HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181008plCC 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: 10/8/2018
Document dates: 9/19/2018 – 9/26/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedric.bike@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:13 AM
To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Transportation; Gennady Sheyner; de La Beaujardiere, Cedric
Subject:Room for a raised rail between Alma and retained Western Track, keep option on the table
Members of the City Council Rail Committee,
I believe there is room to build a raised rail structure between the western track and alma, and I have done a graphical
analysis to show this is possible. The benefit of this is that the Western track could be left in place and potentially
continue to carry rail traffic while the raised tracks are constructed, thus avoiding the expense and impact of
temporary tracks down Alma. In addition, the infrequent freight trains could stay at grade on that Western track,
reducing noise propagation and potentially allowing a 2% grade for the raised portions. A further benefit of this
alignment is that it pushes the passenger rail line as far away as possible from the houses along Park Blvd. There
would be room to put trees between the western track and the houses to shield the structure from view.
I would like to point out that it would likely be a financially disastrous mistake to prematurely remove the viaduct
options from consideration before they have been fairly evaluated from a cost perspective. The cost of a viaduct
structure has never been estimated by the city staff. The closest was a set of preliminary estimates (on page 23 of Types
of Grade Seperations and Constraints, Sep 16, 2017) including a hybrid of partially raised rail and partially lowered
road, at $180M. Of note in that same estimates chart that: leaving the rail at grade and lowering the road under the
rail was 4 times the cost of raising the road over the rail, and similarly, lowering the rail under the road was over 6 times
the cost of raising the rail slightly (and the lowering he road a bit). One sees then that trenching anything appears to be
4x to 6x the cost of raising it instead. Further, One can then reasonably assume that the cost of entirely raising the rail
is in the same order of magnitude as partially raising the rail, and many times less expensive than trenching the rail.
I recognize that the current political pressure is from those who live closest to the rail, and the politically expedient thing
to do is to bend to their pressure. However, if you remove raised rail on wall or viaducts from consideration, we'll be
left with the options of trenching at an astronomical cost, or closing intersections, with no middle ground. At that point,
when it comes time to somehow scrape together $2B, you will be faced with much different political pressure as the rest
of the city and taxpayers begin to realize the financial burden you then plan to place upon them and the city. A raised
rail option appears to be a middle‐ground solution which achieves grade separation and much lower construction and
lifetime maintenance cost.
Below are some images from my graphical analysis. Here I used the Right of Way (ROW) maps available from the CA
HSR website, and standards for horizontal clearance laid out in Peninsula Corridor JPB Standards for Design
Structures.pdf which call for 10' clearance from track center lines to the face of a barrier, and 15' clearances between
two adjacent tracks. In my calculation of the distance of the structure from the western track, I assumed a 1'
thick outer edge on each side of the structure, where a soundwall could be installed. Thus, east of the Western track's
Center Line (CL), I leave a 10' space, then a 1' thick structure western edge, then 10' clearance to the first track CL, 15' to
the second track, 10' to the inner edge of the structure, and a 1' thick eastern edge. For illustration purposes I created
segments of such a structure, each 0.1 mile long (528 feet), and laid these out on a map of the rail ROW. One can see
from this illustration that there is room for such a structure without encroaching onto Alma.
For my distance calculations of the rail ramping up and down I have a 10 km radius curve to go from horizontal to reach
a 1% slope, followed by another 10km radius curve to reach horizontal, then back down again. If the ground is level the
whole time, the ramp length is just under 1900' feet long to go from 0' to a clearance height of 15.5' above the road.
2
Here is an overview of the segment over West Meadow and Charleston:
Below is the northern edge of the structure, reaching grade near El Verano Ave and Ventura Ave.
The light green lines with tick marks indicate the 10' + 1' + 10' + 15' + 10' + 1' spacings.
The light green lines are extending from a thicker black line which indicates the Western track's Center Line on the ROW
maps.
The pink double‐dashed lines represent the ROW boundary.
4
Below is the segment crossing West Meadow.
Here i have made the structure semi transparent to show the ROW boundary line below,
which it would slightly overhang, but still be well outside of the Alma ROW
6
Below is the segment over Charleston, totally within the JPB ROW and totally outside of the Alma ROW, even with
Alma's right‐turn pocket on the north side of Charleston:
7
8
Respectfully,
Cedric de La Beaujardiere
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 7:20 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:September 26, 2018, Rail Committee Meeting, Item #1: Agreement with Caltrain
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
September 25, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTN: RAIL COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, RAIL COMMITTEE MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1: AGREEMENT WITH
CALTRAIN
Dear City Council:
Why is this agreement appearing on your agenda a month after the Joint
Powers Board started work in Palo Alto on the Caltrain Electrification
Project.
According to the August 27, 2018, press release from Caltrain
(http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_to_Hold_Public
_Meeting_on_Electrification_in_Palo_Alto.html), construction
activities were set to begin that week.
Of the 19 cities and counties requiring Construction & Maintenance
agreements with Caltrain, only Atherton and Palo Alto had not signed an
agreement for a long time, while San Francisco had signed its agreement
by November 30, 2017, but still needs to sign a Condemnation Authority
agreement.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Douglas
Sent:Friday, September 21, 2018 1:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Renter protections discussion
Dear City Council,
I cannot express strongly enough my astonishment over the Council's September 10th debate
regarding a proposed discussion of renter protections. How could the council even consider limiting
such a study and not asking staff to consider the full range of renter protections. What is such a
limited study worth? How can the Council develop the best course for our city when all options are
not in consideration?
I have lived in Palo Alto for almost 40 years and am very distressed over where we are now. I see
"help wanted" signs in many places. I have heard stories of businesses not being to offer a full range
of services because of inadequate staffing. We need affordable housing, including affordable rental
units. For the Council not to have staff evaluate all possible options for renter protection ensures
that whatever the Council proposes will be less than optimal. To be clear, I have no preconceived
notions about whether rent control or rent stabilization should be enacted. Rather, I do not
understand how an informed recommendation can be made if these options are not even
considered.
I am very disappointed that Greg Scharff, Adrian Fine, Cory Wolbach, and Greg Tanaka would
choose to abdicate leadership on this issue. I fear that our city will suffer because of their action.
Sincerely,
Karen Douglas
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 8:30 AM
To:Michelle Kraus; Council, City
Cc:City Attorney; michellekraus@yahoo.com
Subject:RE: Renewal of Emergency Ordinance 1A Passed on 8/27/18
Hi Michelle,
It is on the 10/1 agenda as item number 12A.
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Michelle Kraus <michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 8:29 AM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: City Attorney <city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>; michellekraus@yahoo.com
Subject: Renewal of Emergency Ordinance 1A Passed on 8/27/18
This is a request for the Emergency Ordinance 1A passed on August 27, 2018 to be placed on the Consent Calendar on
the October 1 Agenda for renewal without the means test ‐‐ hence matching the permanent City Ordinance ‐‐ prior to its
expiration on October 11, 2018. Normally, this request would be for October 8th meeting which is cancelled.
