggestions on how to grow better and beyond this small campus!
9 Thanks
Kj Moreau
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
Respectfully Kimberley - 125 ADDITIONAL student is a LOT! Then you add over 100 events per year- not all
related to school function... with all the traffic etc. Totally changes our neighborhood.
5 Thanks
Kj Moreau
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
Marilyn - YES! Since 75% of students live OUTSIDE of Palo Alto, why don't they build a campus closer to
where their students live?
5 Thanks
4
Andie Reed
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
The school is asking for an increase in enrollment of 30%, so, considering it's the same 6 acres that has
served 200 to 300 to 385 girls comfortably over the decades, then in year 2000, reached 415 (which they
currently exceed) at the last CUP negotiation - yes, it's a big increase to 540. Piling kids on top of each other,
not to mention more teachers and staff and cars. It's a lovely, small campus full of trees and low-impact
buildings, they should modernize and leave it small! They want to demolish 5 of the 7 school buildings and
build one large building, which they state in their request for variance is "envisioned to be compatible with the
neighborhood", and they further state will "enhance the sense of community". I may not have attended
Castilleja, but I know when I'm being hoodwinked.
8 Thanks
Barb Jaarsma
, Palo Verdeꞏ1d ago
I don't understand how it got to this point. It's a massive commercial enterprise smack in the middle of a
historically significant neighborhood. Why would a city council supposedly representing citizens even consider
such a nutty plan? What's next - a refinery? Bowling alley? Public storage? Amazon warehouse?
9 Thanks
Kj Moreau
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
Thank you Barb! Very well said!
3 Thanks
5
Barb Jaarsma
, Palo Verdeꞏ1d ago
What did my Dad always say? Oh - yes - "Follow the money."
4 Thanks
Andrew Pullin
, Midtownꞏ1d ago
Castilleja will do whatever they want because they know that there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do to
stop them. Watching this saga over the past couple of years as a non-home-owner has been darkly hilarious,
due to the utter futility of any resistance raised against their expansion.
Bill Schmarzo
, Old Palo Altoꞏ1d ago
There are many things that one can do to help stop this, but #1 is that many members of the city council are
facing re-election. Ask them bluntly where they stand on the Castilleja expansion plans. Don't let them "hem
and haw" like I heard a couple of them recently when asked that question. Hold them accountable. And Barb is
right: Follow the Money.
4 Thanks
6
Barb Jaarsma
, Palo Verdeꞏ1d ago
Also - get rid of anyone who accepts freebies - like vacations in China. Since the Council is mostly male, start
looking at wives/mothers/girlfriends & sisters and figure out who has a special affinity for Castilleja? Also, what
charities and pet projects has Castilleja donated to? If anyone has a timeline, of this particular round of
waivers, free passes, and favors, that would be great.
1 Thank
Kj Moreau
, Old Palo Altoꞏ22h ago
Hi Andrew, Respectfully, the City could do their job and stop this expansion and insist that Castilleja become
compliant with the existing CUP by reducing the number of students. The City could insist that they are honest
and honorable in living up to their promise to never ask for a higher number of students. Is the lesson that
Castilleja is teaching the students that your word is NOT your bond. Such a lack of values is just sad. Hi
Barbara, It could be that a bowling alley or public storage would create and have less traffic... just saying...
2 Thanks
Barb Jaarsma
, Palo Verdeꞏ19h ago
Hi, Jennifer! I don't know anyone who doesn't embrace diversity, and education, but the truth is that our
transplanted Midwestern culture is one of mutual trust, of honor, of honesty, and of neighbors helping
neighbors, and our narrow little streets are overcrowded as it is. Castilleja is a picturesque little elite private
7
school, and needs to stay that way, or it really should transplant itself elsewhere. As an institution, it needs to
demonstrate that sort of good faith which benefits our students in terms of life lessons taken to heart before
destroying old-growth trees without review, overfilling their licensed enrollment without penalty, and building
some massive structure in the middle of a quiet little neighborhood with significant historical value. So far,
they're demonstrated nothing but arrogance and aggression. Are you sure you want your child exposed to
such shady morals, ethics, and values as have been in evidence to date? At the very least, I hope you will
make sure that your daughter has been brought current on the issues and attends City Council meetings.
Personally, I embrace public schools. I attended local schools with my first husband from K thru 12, and he
went on to Stanford on a full tuition waiver because our folks weren't rich. If you can afford private schools,
that's great for you, but it really has nothing to do with the matter at hand - which seems to be a series of
overbearing demands and assumptions that the citizenry are just going to roll over and shout, "Sure! Destroy
our neighborhood! Clog our little streets! Add a lot of noise!" That's just not happening without a fight unless
they lighten up and stick to the established, approved plan. And I can almost promise you that no one will
be elected to the City Council who supports this nonsense. The good people of Palo Alto tend to be a
pretty relaxed, laid-back, live-and-let-live bunch - right up to the point where we discern that we are being
steamrolled. Then all hell breaks loose.
8 Thanks
Leland Wiesner
, Crescent Parkꞏ17h ago
@Jennifer, I think Palo Alto residents have not asked Castilleja to disband, just stop breaking the rules. It can
remain a great school for decades to come, offer scholarships, diversity etc. but I am not sure what that has to
do with violating zoning ordinances and CUPs. Can you explain the relationship between being a great school
and break city ordinances? They seem unrelated.
9 Thanks
David Schnedler
, Southgateꞏ16h ago
8
The arguments against the expansion are so compelling, and the harm to the neighborhood is so
egregious, that I cannot understand why they city council which supposedly represents solely the
voters of Palo Alto, is having such difficulty delivering the community's verdict to this special interest.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Next Meeting
Hello,
When is the next Rail Committee meeting.
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ted O'Hanlon <tedohanlon@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 14, 2018 1:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James; Leigh F. Prince; Yurong Han
Subject:Project Pre-Screening, 788 San Antonio
City Council Members, Mr. Keene & Mr. Lait
I write this email on behalf of the owners of 788‐796 San Antonio Road for whom I consult on an application for pre‐
screening of a proposed multi‐family housing project.
On June 26, we submitted plans for review that requests a zone change from Commercial Service to Residential Multi‐
Family 40 units per acre.
