Loading...
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