Thank you,
Dr. Michelle Kraus
Michelle Kraus, PhD
Managing Director, Tech & Politics
Direct: 650-218-5540
michellekraus@yahoo.com
@michellekraus
2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This message may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual(s)
named on the To:, Cc: and Bcc: lines. If you are not one of the intended recipient(s), then you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email transmission is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the email in its entirety and call or
email us immediately so that we may take appropriate steps to correct the problem at no cost to you. Even if this
message has reached you in error, sender does not in any way waive confidentiality or privilege. Thank you.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dale Tatum <daletatum@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accesssory Dwelling Units
Dear Council Members,
I am glad the Council is going to consider amendments to the ADU regulations. I have two concerns in
particular.
1. Lack of required parking in the new regulations. Our streets are filling up already with cars parked
from neighboring communities (e.g. East Palo Alto) because there was not enough parking required for
the residential units. The streets are also filling up because when people remodel, they frequently
eliminate one garage space and start parking on the street. Some houses go so far as to remodel their
homes in such a way that it is impossible to actually use the garage shown on the plans. And so they
park on the street. One house on our block has 4 cars parked on the street due to turning the garage
into an ADU and also configuring their landscaping so there is no useable driveway. Another house
nearby on has a driveway that requires a 90 degree turn to get into the garage. The turn and the
landscaping makes using the driveway or the garage impossible.
2. Effect on the neighbors when an ADU is situated on a small lot, particularly if right next to the property
line in the back of the house. Small lots shouldn't be allowed to have ADUs in the back yard.
Sincerely,
Dale Tatum
509 Rhodes Dr.
1
Carnahan, David
From:hannah.kinder@greenmonday.org
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bring Green Monday to Palo Alto!
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council,
Thank you for your outstanding climate leadership. I am writing to introduce Green Monday US, a simple yet impactful program
to encourage sustainable food choices. The City of Berkeley, California became the first city in the United States to implement
Green Monday. Won’t Palo Alto be one of the charter cities?
There is broad consensus among leading organizations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Oxford
University, Chatham House, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, that transformation of our food system is essential to
mitigating climate change.
The core components of Green Monday are
1. encourage your citizens and elected officials to choose plant-based foods one day a week,
2. encourage local restaurants and food service providers to offer more plant-based options, and
3. educate those who live and/or work in your city about the impacts of their food choices on climate change and
environmental degradation.
Green Monday US supplies free resources, including posters, literature, videos, and booklists. A staff member will be there to
help you to seamlessly integrate Green Monday into your existing sustainability program, while the website tracks your city’s
carbon, water, and land savings.
Making small changes to our diets is one of the easiest and most effective ways to shrink our individual and collective carbon
footprints. We would love to work with Palo Alto on this important initiative.
Could we schedule a call to discuss next steps?
Kindly,
Hannah Kinder
Director of Institutional Campaigns
Green Monday US Program Coordinator
hannah.kinder@greenmonday.org
540‐519‐6287
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:29 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; Ludia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject:"Corner House" on Addison at Middlefield
YES! YES! YES! REZONE NOW!!!
As a lifelong north Palo Altan & residentialist, concerned neighbor, baby boomer, former Stanford grad student, former
Palo Alto City Council candidate (twice), founder of three startups, entrepreneur & pioneer in educational game design, I
take to heart the CRITICAL importance for women to gain support & control.
The establishment of "Corner House" --a very special and unique women's club-- opens a door to unlimited possibilities.
"Corner House" offers hope and opportunity to UNHEARD female voices with projects that could take off and CHANGE
the world!
After all, we are the California Dream, the Stanford Community, and the Heart of Silicon Valley. Palo Alto has a unique
brain trust and a history of making a difference through unconventional inroads.
I'm impressed and humbled by "Corner House" embodiment of FEMINIST PROGRESS. ----ALL will benefit from this
vision.
YES! YES! YES! REZONE NOW!!!
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016 & 2005
www.MontessoriSoftware.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bob L <boblee650@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 19, 2018 6:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Coulombe Dr. Construction Project
Hello,
I see signs that construction is being planned in one of my neighbor street that raises a safety concern for me. On
Coulombe Dr., the Dept of Public Works is planning to increase the bulb‐out at the corner of Coulombe Dr. and
Arastradero. The bulb‐out will decrease the width of the road so when a car turns into a side street there is a higher
chance of a collision. I driven on one of the these bulb‐out streets in other parts of the city where I waited for the light
to turn green and hope there is no car speeding around the corner or no large truck coming around the corner to
squeeze into the tight turn and can avoid colliding into my car. These streets have been narrowed and on coming cars
have to make a sharper turn to get into the side street. At least a barrier should be considered to help keep cars from
colliding. I think these bulb‐out corners are high risk driving areas. I tried voicing my concerns to Public Works, but they
are are not doing much to change their plans or to put in any safety modifications.
I would of raised the issue much earlier but did not know of any construction changes until signs were put up at the
street corners. Is there a way to email residents at the early planning stages?
Sincerely,
Bob
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Adequacy Assurance <adequacyassurance@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11:06 PM
To:adequacyassurance@gmail.com
Subject:COURT-CORRUPTION / DUE PROCESS TASKFORCE----U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATORS/
PRESS: STOP THE THEFTS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS, & ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
U.S. Institute of Science
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
____________________________
In Re: COURT-CORRUPTION / DUE PROCESS TASKFORCE----U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATORS/
PRESS: STOP THE THEFTS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS, & ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO
TRIAL BY JURY
Dear Honorable Law Enforcement Officers/ US Citizens,
I would like to bring your attention to the “Juryless Process Abuse Epidemic”, that is currently plaguing our country,
and unlawfully stripping away assets from some of our most vulnerable citizens/seniors/parents/divorcees/property-
owners…a situation that we have become aware of---and seen the evidence. Too often “juryless” courts are being
used as a tool to racketeer/steal assets from American hard working citizens & families, and intentionally wrongly
award them to probate networks including “attorneys“, “guardians”, “fiduciaries”, etc., via cooperating
“probate/juryless judges”, acting in contravention to law. These racketeering uses of our court facilities, "federally
and state defined felonies" (of the corruption, obstruction, grand theft/embezzlement, jury, witness, & evidence
tampering, etc. varieties), are immensely adding-to/creating the civil unrest, chaos, crime & debt rates on the
streets....which in turn is endangering, harming, and KILLING POLICE OFFICERS and the general citizenry alike, this
very day. Just recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reported a 61% increase in police officers killed this very
year...NOW IS THE TIME TO PROSECUTE!
I am of the great hope that you, from your position and dedication to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and your personal stake herein, will take the necessary steps to ensure that these abuses are stopped
and due process is in fact being provided and protected, including minimally:
1.Identify courts operating without juries in your area & jurisdiction, detailing those sitting without a jury in the
courtroom, as well as those without sufficient jury review and oversight of “proposed findings” and litigant
objections, etc.