Late this week I was informed by planning staff that our hearing, scheduled for the Sept 17 City Council session, is again
being rescheduled. Note that we were previously scheduled for Sept 10. The new target for hearing is October 15 which
would make this nearly a full 4 months to be heard.
In December 2015, the City implemented the concept of project pre‐screenings to streamline the review process and
provide City Council more visibility and opportunities to review development proposals at earlier phases.
In November 2017, City Council members published a colleagues memo that discusses a "housing crisis", efforts to
"encourage diverse housing" and "streamline the approval process".
We value City Council's time and the constructive feedback and observations it will yield to continue to plan the project
that works for Palo Alto and look forward to capturing these to help move our project forward collaboratively.
It is not unexpected for new matters and emergency circumstances to cause council agendas to change,
especially in the current environment. However, given the pre‐screening tool, colleagues memo and the fact that no
formal action or binding results come from the hearing, to wait in excess of 3 months is a dis‐service for all constituents
involved.
Thus, on behalf of our project team, we request that our pre‐screening be scheduled no later than the October 1
session.
Sincerely,
Ted O'Hanlon
‐‐‐
Ted O'Hanlon
tedohanlon@gmail.com
415.317.5070 mobile/text
CA BRE #01868277
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deb Keating <deb_keating@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:29 PM
To:Starmer, Bud
Cc:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Re: 510 Seale
Not good enough.....
So,as you instructed, I called the police. They will not cite anyone for violating the Construction Hours law unless
they catch them in the act. My pictures (date and time stamped by the phone) and my complaint are not sufficient
apparently---they must see it with their very eyes. Well, that is insulting to me.
Mr. Chu's performance, along with many of his subs, has been anything but neighborly throughout this
construction. I've put up with a lot for years. And, as I said, last Saturday was the final straw.
It would be nice, Bud, if the City would stand up for the residents rather than the developers. So..I contact the
police (did you not know that they would tell me to get lost?); I send you the phone numbers (you don't have
contact info?)----and what can I expect from the City? Not much apparently---a reprimand (oh, I'll bet they are
quaking in their steel-toed construction boots).
Sorry to have bothered you at all.
From: Starmer, Bud <Bud.Starmer@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 11:26 AM
To: Deb Keating
Subject: RE: 510 Seale
Spoke to contractor, Hauling sub‐ contractor was at fault. Kelson Chu ( General Contractor ) will contact them and let
them know Palo Alto Construction Hours and reprimand them.
Just go off the phone with Kelson, who apologized for the inconvenience. Kelson can be reached at 650‐619‐8968 if you
have additional complaints.
Bud Starmer
From: Deb Keating [mailto:deb_keating@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 8:39 AM
To: Starmer, Bud
Subject: Re: 510 Seale
Bud, There are 3 signs posted on the chain fence:
1. Construction hours
2. Chelsea Court Designs, Designers/Decorators 408-399-7720
3. Young & Borlik, Architects 650-688-1950
That's it....I would think that the permit for construction that the City has on file would provide you all the info
you need, but happy to let you know what's posted. A polite slap on the wrist, at this point, will not do it for
me: please stand up for the residents. Thank you.
2
Let me know outcome. Appreciate the help,
From: Starmer, Bud <Bud.Starmer@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 6:43 AM
To: Deb Keating
Subject: RE: 510 Seale
Good Morning Deb,
Yes , calling the police for an afterhours work violation is the remedy. Code enforcement or Building can respond during
the work day 8 am to 4 pm . Any contact information you can provide relevant to a complaint will help us in contacting
the responsible parties.
Bud Starmer
From: Deb Keating [mailto:deb_keating@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:50 AM
To: Starmer, Bud
Subject: Re: 510 Seale
Thank you for the reply.
1. There is a Constuction Hours sign posted on the fence that surrounds the property.
2. I am not sure who the contractor is...there is a sign posted for an Architect firm and another for a Design
firm. I can give you names of either or both but neither is for a Construction or Contractor firm.
3. Seemed crazy to call police on Saturday eve; however, I have evidence of the infraction on my phone
(time/date should be embedded). Ticketing or fining should be possible and very deserved. Shall I call the
police?
Not sure you should apologize for the contractor---I just want them held accountable. During the build, they
have ignored the hours before, they have been rude, condescending when I asked for the weeds to be hacked
down, and they have let the area get trashy and weedy (which migrated across to us). I don't think a feeble
apology will placate me.
Let me know if you want the names of the architect and/or designer.
Thank you.
From: Starmer, Bud <Bud.Starmer@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:49 AM
To: Deb Keating
Subject: RE: 510 Seale
Hello Deb ,
Sorry to hear contractor at 510 Seale is being irresponsible. I will drop by and talk to them. As the violation is occurring
after regular work hours it should be reported to Palo Alto Police for a response. There should be a City provided
Construction Hours Sign posted at all entries to the property . This sign allows CPA police to ticket the violators and is
required for all projects that require a building permit.
If you have contractors contact information I will call them prior to my visit.
3
Thanks and Sorry for the Bad Mannered Contractor.
Bud Starmer
From: Deb Keating [mailto:deb_keating@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2018 8:13 AM
To: Starmer, Bud
Subject: 510 Seale
Bud, I reside at 1925 Cowper St., adjacent to 510 Seale. My home is currently between 2 active construction
sites. Not always pleasant, but so it goes around here.
Yesterday, Saturday Sep 8, after a day of noise from 1935 Cowper as the crew laid pavers and did other noisy,
dusty landscaping projects, we heard noise a bit after 6pm. We attributed it to the 1935 crew cleaning
up. However, at 7pm, I went out to walk my dog and explore the noise (I even thought it might have to do with the
Stanford-USC game---I know, crazy, but....). At 510 Seale, a crew was busy at work: backhoe going, the metal
eaves clanging, moving materials, 2 trucks out front being loaded with stuff (debris?).
I told one of the workers it was too late (7pm); he apologized and I thought they would immediately leave. But no,
after my short dog walk, nothing had changed. Work continued.
Bud, I have had it. For years now, we have endured weeds encroaching in our yard, garbage migrating over the
fence, noise, and lack of progress on what seems a fairly straightforward project at 510 Seale. They have pushed
the "construction hours" rules in the past, but this was the worst I can remember.