2.Ensure that in your department, as well as on a state/federal level, that there is an adequate task force apprised
and charged with identifying and prosecuting any/all illegal exploitation of juryless court facilities/functions, which
would include the wrongful removals of proper grand/trial jury function and the facilitation/enabling of organized
crime/wrongdoing, "court"/"attorney"/"bar" exploitation of litigants, assets, etc.; and personally ensuring that those
findings are presented to the district grand jury for process, minimally
2
It has long been proven that Juryless Governance is a breeding ground for organized crime, racketeering, and crime
in general---preventing the same being one of the main reason for the establishment of this country. As these are
urgent matters that expand and exaggerate unnecessarily the crime and debt rates on our streets this very day, they
are well within your authority and best interest to investigate and bring to justice. I look forward to your efforts in
stopping these CRIMES & UNCONSTITUTIONAL activities, RESTORING PROPER GRAND/TRIAL JURY FUNCTION. As
always, my staff and I are available to assist you in any way possible. Please stay safe as you protect our
communities, and may God Bless you and the United States of America.
Sincerely,
U.S. Institute of Science
A Government/Law Studies Research Science Group
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
Email us: AdequacyAssurance@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Few countries are pricing carbon high enough to meet climate targets - OECD
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax‐policy/few‐countries‐are‐pricing‐carbon‐high‐enough‐to‐meet‐climate‐targets.htm
Few countries are pricing carbon high enough
to meet climate targets
18/09/2018 - Governments need to raise carbon prices much faster if they are to meet their
commitments on cutting emissions and slowing the pace of climate change under the Paris
Agreement, according to a new OECD report.
Effective Carbon Rates 2018: Pricing Carbon Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading
presents new data on taxes and tradeable permits for carbon emissions in 42 OECD and G20
countries accounting for around 80% of global emissions. It finds that today’s carbon prices –
while slowly rising – are still too low to have a significant impact on curbing climate change.
The report shows that the carbon
pricing gap – which compares actual carbon prices and real climate costs, estimated at EUR 30
per tonne of CO2 – was 76.5% in 2018. This compares favourably with the 83% carbon gap
reported in 2012 and the 79.5% gap in 2015, but it is still insufficient. At the current pace of
decline, carbon prices will only meet real costs in 2095. Much faster action is needed to
2
incentivise companies to innovate and compete to bring about a low-carbon economy and to
stimulate households to adopt low-carbon lifestyles.
“The gulf between today’s carbon prices and the actual cost of emissions to our planet is
unacceptable,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Pricing carbon correctly is a concrete
and cost-effective way to slow climate change. We are wasting an opportunity to steer our
economies along a low-carbon growth path and losing precious time with every day that passes.”
The report measures carbon prices using the Effective Carbon Rate, which is the sum of three
components: specific taxes on fossil fuels, carbon taxes and prices of tradeable emission permits.
All three instruments increase the price of high-carbon relative to low- and zero-carbon fuels,
encouraging energy users to go for low- or zero-carbon options.
The vast majority of emissions in industry and in the residential and commercial sector are
entirely unpriced, the report finds. The carbon pricing gap is lowest for road transport (21%
against the EUR 30 benchmark) and highest for industry (91%). The gap is over 80% in the
electricity and the residential and commercial sectors.
Country analysis on 2015 carbon prices shows large variations, with carbon pricing gaps ranging
from as low as 27% in Switzerland to above 90% in some emerging economies. France, India,
Korea, Mexico and the United Kingdom substantially reduced their carbon pricing gaps between
2012 and 2015. Yet, still only 12 of the 42 countries studied had pricing gaps of below 50% in
2015.
New carbon pricing initiatives in some countries, such as China’s emissions trading scheme and
renewed efforts in Canada and France to price carbon, could significantly reduce these gaps. The
carbon-intensity of GDP is usually lower in countries with lower carbon pricing gaps.
The report rates emission trading as an effective way to price emissions, providing permit prices
are stable at realistically high levels. Taxes have the advantage of simple administration,
especially if grafted onto existing tax regimes. Revenue-neutral reforms can enable other taxes to
be cut or carbon pricing can facilitate domestic revenue mobilisation.
Read Effective Carbon Rates 2018
Download a summary with key findings
For further information, journalists should contact Catherine Bremer in the OECD Media
Office (+33 1 45 24 97 00).
3
Working with over 100 countries, the OECD is a global policy forum that promotes policies to
improve the economic and social well‐being of people around the world.
Also Available
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Monday, September 24, 2018 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Potential Problem with New Bridge at Mitchell Park
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Eggleston, Brad
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 2:19 PM
To: tonykramer@aol.com
Cc: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jonsen, Robert <Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gaines,
Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: Potential Problem with New Bridge at Mitchell Park
Hi Mr. Kramer,
We did receive your message last week and after double‐checking, determined that the 1200 LBS stated on the tag you
photographed only includes vehicle load for 2‐wheeled vehicles. We hadn’t replied yet because we were looking for
formal documentation, which I received this morning. Below is a snip from the bridge plan sheet. For the bridge size of
40 feet by 10 feet, or 400 square feet, the uniform live load capacity of 90 PSB (pounds per square foot) equates to a
loading limit of 36,000 pounds. Thanks for your suggestion about “no vehicles” signs. We will discuss this idea with the
Community Services Department, which manages the park.
Please free to write back or give me a call if you’d like to discuss the bridge.
Best regards,
Brad
Brad Eggleston | Interim Director of Public Works
2
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2636 | E: Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Minor, Beth
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 1:55 PM
To: Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: FW: Potential Problem with New Bridge at Mitchell Park
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
3
From: Tony Kramer <tonykramer@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:41 PM
To: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Attorney
<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Fwd: Potential Problem with New Bridge at Mitchell Park
On Sept. 18, 2018 I sent the below e‐mail to the city manager’s office. I have not yet received any response as to the
dispostition of my e‐mail. Please acknowledge that you have received it and let me know what your response is to the
issue I raised.
In the meantime I have contacted the Excel Bridge Company and asked them if the carrying capacity information on the
bridge was in error. Their representative told me the number of 1200 lbs was correct and the bridge is designed only for
pedestrians. He said it was not designed for vehicles and I should not drive a vehicle across it. He also said it was
designed for a maximum uniform life load of 90 lbs per sq. ft. I don’t know how that relates to the listed maximum
capacity of 1200 lbs. Someone needs to find out what that means. I told him I was concerned about more than eight
people of an average weight of 150 lbs on the bridge at the same time. He said he didn’t think that was a problem but if
I was concerned I should wait until there are fewer people on the bridge before I crossed it.
I think someone from the city should look further into this and make sure the bridge is safe for more than a few
pedestrians. If for some reason (such as an event at the Magical Playground) and a crowd of people gathers on the
bridge, the listed maximum capacity of 1200 lbs would be greatly exceeded. The bridge is 10 feet wide and 40 feet long
so a lot of people could be standing on it at one time. It may be necessary to put up signs that indicate the maximum
number of people allowed on the bridge at any one time.