Please stand up for us as residents. I have no idea who the contractor on 510 Seale is but they have violated their
posted construction hours (and P.A. law, I believe). This is not the first time, but the worst for us. I would like
some consequence. If disputed, please know that I have pictures on my phone which would document time and
activity.
I'd like some action. I've had it. Thank you.
P.S. Just as a counterpoint, the contractor at 1935 Cowper has been very responsible. At the onset of project, he
stopped by and introduced himself. When we had an issue, we called and he (Chris is his name) took care of the
problem within 15 minutes. Both he and the women who is overseeing the work (she too dropped off her card at
our home), have been solicitous. As I mentioned above, construction means noise and some debris; but at 1935
Cowper the work as been done with consideration of the neighbors. Pat on the back to these folks, Bud.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Meyer <rmeyer3@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:38 PM
To:Laleh Masnavi
Cc:Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org
Subject:Re: Bootup Ventures: New Request
Hi
I am happy you are supporting a good cause, but it is still undemocratic and impolite to blast noise over a residential
neighborhood without warning ALL AFTERNOON.
The use of microphones is not necessary to support a fundraiser.
Please, City council members, let me know why this commercial property can get approval to blast noise over a
residential neighborhood all afternoon?
Thank you,
Anne Meyer
On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:02 PM, Laleh Masnavi <laleh@bootupventures.com> wrote:
Dear neighbor,
Let me explain what the Sep 15th event was held for; it was the 12th annual fundraiser organized by Ivy
and Pearls, a charitable organization providing college scholarships and public service projects in the City
of Palo Alto and neighboring City of East Palo Alto.
This year, they approached us and BootUP was thrilled to be able to provide them with the space and
play a role in their charitable efforts.
They had all the required permits and licensing from the city. The police and fire departments were
notified too.
Apologies for any inconveniences this might have caused, but we hope you agree with us that it
was for a great cause!!
Warm regards,
Laleh Masnavi
VP, Operations
BootUP Ventures
68 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025
M: 650‐996‐7651
Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
2
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:11 PM, <rmeyer3@comcast.net> wrote:
Title: homeowner in Palo Alto
First Name: anne
Last Name: meyer
Email: rmeyer3@comcast.net
Phone: 6503236767
Organization: Palo Alto neighborhood
Message: On 9/15/18 your facility blasted noise all afternoon and it was not pleasant to reading or
enjoy my backyard. I feel this is very impolite to blast noise to a neighboring residential area. Could
you please refrain from using any microphones in your future events. Thank you
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 1:14 PM
To:Lee, David; Keene, James; City Mgr; Ng, Judy; Binder, Andrew; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
Council, City; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed
Cc:kamala_harris@harris.senate.gov; Nathan_Barankin@harris.senate.gov;
Marguerite_Biagi@harris.senate.gov; Clint_Odom@harris.senate.gov; Lily_Adams@harris.senate.gov;
dustin.brandenburg@mail.house.gov; katie.weiss@mail.house.gov; liz.argo@mail.house.gov;
Anthony.Ratekin@mail.house.gov; Jilian.Plank@mail.house.gov; kelsey.smith@mail.house.gov;
christopher.livingston@mail.house.gov; alexandra.gourdikian@mail.house.gov;
Philip_Maxson@mcconnell.senate.gov; asoltani@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org;
organizing@aclunc.org; aschlosser@aclunc.org; mrisher@aclunc.org; info@sanjosenaacp.org;
naacpsfbr@att.net; actso@naacpnet.org; hollywoodbureau@naacpnet.org; info@lccr.com;
info@anamericaninjustice.com; bharat_ramamurti@warren.senate.gov;
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov; Dan_Geldon@warren.senate.gov;
Stephanie_Akpa@warren.senate.gov; blanca.jimenez@mail.house.gov; rykia.dorsey@mail.house.gov;
Natasha_Hickman@burr.senate.gov; scheduling49@mail.house.gov;
Phil_Maxson@mcconnell.senate.gov; Natasha_Hickman@burr.senate.gov
Subject:Review at the MAV recording Sgt. Lee
Attachments:2017 Interim Report ID# 9064 Independent Police Auditor Info Report.pdf
David Lee
PAPD
Sgt. Lee,
Since you have been an officer for 12 years in the PAPD than you would know that you do not need a
statement from me in order to hold your own officers accountable when they violate department policy and
the Constitution. You could have spent as little as 20 minutes reviewing the MAV recording 4 weeks ago to
come to a conclusion as to Ofc. Conde's actions. The fact that you have not demonstrates to me that your so
called investigation is not about holding Ofc. Conde accountable and therefore there is no reason for me to
communicate with you any further since your just wasting my time.
The fact is Captain Binder has already reviewed the MAV recording and decided that Ofc. Conde did not
violate department policy or the Constitution also reveals that your investigation is bogus.
2
3
4
5
6
7
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/10/palo‐alto‐police‐sued‐over‐police‐dog‐bite
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/murray‐dog‐attack.html
8
Murray Dog Attack - Palo Alto Police
Chief Dennis Burns ...
chiefburns.weebly.com
Just like the Tyler Harney case the City of Palo and the Palo
Alto Police settles another excessive use of force law suit
before the Plaintiff, in this case Tajae Murray could obtain
the evidence as to why there is no recording of the Dog
Jumping Out of the Patrol Car. If there was video than this
aspect of the lawsuit would not be in dispute as it is.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html
Missing Videos
corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com
A History of Missing Videos
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/pattern‐and‐practice.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐5.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐7.html
9
EXHIBIT 7 - Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis
Burns Violates ...
chiefburns.weebly.com
Andrew Hinz is an EXPERT. He states in his expert reports
that TASER CAMS V06-015525 and V06-015020 recorded the
March 15, 2008 incident and then were destroyed.
Tony Ciampi
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Sara Cody; Cindy Chavez
Subject:RFK--New group- Stop Chronic Health of US Kids
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com 9/18/18
Children’s Health Defense Will Tackle “Avalanche of Children's
Unprecedented Health Epidemics” Sept. 13, 2018 . New group evolves from World
Mercury Project led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, attorney.
* Autism rates are as high as one in 28 boys in some states
* One in 6 children has a learning or behavioral disorder
* Last year over 15,000 children were diagnosed with cancer
* U.S. kids are 70% more likely to die before adulthood than kids in other rich countries
* America’s infant mortality is much higher than in peer nations.