Another issue is that the bridge is not designed for vehicles. That means there should be a sign at both ends of the
bridge saying no vehicles allowed. Over the years I have seen cars and trucks driving on the pathways at Mitchell
Park. In some cases it was to deliver material for a BBQ or party type event. A 10 foot wide bridge would be very
tempting to drive over if someone were delivering materials for a party or event at the Magical Playground or tennis
courts. Someone needs to make sure this does not happen.
Tony Kramer
e‐mail: tonykramer@aol.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tony Kramer <tonykramer@aol.com>
Subject: Potential Problem with New Bridge at Mitchell Park
Date: September 18, 2018 at 4:40:16 PM PDT
To: "citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org" <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
I am sending this to the city manager’s office so it can be sent to the proper city department in hopes of
correcting the below described problem.
The new bridge at Mitchell Park over Adobe Creek connecting the Magic Playground to the rest
of the park looks great. However, the information tag on the bridge says its maximum capacity
is 1,200 lbs. I hope this is a typo on the manufacturer’s part and it should really be a much
higher number.
If the information tag is correct than the following applies. If we assume an average weight of
150 lbs per person then the maximum number of people the bridge should carry is 8. Given the
amount of space on the bridge there will be times when many more than 8 people will be
4
standing on the bridge. This means that sometime in the future the maximum carrying capacity
will be greatly exceeded and the bridge could collapse. If the bridge collapsed this would be a
calamity for the people involved plus a serious liability problem for the city.
I am including a picture I took of the information tag on the bridge. I hope the information tag is
a misprint. Please keep me informed regarding the resolution of this problem.
Tony Kramer
e-mail: tonykramer@aol.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Joseph Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: RE: Comments on CAPER for 7/1/17 to 6/30/18
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Joseph Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>
To: "Maqbool, Erum" <Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Cory@CoryWolbach.com, mayor@cityofpaloalto.org
Date: September 26, 2018 at 11:04 AM
Subject: RE: Comments on CAPER for 7/1/17 to 6/30/18
[cc: addressees, please re-read my original inquiry of September 8 re $11,000,000 and
mine of September 10]
Erum,
My fundamental question is unanswered.
You state existing Guidelines say "CDBG funds "are used for the construction or
rehabilitation of shelters."
I've read the 18+ page PTC staff report you attached. There's no reference to shelter
for the unhoused.
My question remains:
What are Palo Alto's specific plans & timetable for providing emergency shelter for its
unhoused?
Other cities with brief winters assist their unhoused into motel rooms; why not Palo
Alto?
Joe Baldwin
2
On September 26, 2018 at 7:19 AM "Maqbool, Erum"
<Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Good Morning Joseph,
Thank you for your comments that you provided on the Draft CAPER. Below is the
response to your questions:
1. What are the city's plans and timetable for the creation of such units?
On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved a Housing Work Plan that outlines steps
to implement the City’s vision and adopted policies and programs for housing
production, affordability, and preservation. The Work Plan includes select policies and
programs from the adopted Comprehensive Plan, adopted Housing Element, and a City
Council colleagues’ memo. The approved Housing Work Plan indicates what action is
needed to spur the production of housing.
Staff is in the process of preparing zoning code amendments to implement the Housing
Work Plan; the most current recommendations will be discussed with the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) on September 26, 2018. For details on staff’s progress
and the proposed ordinance, please see the PTC staff report.
2. Has any thought been given to expanding the approved "Affordable Housing Fund
Guidelines" to include emergency shelter housing for the tiny fraction of our residents who
remain unhoused?
The existing “Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines” mentions that CDBG funds are used
for the construction or rehabilitation of shelters. The City of Palo Alto during the last
fiscal year provided funds for the rehabilitation of the Opportunity Center which provides
88 units of affordable housing to individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of
becoming homeless. Additionally, the City also funds LifeMoves Opportunity Center to
assist population that are in need of emergency shelter housing. During the past fiscal
year, the Opportunity Center served 614 unduplicated individuals, 431 unduplicated
individuals received case management, housing/job search, referral and mentoring
3
services; and 6,648 shelter nights were provided. However, there are no plans at this
time to modify the “Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines.”
Thank you for your interest.
Erum Maqbool |CDBG Staff Specialist |Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2660 |E: erum.maqbool@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Joseph Baldwin [mailto:zbrcp1@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 3:15 PM
To: Maqbool, Erum <Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: mayor@cityofpaloalto.org; citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: RE: Comments on CAPER for 7/1/17 to 6/30/18
Erum,
Please include my comments/questions in the final report as submitted to you.
That's why I got them to you before tomorrow's deadline.
The telephone message left many days ago for you was finally answered today
by a
friendly young woman who offered to print out and mail the draft CAPER.
I declined for an obvious reason.
I'm astonished to learn Palo Alto's draft CAPER has had no public comments for
years.
Surely a vast majority of citizen taxpayers would like Palo Alto to start spending
nearly
$11,000,000 already in hand earmarked for low income housing especially since
the amounts were
sent to us via Washington from 49 other states.
4
I shall continue to hope council sees fit to consider earmarking emergency
shelter for our unhoused
as eligible for these funds. We have just as many unhoused today as in 1995
when our Homelessness Task Force
observed that we have the wealth, knowledge, skills, and compassion to house
the tiny fraction of residents who are unhoused. If we can't solve the problem
HERE, how can the society of which we are a part???
Joseph Baldwin
On September 10, 2018 at 11:17 AM "Maqbool, Erum"
<Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for your email and for your interest in the City of Palo Alto’s
Housing Policies. We are preparing a detailed response to your questions
and will be able to respond to you in a few weeks.
Please let me know if there are any comments on the Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) which you would
like me to include in the final report?
Thanks again for your interest.
Erum Maqbool |CDBG Staff Specialist |Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2660 |E: erum.maqbool@cityofpaloalto.org
Office Hours: Monday and Wednesday through Friday – 6:00 am till 11:30 am
5
From: Joseph Baldwin [mailto:zbrcp1@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2018 1:57 PM
To: Maqbool, Erum <Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Comments on CAPER for 7/1/17 to 6/30/18
Erum,
I was surprised - and happy - to note there is now nearly
$11,000,000 in Palo Alto's "local housing fund" earmarked by
Council "for the creation of new low and moderate-income housing
units."
Two questions:
1. What are the city's plans and timetable for the creation of such
units?
2. Has any thought been given to expanding the approved
"Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines" to include emergency
shelter housing for the tiny fraction of our residents who remain
unhoused?
Respectfully,
Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster St Apt 524
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-324-7378
1
Carnahan, David
From:Vanessa Warheit <vwarheit@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 24, 2018 11:38 AM
To:Virginia Warheit; Furth, Wynne; Benjamin Warheit; Cory Wolbach; Friend, Gil; Susan Silber; Marc
Berman; Nancy O'Malley; Harrison, Kate; Council, City; Julia Jackson; Robert J. Tuerck; Diane Bailey;
Joshua Sondheimer
Subject:Gov Signs SB 964! and more news post Climate Summit, and CalPERS...