75% of youth not eligible for military service
* Send for Generation Sick, a free CHD E-Book
By the Children’s Health Defense Team
There is no greater crisis facing our world today than the chronic disease epidemic that has sabotaged
the health of our children. To date, World Mercury Project’s advocacy work has focused primarily on the
toxic effects of mercury – one of the most neurotoxic substances on Earth – and the epidemic of
neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, plaguing our children.
Recent research has documented that not only has autism dramatically increased, but our children are the
sickest generation ever with over half suffering with a life-long chronic disease.
Children born in the 1990s and early 2000’s diagnosed with autism, were the tip of the iceberg with regard to
injury and mercury is just one of many harmful exposures fueling the chronic childhood health conditions and
injuries we see today. In response to this knowledge, World Mercury Project is changing both its name
and the focus of its advocacy efforts.
As the new name implies, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), has a bigger, bolder mission to end the
childhood health epidemics by:
* Exposing causes and eliminating harmful exposures
* Holding those responsible accountable
* Seeking justice for the injured and
* Establishing safeguards to ensure this never happens again
CHD has the same dedicated staff and board with Chairman, Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Vice Chairman, JB
Handley leading our efforts. The organization will continue to publish its popular online newsletter Kennedy
News and Views. And, followers on social media will automatically be switched over to the new Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube accounts in the next couple of days.
“Our children’s ability to develop and thrive is being sabotaged by an avalanche of unprecedented health
epidemics now affecting 54% of our children. This is unacceptable,” said Mr. Kennedy.
2
The facts are sobering:
* Autism rates are as high as one in 28 boys in some states,
* One in 6 children has a learning or behavioral disorder,
* One in every 9 children has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
* 13% of kids in public school receive special education services.
* Food allergies, including severe anaphylactic reactions, increased 50% from 1997 to 2011.
* Last year over 15,000 children were diagnosed with cancer.
* There is an epidemic of autoimmune illnesses like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and eczema and half of U.S.
adolescents have suffered from a mental, emotional or behavioral disorder.
* U.S. kids are 70% more likely to die before adulthood than kids in other rich countries
* America’s infant mortality is much higher than in peer nations.
The social and emotional impact of these epidemics on children and their families are enormous as are the
financial impacts on our educational and medical systems.
In a video, Mr. Kennedy asks, “Why are our federal agencies not asking the essential question, ‘What is
debilitating America’s children?’ We need to know that answer and we need to stop these exposures to our
children today.”
Generation Sick, a free CHD E-Book, details the childhood epidemics, the suspected environmental
culprits and the steps needed to protect children.
To build awareness of the health problems facing the world’s children, CHD is asking everyone to tell
their story with the hashtag #MyChildToo if they or a loved one suffers from a chronic disease or was
injured by an environmental toxin or vaccine.
The campaign gives parents and others affected by epidemics—including autism, ADHD, allergies,
rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and more—a platform to tell their stories of unnecessary and devastating injuries.
CHD is planning multiple legal strategies in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice
for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.+++
Join the movement. Visit www.childrenshealthdefense.org
Kennedy: “Why are our federal agencies not asking the essential question, ‘What is debilitating
America’s children?’ We need to know that answer and we need to stop these exposures to our children
today.”
You can download Generation Sick: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs
to End here:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/ebook-sign-up/
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health
Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Republishing Guidelines Children's Health Defense • Help Children’s Health Defense and RFK, Jr. end the
epidemic of poor health plaguing our children.
Please share with your email lists and social media.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 5:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sept. 17 City Council meeting - housing issues
Re Agenda item #10:
My city, Menlo Park, is in the process of reviewing a proposed tenants' relocation costs ordinance and I have urged
them, and urge Palo Alto to take more assertive action to protect tenant's rights. Despite the dire predictions from
landlords and developers about the passage of Prop 10, the Affordable Housing Act, and the repeal of Costa Hawkins,
what is above all important, is providing low income housing NOW, not demolishing any existing housing or building
more office space without building low‐income housing for city workers, those who serve you lunch, coffee, have
minimum wage jobs, and the homeless, who are priced out of housing and have long (energy wasting, polluting)
commutes to come to work in Palo Alto. We need to balance the income demographics on the Peninsula. You will
notice the forumulaic responses of landlords' responses, but listen also to the individual stories of those middle‐ and
low‐income workers, families, trying to live in Palo Alto and take the civic responsibility for maintaining diversity in Palo
Alto!
I urge the city to not only maintain a reasonable cap on office development (actually a strong cap to re‐balance the over‐
development) and establish a reasonable rent cap ‐ we cannot let rental housing inflation continue to rise so that only
the privileged and high income tech workers can afford to live in Palo Alto. That's your civic responsibility, not allowing
un‐checked rental rates to price out so many future Palo Altans!
Respectfully,
Judy Adams
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Keene, James; Goodwin Eileen
Subject:Time sensitive: Topic for upcoming CC and Rail Committee Meetings
Dear City Council,
As you know, Caltrain is currently working on their business plan and is seeking feedback from cities.
As the Friends of Caltrain email points out, there are a number of key issues we should be thinking about
locally AND regionally.
I would like to recommend that the Rail Committee agendize this topic ASAP and that the Rail Committee and
City Council write a formal letter to Caltrain with our thoughts on this plan. An official letter would send a
unified message of support and would highlight the issues that we are most interested in as this Business Plan
moves forward. Caltrain plays a vital role in our community and we should be very involved throughout the
Business Plan process given that we have the second highest ridership outside San Francisco.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let me know.
Regards,
Nadia Naik
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Green Caltrain <donotreply@wordpress.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:49 PM
Subject: [New post] Should Caltrain plan to keep up with ridership growth? Board workshop next month
To: <nadianaik@gmail.com>
alevin posted: "On Thursday, October 4 at 9am, the Caltrain board will hold a workshop on one of the biggest topics to consider in
the business plan for the service ‐ how aggressively to plan for ridership growth. Read on for more on the big questions that the
Caltrain b"
New post on Green Caltrain
Should Caltrain plan to keep up with ridership growth? Board workshop
next month
by alevin
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com>
Wednesday, September 12, 2018 6:01 PM
Council, City
Traffic issues, California Ave area
IMG_20180912_ 1721 OSJpg; IMG_20180912_ 172050.j pg; IMG_20180912_ 172058.j pg
Dear most of the city council and the mayor,
Do you don't think we have traffic issues eh? PLEASE VIEW ATIACHED PHOTOS THAT I TOOK 40 MINS AGO. Well this is
Park Blvd at 5:20pm. This backs up earlier than that. I had trouble getting home from my children's swim practice
because so many unmindful and inconsiderate people were blocking the intersection at the Park Blvd/Oregon Expwy
light. And just think, the two giant recent developments that have been built on Park Blvd are still vacant. Oh and not to
mention w hat extra load the gargantuan parking garage on Sherman and the Civil servant building will bring to this area.
I mean can you imagine w hat it's gonna be like after those are built. No you cannot because from your actions I gather
that you don't care about us residents who actually pay the taxes to the city.
The problem with this line of cars is not just the long line of inconsiderate driver trying to get home after a long day {I
can't even leave the city at night.) It's that they cross over the bike lane and cause a mess for bikers. Oh just wait until
the time change and it gets dark. I predict something tragic.
Alice Jacobs
123 Sherman Ave.
Sent from Droid
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:03 PM
To:Eggleston, Brad
Cc:Kleinberg, Judy; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory
(internal); Drekmeier, Peter; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Esther Wojcicki; Gennady Sheyner;
sdremann@paweekly.com; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com;
AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Alex
Kobayashi; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; tharman@dao.sccgov.org;
richard@alexanderlaw.com; Aram James; Stump, Molly; Gaines, Chantal; Hospitalier, Jon; Jonsen,
Robert; Goodell, Erin; Minor, Beth; Brettle, Jessica
Subject:URGENT -- Power Wash downtown University Avenue NOW
Mr. Brad Eggleston
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
Hi Brad,
I continue to receive overwhelming community support to keep up the cause. Many shopkeepers and residents are
listening in on our narrative.
"Thanks Danielle! I support your efforts."
"Thanks, and you have our support."
"Much appreciated. Thanks."
"Great letter Danielle. Keep on it."
"Hi Danielle, Thanks!"
Here are just half-a-dozen reactions I received to the email you sent to me yesterday.
"Mr. Eggleston's response is a very shameful representation of our city. What crap!!!"
"This is straight up dirt and not stains by any means, can they come downtown to do a walk thru? I would love to
show them the front of our shop. This area has not been cleaned ( with power washing) for @ least 4 years."
"I have worked Downtown for 25 years, and the last 5 have been the worst I have seen downtown Palo Alto. If it
gets cleaned daily/weekly, why am I sweeping and picking up garbage and discarded food from the sidewalk with
gloves?"
"I sweep everyday in front of our shop to try to make the front look clean, so I do look at the sidewalk and street
daily. Thank you for taking on this task. This is something that is long overdue."
2
"We like clean streets. It's a reflection of the community. I've never seen it so dirty. They use to power wash
every month."
"I got so upset when I read Mr. Eggleston's email that I almost fell off my chair, and my husband had to tell me to
calm down."
I welcome your offer to meet. Shopkeepers and residents are up-in-arms by your rhetoric! Because you fail to
acknowledge the disturbing state of filth found downtown and the urgency to address this issue --and prefer to
promote City Hall with false accolades for their concern and maintenance-- I propose the two of us get
together, minus your minions, one-on-one, for a 5-min walk-through.
I'll be in touch to schedule.
Regards,
-Danielle
----------------------------
Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
Palo Alto City Council candidate, 2016 & 2005
From: Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Subject: URGENT -- Power Wash downtown University Avenue
To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kleinberg, Judy" <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, "Keene, James" <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"Minor, Beth" <Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Brettle, Jessica" <Jessica.Brettle@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Drekmeier, Peter" <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>, Bill
Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>, "Allison@padailypost.com" <Allison@padailypost.com>, "EmiBach@padailypost.com" <EmiBach@padailypost.com>, "Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov" <Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov>, Alex
Kobayashi <Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>, "Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org" <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, "richard@alexanderlaw.com"
<richard@alexanderlaw.com>, "Gaines, Chantal" <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Hospitalier, Jon" <Jon.Hospitalier@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear Ms. Martell,
Thanks for contacting me about this important issue. The Public Works team agrees it is important to keep our
downtown clean and properly maintained. For the past 15 years, the City has budgeted annually about
$75,000.00 to pressure wash the University downtown area monthly. Staff also meets monthly with the
Downtown Business District in order to confirm all cleaning issues are addressed as soon as possible. We
currently have one staff member stationed in the downtown to sweep the sidewalks and pick up litter Monday
through Saturday. We also sweep the street in this area three times each week.
Staff initially developed this program based on benchmarking with other like cities with similar customer volume
and age of infrastructure. That said, we recognize that staining has occurred on some sections of the older
sidewalk sections due to food and drink and tree droppings. These stains appeared before our program had
begun. Stain removal was attempted in the beginning of our program and some areas improved, while others
did not. Some of these stains, which have set into the porous layers of the concrete and are impossible to
remove, may be what you are identifying.
My staff would be happy to meet with you on University Avenue if there are specific areas you would like to
discuss. Alternatively, we could check into problem spots if you have photos or could describe their locations.
Best regards,
Brad
3
Brad Eggleston
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
650.329.2636
brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto. org
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:47 PM
Subject: URGENT -- Power Wash downtown University Avenue
To: <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>
Brad, what can I do to help you? --DM
From: Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Subject: URGENT -- Power Wash downtown University Avenue
To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Hello Ms. Martell,
Thanks for reaching out about University Avenue cleanliness. I’m checking into the status and our cleaning
program, and will get back to you later this week.
Regards,
Brad
Brad Eggleston
Interim Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
650.329.2636
brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org
4
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:09 PM
To: Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@ CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto. org>; Kleinberg, Judy <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto. org>;
Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org >; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org >; Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@ CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org> ; Scharff, Gregory (internal) <Greg.Scharff@CityofPaloAlto. org>; Drekmeier, Peter <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>; Bill
Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>; Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>; Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>; Allison@padailypost.com;
EmiBach@padailypost.com; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov; Alex Kobayashi <Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>; Supervisor.Simitian@bos. sccgov.org;
richard@alexanderlaw.com
Subject: URGENT -- Power Wash downtown University Avenue
Mr. Brad Eggleston
Public Works Director
City of Palo Alto
Dear Mr. Eggleston:
University Avenue is long overdue to receive a Power Washing.