Dear friends -
You, or folks you know, are CalPERS employees and eligible to vote in their upcoming board elections. Along with the good news of
Gov. Brown signing SB964 (see email below for details) comes an important upcoming election at CalPERS. Please vote FOR Priya
Mathur, and share this information with other public employees in your networks.
From Janet at FossilFree CA:
"Here's the issue: CalPERS divestment policy and the fund’s policy commitment to environmental/social/governance-aware investing
(ESG investing) are central to the Mathur–Perez race. Mathur frequently speaks in favor of ESG investing and ESG-based
shareholder engagement policy, although the Board turned down her recent move to set a minimum standard for female membership
on company boards. (She is also a strong supporter of CalPERS’ shareholder engagement approach to fossil fuel-related companies
the fund owns, but that’s a topic for a different email.) Jason Perez consistently opposes ESG investing…and did so at the
candidate forum with Mathur on September 5, and at the CalPERS investment committee’s offsite meeting in July. Last March, he
challenged state Treasurer John Chiang’s attempt to have the Board divest from companies that sell firearms that are banned
in California. Perez also led with his opposition to divestment in his official candidate statement.
See Janet's email below for more information and links.
Best,
Vanessa
Begin forwarded message:
From: Janet Cox for Fossil Free California <info@fossilfreeca.org>
Subject: Gov Signs SB 964! and more news post Climate Summit, and CalPERS...
Date: September 23, 2018 at 4:08:02 PM PDT
To: vanessa.warheit@350.org
Reply-To: info@fossilfreeca.org
Hello Vanessa,
The news came over at 8 am this morning, Sunday – the Governor has signed SB 964.
Feels like a miracle, but it may only be good governing.
2
We owe many, many thanks to all of Fossil Free California’s supporters and friends who
supported this bill in its different forms, and in many ways, over the past two years. And
SPECIAL gratitude and admiration for Senator Ben Allen and his brilliant and determined
legislative director, Tina Andolina—they never gave up when it looked hopeless.
I don't have to re-emphasize what a very big deal this is—this bill not only holds CalPERS
and CalSTRS accountable for their investments' impact on the climate, it gives us all a solid
organizing platform in the future, in California and beyond. And we did it together! (Scroll
down for more about CalPERS and the ongoing board election, which is right to the
point.)
In related news (we’re coordinated!) FFCA’s three “affiliate events” the week of the Global
Climate Action Summit were interesting, productive, and well-attended. The two afternoon
panels, on Climate Change and Fiduciary Duty, and Climate Damages and Deception:
Taking Big Oil to Court, may have just succeeded in starting a broad conversation in the US
about pension funds’, insurance companies’, and other institutional investors’ accountability
for the business operations of companies whose stocks they hold. To that end, SB 964's
definition, now in law, of climate-related financial risk is a great resource.
It’s been a pretty good couple of weeks.
We’re going to be scheduling a debriefing phone call, open to everyone who attended these
sessions, in the nearish future. We want to hear what excited folks who were there, and how
you would like to be involved in our work going forward. If you couldn’t attend on Sept. 11 but
you’d like to receive an invitation to the call, please email me at info@fossilfreeca.org.
We will have videos available of all three events in the next few weeks. Rough videos of the
fiduciary duty event are up now: Panel I with Bill McKibben and
friends at https://youtu.be/D46bm7TcL2Y; and Panel II with an illustrious cast of characters
including Senator Allen at https://youtu.be/6zlv3TvHtBY. I hope you find them as exciting as
I do!
And to hear more of this conversation, tune in to City Visions on San Francisco’s “other”
PBS station, KALW, on Monday night at 7pm PDT (or wait for the recording/podcast). Sandy
Emerson and David Elliston, our Move Your Money team leaders, will be talking about
divestment, fiduciary duty, and shareholder engagement with California Controller Betty
Yee(who serves on both the CalPERS and CalSTRS boards) and Rev. Kirsten Spalding of
Ceres.
And now, in order to avoid spamming people with multiple emails, a note for CalPERS
members and others following the fund:
3
All members may not be aware that a CalPERS board election is in progress. This time just
one seat is contested: Jason Perez of the Corona Police Department is challenging Board
President Priya Mathur for Mathur’s seat, which represents “active public agency members”
of CalPERS. While only current employees of California public agencies can vote, the
results will impact all of us who are CalPERS members or California taxpayers—and could
have a material effect on our efforts to reduce climate-related financial risk in our pension
investments.
Ballots were sent earlier this month to eligible voters, and must be returned to CalPERS by
October 1. Two other current Board members, Theresa Taylor representing state government
employees and Rob Feckner representing school employees, are running unopposed to keep
their seats.
Here's the issue: CalPERS divestment policy and the fund’s policy commitment to
environmental/social/governance-aware investing (ESG investing) are central to the Mathur–
Perez race. Mathur frequently speaks in favor of ESG investing and ESG-based
shareholder engagement policy, although the Board turned down her recent move to set a
minimum standard for female membership on company boards. (She is also a strong
supporter of CalPERS’ shareholder engagement approach to fossil fuel-related companies
the fund owns, but that’s a topic for a different email.) Jason Perez consistently opposes
ESG investing…and did so at the candidate forum with Mathur on September 5, and at the
CalPERS investment committee’s offsite meeting in July. Last March, he challenged state
Treasurer John Chiang’s attempt to have the Board divest from companies that sell firearms
that are banned in California. You can watch his remarks here (beginning at 1:52).
Perez also led with his opposition to divestment in his official candidate statement. You
can read both Perez and Mathur’s their candidate statements, and watch their
strangely robotic non-dramatic readings, here.
As a 501(c)(3) organization, Fossil Free California can educate our supporters about this
important race—but we cannot endorse candidates. We urge all eligible voters to carefully
consider the Mathur–Perez choice and to vote! The rest of us should watch carefully. There is
a lot at stake.
Thanks for reading!
Janet Cox and Sara Theiss
for Fossil Free California
Join
us!
Sign the divestment
petition
Read the
news
Donate
4
Fossil Free California is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and your donation is tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. Our mailing address is P.O. Box 21022, Oakland, CA 94620. You can email us here.
Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Fossil Free California, please
here.
Vanessa Warheit
linkedin.com/in/vanessawarheit/
"Who says CO2 pollution can't be funny?"
worsethanpoop.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:25 PM
To:boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org
Subject:HOUSING CRISIS: Stanford University needs to build service worker & grad student housing FIRST!
Dear Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors:
Stanford University has gotten away with murder regarding NOT building their fair share of housing for its service
workers. grad students, and adjunct faculty. We need Stanfprd to start taking responsibility for this crisis. They should
also be required to pay at least $150 for each square foot of academic space for a housing fund for service workers.
These folks travel the farthest, with the least salaries.
It's time for Stanford to do its part to address the incredible housing crisis that we face. East Palo
Alto, Mountain View, are trying to build more housing. Palo Alto continues to 'foot‐drag' It's time
for Stanford to do its fair share of building housing on the campus before they expand their academic or industrial base.
We urge you to ACT in the interests of those who most need housing .
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist, PhD
representing the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom,
Low Income Housing Committee
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 24, 2018 1:05 PM
To:wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org;
apardini@cityofepa.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; Scheff, Lisa; Kniss, Liz
(internal); HRC; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; stephanie@dslextreme.com; Binder, Andrew; Kilpatrick,
Brad; cats4jazz@gmail.com; Doug Fort; Constantino, Mary; drutherford@cityofepa.org;
myraw@smcba.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; cbolanos@co.sanmateo.ca.us; Holman, Karen (external)
Subject:Kavanaugh-Ford Controversy
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Calhoun <cedarcalifornia1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 20, 2018 11:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Lexipol The Privatization of Police Policymaking
This peer reviewed law journal written by the UCLA School of Law should be of interest to you and the residents you
represent, as a City Council member in a city using Lexipol for their police department policies.
https://texaslawreview.org/lexipol
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shivani Aggarwal <shivani.aggarwal@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Maybell Ave
Hi City Council members,
I need to bring to your attention the situation on Maybell Ave involving bikes, cars and children walking to school. I am a
mother of 2 very young kids who has to deal with this situation every morning.
There are number of issues that need to be resolved to keep our children safe.
1. No safe way to cross over to the side of the sidewalk: the sidewalk on Maybell is only on one side. On the other side
the sidewalk ends pretty abruptly before the first house on Maybell from Walgreens. It is very hard for our children who
live on the side without a sidewalk to cross over to the other side. When kids are waiting in the morning to cross over,
the cars and children on bikes going to Gunn, fletcher or Briones do not stop and actually go pretty fast. It is very scary
and almost impossible for us to cross over. Since there is no sidewalk ‐ it is also very scary to go in any direction without
running into the same issues. The closest pedestrian crossing in on el Camino and the next one is near the Briones Park. I
kindly request that a pedestrian crossing be added somewhere between Pena court and where the sidewalk ends on the
side of Walgreens on Maybell so cars and bikes wait for us to cross over
2. Cars going too fast: we’ve also noticed that the cars go way too fast on Maybell. Many motorists are using it as a
through street to cut over to arasteradero corridor. Inspite of 3 speed bumps between el Camino and Juana Briones
Park, the cars do not slow down. To be honest, the speed bumps are pretty smooth and are not much of a deterrent.
Since this is a school zone and a neighborhood with tons of little children, I kindly request you to look into this matter at
the earliest.
Sincerely
Shivani
Concerned resident of Maybell Ave
Maybell Ave during school
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Penrose <DPenrose@hmbcity.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 7:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mayor Kniss
Good morning Liz,
I listened to your NPR interview this morning. I want to thank you for speaking out. You represent the best of what it
means to be a responsible civil servant.
I know that it was not an easy decision to make and I am proud of you.
Thank you,
Deborah Penrose,
Mayor of Half Moon Bay
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
(650) 454-5891
DPenrose@hmbcity.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 21, 2018 1:20 AM
To:citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org;
mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jonsen,
Robert; apardini@cityofepa.org; council@redwoodcity.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Subject:NYTimes: Evangelical Leaders Are Frustrated at G.O.P. Caution on Kavanaugh Allegation
Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting:
They say religious conservatives may feel little motivation to vote in the November elections unless Senate Republicans
defend and confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
Read More...
Get The New York Times on your mobile device
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Adequacy Assurance <adequacyassurance@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:34 PM
To:adequacyassurance@gmail.com
Subject:"Ole Juryless, Constitution Out The Window Probate Judge Bailey"--The Republican candidate for
next attorney General of California
PROBATE JUDGE STEVEN BAILEY, CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FROM THE "PROBATE BENCH"-
-----"Ole Juryless, Constitution Out The Window Bailey"--The Republican candidate for next attorney General of
California
Steven Bailey, GOP nominee for California attorney general, faces ethics panel
Former judge Steven Bailey is accused of using his office to further his statewide campaign, improperly accepting gifts
and steering business to a firm where his son worked
Steven Bailey, GOP nominee for California attorney general, faces ethics panel
Steven Bailey, GOP nominee for California
attorney general, faces ethics panel
Former judge Steven Bailey is accused of using his office to further his
statewide campaign, improperly acceptin...
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lisa Mogull <lmogull@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking rules
Ms. Mayor,
While I've always loved Palo Alto, my most recent visit was incredibly frustrating. Palo Alto parking rules are unclear +
unfair.
I parked my rental car in a "Coral" zone and moved it within the two hours. When we weren't ready to leave, carefully
following the sign not to "repark in the same color." I parked in a "purple" zone. Since my son was still having fun in the
hotel pool, we decided to stay a bit longer so I moved the car into a non‐purple zone (in front of the Police Station). I
returned 20 minutes later to a $41 ticket for "reparking in Coral." The sign didn't have a time period so I assumed that
since I didn't immediately repark in the same color it was fine. While I wasn't educated at Stanford, I am law‐abiding
(this was literally my 1st ticket ‐‐ I'm in my 50s) and smart enough not to intentionally flout the law in front of City Hall.
I just had a hearing and lost my case. According to the Judge, Palo Alto doesn't think it needs to put "anymore words on
the sign." That's just plain unfair. If the sign had said "no reparking the same day" I wouldn't have. Under the
circumstances, a $41 fine is egregious.
Change the rules or change the signs. It's only fair. Parking signs/rules shouldn't be mensa puzzles.
Thank you.
Lisa Mogull
1
Carnahan, David
From:Xiaofang Zhu <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com>
Sent:Friday, September 21, 2018 7:59 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian;
Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:Please Support Castilleja
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Xiaofang Zhu and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a Community resident and supporter of
Castilleja School.
Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close
the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more
young women is central to furthering that mission.
As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community
partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust
Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the
admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.
Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,
Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.
Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our
wonderful city.
Sincerely,
Xiaofang Zhu
zhuxiaofangcn@gmail.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kate Crane <katecrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Private truck use of city property / noise / hazard
Dear City Council,
I hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you can help me and my building with an ongoing problem.
In January of this year I moved into 530 Webster St., a building just below University, that is very close to the Webster
Cowper parking garage. In fact, one of the entrances to this garage is adjacent to my building, and the side of the
building where I sleep.
Monday through Friday, from about 7 AM until the end of the day, massive commercial trucks reverse into the public
accessway to the garage. Reverse means one thing: backup beeps. The sound is deafening. I sleep in earplugs, but
earplugs can’t block out trash trucks or back up beeps.
Trash trucks are an essential and valuable part of city life. They are also once or twice a week. These commercial trucks,
eight hours a day, using public space without, I’m presuming, paying for it, are not. For every truck that reverses into
that space, the backup beeps go on for about a minute.
I work typical Silicon Valley hours and I’m not home much during the day. But I am routinely woken up by these private
trucks, as I tend to work until one or two in the morning. And it simply is not an option for me to spend a day at home
during the week or to work from home. Because these trucks are too loud!