As a life-long resident, I have never seen the sidewalks so black and dingy with filth and grime. For some time, Palo Alto locals,
shopkeepers, and visitors are complaining to me because they're totally grossed out by downtown's neglect. I speak for my
community when I say, downtown Palo Alto deserves better treatment.
As the newly-promoted Public Works Director (late-July), I appeal to you to take charge and Power Wash our beautiful
University Avenue.
Please respond.
Respectfully,
-Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
Palo Alto City Council candidate, 2016 & 2005
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94301
September 17, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ICOUNC~ M~E~~
[ ] Pla efore Me.eting
L eceived at Meeung
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PROHIBIT NEW APPLICATIONS FOR PC ZONE DISTRICTS
EXAMPLES OF MUNICIPAL CODE LANGUAGE
Dear City Council:
At your August 27, 2018, meeting, during Oral Communications, I
distributed to you a letter advocating the prohibition of new
applications for PC zone districts; the retention of existing PC
zone district regulations for (a) inspections and enforcement,
(b) minor changes to a development plan and schedule, and (c)
failure to meet a development schedule; the addition of language
to the PC zone district regulations for termination of a PC zone
district; and the addition of language to Title 18 for adequate
notice of proposed changes.
Today's letter provides examples of Municipal Code language that
implements those suggested changes.
18.38.010 Specific purposes.
The PC planned community district was previously included in the
Zoning Code, but is no longer allowed for new applications. The
regulations in this Chapter have been retained for inspections
and enforcement of previously approved PC zone districts; for
minor changes to a development plan or schedule; and for
termination of a PC zone district. Chapter 18.77 has been
amended to provide adequate notice for proposed minor changes to
an existing PC zone district.
18.38.070 Change in development plan
Only minor changes may be made to a development plan approved by
the City Council. All such minor changes shall be processed
according to Section 18.76.020(b) (2) (I) the same way as projects
that the Director determines will significantly alter the
character or appearance of a building or site. No change to a
development plan may be processed as an "over the counter
project" [18. 76.020 (b) (1) (B)]; or as a major project
[18.76.020(2) (A) -(H)] that must instead apply for a zone
change to a zone district that is not a PC zone district.
18.38.130 Change in development schedule.
[retain existing language]
18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule.
[delete last sentence of subsection (b) ]
18.38.160 Inspections.
[retain existing language]
NEW SECTION
18.38.990 Termination.
If a use authorized by a PC district is discontinued for a
period of twelve months, the PC zone district approval will no
longer be in effect. The Director shall initiate a zone change
for the property subject to the PC district.
AMEND CHAPTER 18.77
Add the following to 18.77.070(d) Decision by the Director
(5) For PC districts, notice of the proposed Director's decision
shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property
within 600 feet of the property, by publication in a local
newspaper of general circulation, by e-mail, and by posting in a
public place. The Director's decision shall become final
fourteen days after the date notice is mailed or published,
whichever is later, unless an appeal is filed.
ATTACHMENT
Attached is a copy of an article from 40 years ago by Bob Moss
about the PC zone district and attempts to remove the Council
and the public from the process.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
~ Herb Borock
Attachment:
Bob Moss, "P-C or Wild Card Zoning", Grapevine, March 9 -April
12, 1978 (3 pages)
.•
.. · ..
·page 2
' .
-I --... 6 -.,. ·~
,•
GRAPE~ . March .9·April 12, 1978
-·~p~-c ·(ft.Wild · Card Zc
• •• 'I, • • • • • •• • •
. . · By-J;Job~Moss ···gas . staticuis :at_
0
Sa·n' Ant.onio and building approved which-would be
. . . · .Middleffeld;the Fioliday Inn,· several -rejectec;! ii'). standard: zone$. It often is
.Most·p(:lople are unaware ofwliat a manufattur~g ·and office buildings ·used'. to~·~ubvert subdivision ordi-
.P-C zone is, or how it can affect the. · alon~ Embarcadero a~d -Baysho're, n~ces. "The' average citizen would
community. It is a catch-all 'zone the ·office building at Ha~ltoD; and .. hav:e great difficulty working the sys-~hich ·can be applied anywhere; has BYI"oh, Palo Alto Square'. at R{lge Mi~l tern to get a p,.c_for: his ciwn prqp.ert}r,
no specific setback,-. height, or and El C~ino,_and aparlmentSat 101 even if he had the time _aiid money to
,, m8xlmum lot coverage requirements.. Alma ~nd at-Bayshore and Amarillo. pursue an application.~.-. · .: . ·
· .. and ·allows .increases in d~nsity, in-. P-Cs.are partifularly _atlvantageous For. years P-.Cs w~re -.rar.efy-'re-
.tensify ·of' ·use an4 ~hailges in land . / to ~opliis~cated ·~evelopers, who ar~ _ qiiest~d ... E-rom 1955 to early ·ig74
.use. In theory the city oh~ns some expert eno~gh to us_e the P-C t9 get a there were 63 P-Cs approved .. Thir-
tangible benefit from .aP-C such as .-• · · · · .. · ·:
limi_ting uses or requiring extra land-
: scaping_._Examples. of P-Cs a.re all _!he _
· Palo Alt~ Square,: at Page· Mill· ~d El' 6lmino; ·an: tij(a.fupl'e ·hf~ ·.<Planned .
~~unity" zone project: · · · ·
I .
• n1ng·,r.
teen of the 34 P-C!! approve~d betw.et;ln
Jan. 1960 and Dec. 1974 :increased
densiti~s in residential zones. There wer~ at least 18 P~<;: applicatiqns be-
tween Mar. 1976 and Oct. 1977. Ten
were approved, one is pend~ng. The
nUm.ber of P-Gapplicatfohs seems· to
be a,ccelerating. Why so many P-Cs?·
Partly because the . El Camino
.. • ...
f
I
moratorium. specifically ·exempted.· -: .
P-Gs;. but mainly because. the _,de-. "" ;
.veloper gains a· ·signifii::anf a·dvan-.