In addition to the noise, these trucks present a ridiculous and unnecessary traffic hazard. Every day I see cars having
near collisions trying to navigate the single lane that’s left when the trucks take up (more than) one lane. It’s scary to be
a pedestrian trying to navigate this – which is often me on my way to Caltrain.
Could you please help put a stop to this? I would love to stay in this building for several years. My property manager is
LeVett – the very best. And it’s a beautiful building in a great location.
Kind regards,
Kate Crane
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:58 AM
To:Eggleston, Brad
Cc:Peter Ko; Michael Morgan; Bill Henn; Nafziger, Mike; Safe, Paige; Lait, Jonathan; Andrew Wong; Jaime
Wong; Rafael, Henry; Morse, Rosemary; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Public Works Building Permit Review
Good morning Mr. Eggleston,
Public records show that the drawings for Public Works's approval related to the Building Permit for 429
University Ave was submitted to Public Works on August 31, 2018, with a response due date of Sept 14,
2018. We have not had a response.
This is the third iteration of the review of the drawings; the initial Building Permit set was submitted on March
2, 2018.
The purpose of this email is to bring to your attention this delay in response and, secondly, to ask for your help
in getting Public Works approval for the Building Permit. The Building Permit has been extensively delayed
causing major cost increases to the 429 University Ave project. Please be aware that ALL departments have
approved the project with the exception of Public Works and as stated below.
In regards to the Planning Department, public records show that: "The applicant has satisfied conditions and
mitigation measures, excluding Conditions of Approval 3a, b, and c, for issuance of demo and building
permits." Conditions 3a, b, and c relate to material board, landscaping plants and a western wall design
which are under review by Minor Architectural Review Board and which are totally independent of the Public
Works review process.
The Minor ARB review has been unduly delayed by the Planning Department as the records show that it had
not scheduled the Minor ARB hearing until August 16, 2018, despite our continuous request for such hearing
stipulated the the Land Use Approval letter by City Council dated February 6, 2017. This is an unreasonable
delay of more than a year after Council approved the project, specially in view that the Applicant by code has
1 year to obtain the Building Permit.
Please set up a meeting to discuss the project as it relates to Public Works.
Thank you and congratulations on your promotion.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:12 PM
To:Loran Harding; bballpod; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; huidentalsanmateo; Mayor; Mark Standriff;
Mark Kreutzer; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack;
Doug Vagim; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; terry; Council, City; kfsndesk;
newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; jerry ruopoli; nick yovino; Chris Field; Steven Feinstein;
francis.collins@nih.gov; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv Weissman; info@superide1.com; Joel Stiner; Jason
Tarvin; kclark; leager; midge@thebarretts.com; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com;
pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; Tom Lang; Mark
Waldrep; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu
Subject:Re: Amarin Corp's Vascepa fish oil derived heart drug
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:55 AM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:50 AM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Tues. Sept. 25, 2018
Dr. Burns. NBR last night reported the stock of Amarin, AMRN, jumped 314% yesterday to $12.40. Wish I'd sold
my house in July when it was $2.25.
Their fish oil derived heart drug is Vascepa. It will cost $2,400 or so but patients with commercial insurance will
pay $3/month. Huge improvement in cardio outcomes in clinical trials. Statins lower cardio risk 25‐35% but this drug
addresses the remaining 65‐75%. It reduces that the additional risk by another 25%!
Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. URL is www.amarincorp.com.
Here is the CEO talking yesterday about the clinical results:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/24/amarin‐ceo‐on‐vascepa‐heart‐drug‐trial.html
Small cap stock. Today at 11:39 AM it was $12.93, up $.53, up another 4.27% today.
The interviewer kept asking him if the Co. had the money to ramp up production. Uncle Sam will supply blank
checks to do that, I think. Think of the Medicare saving if they can cut the risk of HA and strokes a lot.
LH
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 23, 2018 3:10 PM
To:Markham Plaza Tenant Association
Cc:scottlargent38@gmail.com; Be Judged
Subject:Re: Fw: Cindy Alvarez Letter - Markham Plaza
Hi Jason, A little background on the names you mentioned: Linda was one of the major players involved from 2012 when Lee was abusing conservatees at Villa Fontana and the Markham Plaza . Lee was forced to resign in wake of the EAH Housing scandal, robert's death and HUD violations at other places. was one on the main culprits to blame for Robert death and had to
transfer back to Marin County / San Rafael where EAH Housing is based.
Markham Plaza's lawyer Ryan and Lee were practicaly next door neighbors, living just a few doors
down from each other in San Rafael. presided over Heidi eviction and also evicted Mark
from his mother's home so Lee could steal the house. would in turn get kick backs for this in the
form of home loans.
Villa Fontana was getting massive national attention because of the same people who were abusiing Heidi and working shady back room deals with Markham Plaza property management. Cary tried to politely warn the management that if they proceeded with their attacks, they would likely end up in the middle of the spotlight, which is exactly what happened. They threw themselves into the spotlight and killed Robert while people from all over the country watched in horror. Robert was isolated much like Giselle was even though he was not conserved. Giselle eventualy was to
have visitors but Robert ended up getting cut off from outside help and lost his life because of it. In both cases,
they flipped the script trying to make it look like legitimate problem-solving advocates were menacing, threatening
trouble makers.
James and Angela both were homicide prosecutors during this time period and worked together to
cover up the circumstances behind Robert's death. During this time period they systematicly worked in collusion with
the county coronor's office covering up murders. That is why and are creating fake records in their
malicious prosecution of Cary trying to make him appear menacing and threatening. They are scrambling to fabricate evidence after the fact to cover their asses and create false justification for why they did not handle earlier situations differently. Judge should not even have been working at the time. 53 days earlier, his was killed in combat fighting alleged terrorists in Afganistan. was obviously distraught and mentaly unstable and obsessing on terrorists and terrorism. In court, Judge accused several hundred people of plotting a terror attack against Markham Plaza who were advocating for fair housing rights and rights of conservatees, and trying to channel federal funding to empower the residents.
The court system is liable and should never have allowed someone in mental state to work.
Don't forget to follow up with Scott about what is happening to you and the others.
Cindy
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 4:34 PM From: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>
To: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Cindy Alvarez Letter - Markham Plaza
Cindy I am hoping you can come to the hotel I am staying at for the moment.
2
Cindy I just tried calling you number and it could not be reaxhed.
I am at Fontaine Inn 408- - Room
2460 Fontaine Road, San Jose, CA 95121
Please call or see me asap as
Jason
669- -
I want to go over my reply and I am writing an email to Linda of Cedar California which is investigating and
has lobby to protect people from conservertorship and they are making laws to help and Investigating Lee of
Santa Clara county. I am hoping to Ally the Markham Plaza Tenant Association with them as I am under attack illegally evicted and I need an organization thats fighting for senior and disabled people like they are. I will send you a copy of the email. To make clear Tom from HUD that told you had sent info to the Attorney General I believe lied to you because I sent him an email a week ago about EAH giving me an illegal 3 day notice to quit and Unlawful Detainer and Shelsy also filed a restraining order against me and its all retaliation for complaing to HUD and fighting for peoples rights. I complained how San Jose Housing Department would not enforce their own San Jose Tenant Protection
Ordinance when it came to Markham Plaza and more. So Tom sends my email to him to Kimberly telling
her to send it to San Jose Housing so they can help me. He sends it to the ones I'm complaing about and not to AG.
Also I asked to have UD rescinded and she sent it but got no response from housing Department and got Sheriff's
notice to remove me first minute of last Wednesday so I had to leave by Tuesday midnight.
Jason
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:30 PM Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com> wrote: Jason, I recieved this letter from Shirley at HUD. Cindy
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 at 11:24 PM
From: " Shirley" <Shirley @hud.gov>
To: "cindy.alvarez@mail.com" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Subject: Cindy Alvarez Letter - Markham Plaza
Please see attached file for your copy.
-- Jason Markham Plaza Tenant Association Fair and Healthy Housing for all markhamplazata@gmail.com 669- -
1
Carnahan, David
From:m m <mmPaLoAlTo@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 22, 2018 1:58 PM
To:Raj Shetty; Council, City
Subject:Re: RVs in Palo Alto
Attachments:IMG_1251.jpg
All, so now there are even MORE RV's, more dirt and more RV's parked on the sidewalk on El Camino. Now
they are showing up at our parks, example Peers Park On Park Boulevard, see attached photo. Why is it
impossible for me to get a clear answer to as why these RV's are allowed to park on El Camino camping
overnight, not moving their vehicles, dumping trash outside, occasional needles laying around, gas generators
running etc What has happened here? Why is this allowed? Please do something to make this illegal which it
should have been all along.
mm
I vote and this matters
From: m m
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 6:50:24 PM
To: Raj Shetty
Subject: Re: RVs in Palo Alto
Hi Raj, thank you for your response.
I refuse to use use google docs as I have found it very insecure. I have had documents made available for me
to view which were confidential and belonged to companies of which I have no connection. With that said I
guess councilman Tanaka does not want to include the public. I would like to know what is being done by the
city of Palo Alto to have these RV's removed from our City Streets?
mm
From: Raj Shetty <raj.shetty@gregtanaka.org>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:49:33 PM
To: Raj Shetty
Subject: RVs in Palo Alto
Hello,
My name is Raj and I am a legislative aide for Councilmember Tanaka. I am writing to you on his behalf.
You are receiving this email because you wrote to the Palo Alto City Council expressing concerns regarding
RVs in Palo Alto. Councilman Tanaka wishes to connect those with similar interests together.
If you wish to be included in this discussion, please respond to me within a week stating your intention to do so.
After a week, I will send out a Google Group invite to all those that are interested. From there, those in the
group will be able to discuss opinions on RVs.
2
Have a great week.
Regards,
Raj
Raj Shetty | Legislative Aide
Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka’s Office
W: www.GregTanaka.org | D: 650.503.4329 | E: raj.shetty@gregtanaka.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or
disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and
delete the message. Views I state are my own and may not represent those of the full Council.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jarrett Miller <jarrettmiller@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request for the City Council to Examine the Keeping of Poultry on Property Adjacent to a PUD.
Importance:High
City Council Members:
Although I cannot believe I am writing this next sentence… I live in the City of Palo Alto and I have had an ongoing issue
with a neighbor and their chickens. I have had much discussion with Animal Control over the issue. I have also
contacted the City Attorney regarding this to see what might be done. Animal control was extremely diligent, but I did
not hear back from the City Attorney and am now reaching out to you, the City Council Members for the City of Palo
Alto.
I own a condo in the Palo Alto Redwoods Condominiums. My condo is probably 100’ from a home with the maximum
number of chickens allowed under city ordinance. There are, I believe, 300 condos in this PUD and other condos are
much closer to the property line – and therefore to the chickes. I am not sure the variety of bird, but these are
extremely loud chickens. My condo is at least 100’ away and every morning I am awaken by the birds if I am not already
up when they begin to stir. They will never sleep past 7:15 and are extremely noisy. Given the volume of chicken
sounds in my unit, it must be much louder in closer units. They are loudest in the morning, but the birds continue to
make noise throughout the day. In fact, I am writing this email at 3:20 in the afternoon and the birds are still making
noise which can be heard inside my condo. On occasion, the owners leave town or slept late and the unfed birds are
even more noisy than normal.
It should be noted that the bird owners have a permit from the city. They were in violation of ordinances and had to
relocate their coop 20’ farther away from the property line, but that did little to alleviate the noise issue. Also, it should
be noted that I have spoken with the owners to ask if there was a way they could somehow quiet the birds. That
conversation did not go well.
Ultimately, I would like the City Council to re‐examine Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code. If I need to formally petition the
city council to review the laws associated with livestock in the City Limits of Palo Alto, I can do that. Please just let me
know how to make that petition.
I find Palo Alto to be very consistent in its laws. The city does a very good job dealing with density issues. In this
situation, I cannot understand why one family is allowed to keep nuisance animals so close to a PUD with hundreds of
families. It does not seem logical that density is not a factor in the decision to grant licenses for livestock or poultry
within the city limits of Palo Alto. It absolutely should be a factor.
A lot has changed since 1894 and – if the City Council were drafting the city’s municipal code today ‐ I cannot imagine
the Council would allow for poultry or livestock to be kept so close to a PUD with hundreds of families. In essence, the
desire of one family for fresh eggs should not outweigh the desire of 100 families to sleep past 7:15 in the morning – or
to be free of nuisance animal noises throughout the day.
I would ask that the City Council review Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code and consider density in its equation for
approval. I would also say that neighbors should be allowed to block the issuance of permits for poultry and livestock in
2
adjacent properties. I would also suggest that Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code be considered as the rights of the many
should outweigh the desire of the few to keep pets.
I would also invite the City Council to speak with Bill Warrior and his boss Cody McCartney from Animal Control. I
personally know of other Palo Alto Citizens in other parts of town that have similar problems with neighbors and their
chickens. Mine is NOT an isolated issue. Mr. Warrior will tell you the keeping of chickens is trendy and “in vogue” at the
moment. I can guarantee the Council there are many more chicken coops in the City than there are permits for chicken
ownership.
Thank you.
Jarrett
Jarrett Miller
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sleeping in Johnson park
Attachments:IMG_1678.jpg; ATT00001.txt
There is usually the guy on a daily basis under the redwood tree but now we have someone sleeping in the sand. Is there
a way to do more monitoring at night for sleepovers Thanks Amy
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 19, 2018 6:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tweet by UN Climate Change on Twitter
UN Climate Change (@UNFCCC)
9/19/18, 05:54
Governments need to raise carbon prices much faster if they are to meet their commitments on cutting greenhouse
emissions and slowing the pace of #climatechange under the #ParisAgreement ‐ @OECD > bit.ly/2PLb16H
#GlobalGoals pic.twitter.com/2M3e7Kc6k7
Download the Twitter app
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)