'tage. It often is easy to see how -the
developer gains, but much harder to
see the' benefit to the .city. Often rio· ·
perm~nent benefits are obtained, ·
such as when the extra l~dscaping :
dies or is removed. In a 1974 survey of
"the p3 P!Ojec~;.. J}ie µiajor vii:>lation -
was lack of plantings or ·1an:dscapiiig:
and ~acJC of adequate.-mai.µtainance.
l . I .. ·I
!
. ' Eriforcement of. ~oning ordinances
'i_s.' .l/y ·complaint .of citiz.ens. ~v.en . ..... . i
when inspectors found ·violations in ~ '
their 1974 revie\v orP-Cs~ th.e.attitude"' I 1
of th.e ~taff was to send :Out o.o.e or two '
'notices,. anff-t:her(, ignp~e·"any fol-'
lowup unless'" someoiie, .. else 6om-
·plained. in the Palc£.Aftci.w efst apart-·
~ent cas~ ~many ~grqss _'~gla~on~_.o~ '.
·the. P-C· wer_e·found; ;and· the.·pvm.er' ...
was .notified ii:t ~pril 197'.4~-Bl.1.t there -
was no~follo.wup'\intil the.fall of 1976; · · ·.wh~ii. !~~den~_-9f :tlie aiiattnients ·
P:tatested ~conditions tliere~ :<Since ·
eaeh piC·:; tirii'"ue -~it~i&'.atlli'O' '1m: .. 1. .
'·:·, 1 'I"~-···-,q .·.·'"'~d.'""""'"'' !it ...... ,' t..no5Sibl :'~o' ': "' · :-! £.:"1~~ .:.·,,,., ·~' '';'l £t-r'' "• ,.., · ·: , r ~ _. . ~\~~~~ ~?:t~ .,}l~!O~:~.Y,9~7;?'~~ · tliar the conditions 'of iii.e P·-C' .. are-. ,
· q~(ng Yiol_~t~~.· antl ip. whaf mber. ~
This means· that .for all. practical "pur-
. poses there is no eil.forcenient what-
soever .of the P-Cs.. . -_. . . ; ;. . '~.-
" Furth~r complieating P.-C . en-· -·
forcement ii> th~ fi:Qal prcices~ pf P-C .. ,
approval. After public heariiigs' and '
formal adoption of the P-C . by !lie ·
" . Cou.Ilcil, the ARB ~Planriing Director
and developer negotiate 'fj.n.al. 9-es'ign
details. These details· can faclude 1
· Ii!-ndspaping,· exact pl~cefnent of -. ._!
str.eets· i;i'.nd builgings, ·setbacks, · · 1
sideyards, ame:hlti!;ls such .as :P'ools, -... . !
playgrounds ·and temtls courts· and . i
their prectSe'placement, ~d parking.· • '
The clarity with· which Uiese iteins-· l
_are sho.wri. on final plans.and da'cu-..
. m~nts y~fe~. This inconsistency
further complicates enforcement~ be-
' .. ~
ca us~ in-practice a Citizen musf'·._
. · conf4i~ed. o~ ·p_ag_e 7 -· ·
continued froIJ?. page' 2-
~eari::h out all documents.and records
relating to the P-C in order. to learn
what is supposed tb be ther.e, . and
compare .it· with what exists.
The new zonirig ordinance, which
was recently transmitt~d to· the. City
Council by the Plaruiing Commis-
.,., sion, p~oposes a major complicating·
· factor. It would ·allow the Director of
Planning; at his-own discretion, and
with ;no 'Teview · by the Council or
.,
March ~~p'ril i2, ~978 GRAP~ Page ·7
denied in the case of the golfand·ten-Ceza:no<~r<;>P~rtY· at El Giuni!}o ;·~d · ·
cl-. -. Zo'. 'n1· n ·· g· . nis 'shop at El C!lmino and Vista in .. Los' Altos have -st:>"ughtf;'C.~onms·of -
1976, but recent effortS by developers .. the already e~sti.ng structur~s, with
to regularize their -developments some 'additions. In the motel case:;. it:
-' ·' · ~ · .. · · · have been more suc~essfuL · ·was ,approved without the _a.ddititlns.
noticetoadjacentpropertyowne:rs. to · For example, Palo Alto West but with a sidewalk. (which wa5 .not
modify P-Cs ('and some other types of apartments, which was listed -by .th·e : ,desired by the community) ·and some
development}.· The changes are ·sup-staff as 'the worst offender reg8.iding . landscaping added. 1:he Cesano ~e
pos~a to _be "rrµnor administrative violation of their .P-C requirements, quest was deferred u.ntil Jruiuilry, bur
changes," bu("minor'' is undefined. remoyed 'a: wading po9l, .took oul bar-was not me~ with 'enthusiasm.
As an examp~e of what the Planni~g becue pits, paved playground areas; · In each case-the excuse for approv-
Director considers minor, he ap-allowed play equipment and 181:1d-ing P-Cs~for as-.built projects was ~e .
proved a covered cari:rort' at 101 ~ma ·scaping ·to deteriorate, and stip ob-greater control the city has QV~r uses
.w~ich will cover a greater area· than tained City' Council approv~i after the of the prope_rty .. Past experi~nc.e lias
the b~lding. its~lf. . '. · · fact to permit most of ~ese viola~ns. . shown that this tight c?ntrol is a
· The late~,t wrmkle is approval .of to go unpunished by aI!lending the · n:;i.yth. If the developez: WIShes to, he
·pre-existing-developpients as "as-P-C to·essentially the·existing_condi-· ~ 'tjolate the ·req~enien~ ·of the ·
built" P-Cs : This ~as attempted but tions. The property oyvner's lett.er P-C with only a s~gbl chance .ofb~i?g
: aski~g for this 'favor.extensivelycited caught, and almost. .. no . chance. 'of
. _problems· with children an_d 1::0Iµ-being punished 'sirice City Manager
',plaints ·of vanda:Iism, and' gave that as · Sipehmd CitY Attorney Green:S~Y"~~.'e
an excuse.for not piaintaining play desire is to ab~ comP,li!lnce,'noqo-
equipment and trying to exc;lude p~s.li. In fact no developer ot :a~er
children from the apartments. . . has ever been fined or s¢fered any
Recently the Town-House motel at court~dii'ected -pena,lty ~or violation
·El Camino and M~yb~ll ·and the .of his .P-C, and action ~aS ·oi;lly begtin
--, · in one or two isolated cases. The ·
. nor~~ "app;oaC:h seeins to be for~.~;(:
·to be vfolat~d ·~d _go· umepor;t_~d {or .
some time. When 'it finally-is broug;ht
· to the atte:i:itjon of citY .officials, they
. try' to mediate a.n-ui.J,_derstan-ding· with : the -propercy .. owner; which usually -
. -. results in.an a'greein~ntto relax some
. of the controls whiCh were the: eJccuSe
_for-allowing the-P-C-~i:µtj~ly: __ · . ~;.
Palo ,AJto:$ ~;(}.p~din!ul~e.l.~,m~c~
looser .th1:m -that of · Santa: _Clafa ··
;
County, or those.of most othercitie$; ... -
, ;, M; Bl~~Y.·.~,l~,~:,~~.~~:'P.!!!~!1)i~g-. . ·: cori..Sultlrlit 'to-r:alo ~Affol :--OesGii.,bea;it;.::. f ... ,, :, • ... :.·i..~.,.:.,. -~'-'""·11'-:-~~i!l.~iciiii-1f-~;,lttid~-·:·-·· --~! ... -:o-as.-,~_µ~~,,.4 ~ .... :i!L.g .. t:l ... V-:'1!' .... ._ oi;:\; 'r~ " . . :';.~~;;.all?wea(1ar~l>~~~~<l~~~!2t!i& ·riif .-~·
·;, ... ~;1~ss furoi;an~'$r"n~1fzpnti!&~' ,~,.,.,,_ .;~ •_ ~='••m. 11!'.~_m:_-T. h'='Wp· :r;.;"~~ .,"!~· -.. '"•t:.•' ·'~ -•.]<. it.:;;~c">Jb~·: .:·~4:1''-"'"'-<". . -~·l --.. e -u·zone as lJeen.mul,;;ll,,a .w.ea.-;·..:">• ~i·~~·' _. . ti. -'..-;:. ..-i::·':th'·· .. -.. ~t.:·.;.>,,,_,,,,,..,, ·~..;('"-••·~a'~:;:;:,.: 9 "'.\'' '. HI."~~ past; ~0.. ,ciµ:~~,ITT°~'t*(f'.:~ -~~·-::~_;.'.',{ ~ , . the'_e¢orcam~Iit. ·i~ s~~µ~d; b~_ a,~pµ~?. '-._, ~~ -.-·f'·".f .
.__.._..'-. _ -_ yery spariiigly ab.cL:M.th .t!~ht·, c;Q_p.-. ~
. This. high . . . . t 1' 01 Alm-~ .-'p ~c trols and regul~ !~ped,ti.Qn !tc? assur~ . -. -nse a a IS a -th th bl" · · -· f .. -· · · -zone. project. in -a· re~id.ential -.~ at _e ~u ~-c p.w::po~e.s ... o.r, its ap--
neighbor.hood. , . proval are met and m~_ntained .. ----~~ ·--·----·-· ··-·--':..-_.
,I. -
County of Santa Clara
Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110-1770
(408) 299-5001 FAX (408) 938-4525
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors has
scheduled a public hearing at the meeting indicated below to consider the following application.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018, no earlier than 10:00 a.m.
Public Hearing to consider proposed text amendments to the County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code
Appendix I (Zoning) -Article 4, Chapter 4.20 (Supplemental Development Standards) to add a new Section
4.20.L30: "lnclusionary Housing for the Stanford University Community Plan Area". (Supervisorial District
5)
Tuesday, September 25, 2018, no earlier than 10:00 a.m.
Public Hearing to consider an affordable housing impact mitigation fee ordinance for academic space
within the Stanford Community Plan Area. (Supervisorial District 5)
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD during the public hearing
in regard to the above-referenced consideration in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 70 West Hedding
Street, First Floor, San Jose. Written communications should be filed with the Clerk of the Board prior to
the hearing date.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS LAND USE DECISION IN COURT, you may be limited to
raising only those issues that you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or
in written correspondence delivered to the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors prior to, or at,
the public hearing.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
located on the 101h floor at the address given above, on or before the Friday preceding the hearing.
THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING is given pursuant to the order of the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors as required by the Government Code of the State of California.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEGAN DOYLE, CLERK
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION relating to the proposal above please contact:
Shawn Whiteman ( 408) 299-5788
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Dave Cortese, Cindy Chavez, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
OFFICERS
Rob Kalman, President
Wendy Calvert, Vice President
Gali Hagel, Secretary
Frank Espina, Treasurer
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Charles Bartels
James Blackman
Wendy Calvert
Angela Chien
Frank Espina
Gali Hagel
Rob Kalman
David Levine
John Lockton
Peter Radin
Nancy Ryde
Patricia Sinclair
Angela Young
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Al Mollica
w~ CD PETS IN NEED (./)
l""'1 -0
FOUNDED 1965
"° :s:-:JC
CD ..
0\
Dear Councilmember Tanaka,
Thank you for voting in favor of finalizing the agreement with Pets In Need to provide
animal care services for Palo Alto residents.
My colleagues and I continue to believe that a partnership between Palo Alto and
Pets In Need will be mutually beneficial. Not only will it save the city annual operating
funds and ensure residents have access to humane animal services locally, it will allow
Pets In Need to save more neglected, abused and at-risk animals.
We are continuing to work with city officials to finalize the agreement and I hope to
see you at another council meeting soon.
In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions. As always, you have
an open invitation to visit our shelter in Redwood City to learn more about our
operation and to meet our staff.
Thanks again,
~
Al Mollica
Executive Director
871 5th Avenue, Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: 650-367-1405 www.PetslnNeed.org
Like us on FB www.Facebook.com/petsinneed1965
b~ -...... _.-< -< no ,...,,
~~ :xr u)O
o»
""T1 Ci ~o
('") -("Tl('") :x:>
RETURN ADDRESS:
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
We've,-~~~~
-t-v ~-\-u..ro ~
<;)<>..\<> eo--.H ~~
.... J<pt~ ~e... ~, ..... l~~-
$........pp~.f-~s<--k->t 's
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
t l..V-V)~ ~ ~so----~--c...o--.\-. """-ll}J"11) •)~~)1')11Jl•11Jllo)11' 1)1' hi I Jul)iJll.JiJ