HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180924plCC 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: 9/24/2018
Document dates: 9/5/2018 – 9/12/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 11:42 AM
To:Cindy Lee Russell; Joe Simitian
Subject:20% FLU shot NOT proved safe--on shot insert
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
FROM Autism Action Network <jgilmore@autismactionnetwork.org, Sep 12, 2018
Flu vaccine safety not proved say shot inserts
Rice study predicts 2018's flu shot will be 20% effective, same as past
two
years. It finds egg adaptations will limit the efficacy of new flu
vaccine. http://news.rice.edu/2018/04/19/study-predicts-2018-flu-vaccine-will-
have-20-percent-efficacy-2/
"Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone Quadrivalent have NOT been
established in pregnant women or children less than 6 months of age."
(from the package insert. Or for Adacel or other flu shot inserts below.)
"... stop this policy of giving untested vaccines to pregnant women, and
providing liability protection to those who profit from this unsafe practice."
By John Gilmore, Director fo Autism Action Network
Please call your representatives in Washington and ask them to stop a
new federal regulation that would give complete legal liability protection to
vaccines makers, and the physicians who administer them, for vaccines
given to pregnant women, even though vaccines are not evaluated for
efficacy or safety in pregnant women or their babies. This regulation
would close a current loophole in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
and open-up a whole new market for the vaccine industry.
The regulation would allow the CDC to confer liability protection upon issuing a
recommendation that pregnant women get a vaccine. This regulation will allow
all children in the womb to be used as subjects for what amounts to medical
experiments. We are now at the point where we will not require even the most
minimal safety measures to protect children in the womb.
All federal regulations have a public comment period so please click on the
link below to send a message to the Department of Health and Human Services,
your members of Congress, and the White House demanding the rejection of this
reckless regulation.
http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=80542656&queueid=11738540311
Currently, flu shots and the diptheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT) are recommended
for pregnant women by the CDC, even though they exist in a legal gray area this
regulation is intended to resolve. The package inserts required and approved by the
2
FDA of all flu shots and DPT shots clearly state that the safety and efficacy of the product
on pregnant women is not known.
“Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine have not been established in pregnant
women. (8.1)” according to the package insert for Sanofi’s Adacel DPT shot, currently
recommended for pregnant women. See it here:
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm
142764.pdf
Similarly, the package insert for Fluzone, the most commonly used flu shot in the US, states,
“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone Quadrivalent have not been established
in pregnant women or children less than 6 months of age.” See it here:
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm
356094.pdf
One study, however, found a significant correlation between autism in children
(20% increase) and their mother getting a flu shot in the first trimester of pregnancy.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2587559
The public comment period is open through October 1, and you can see the proposed
regulation (83 FR14391) here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04-04/pdf/2018-
06770.pdf
Please share this message with friends and family and please share on social networks. The names of your two California US Senators and your Representative in the House with their
Washington phone numbers should be below. Please politely call their offices
and ask to speak to an aide who deals with health issues, and ask him or her to stop
this policy of giving untested vaccines to pregnant women, and providing
liability protection to those who profit from this unsafe practice.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (202) 224‐3841
Sen. Kamala Harris, (202) 224‐3553 press_Harris@harris.senate.gov
Rep. Ro Khanna, (202) 225‐2631 . info@rokhanna.com
State legislative update to the Palo Alto City Council
September 10, 2018
Agenda item 2
Niccolo De Luca
Sr. Director, Northern CA
Townsend Public Affairs
Since 1998, Townsend Public Affairs has provided strategic legislative services primarily to public
agencies and non-profit companies. Townsend has worked with the City of Palo Alto for almost 5 years,
and is extension of city staff, located in Sacramento. The below post-session update supplements
today's verbal Council presentation:
Bills with City positions
• AB 2308 (Stone): The City supported this bill that would ban the sale of single use filter cigarettes.
Status: Failed
• AB 2809 (Patterson): The City supported this bill, aimed at allowing energy from large hydroelectric
generation to become an eligible renewable resource for purposes of the State's Renewable
Portfolio Standard. Status: Failed
• AB 3014 (Quirk): The City opposed this bill that would have exempted certain vehicles from the
requirement to reduce copper in brake material. Status: Failed
• SB 998 (Dodd). The City has an opposed position on this bill that would imposes many restrictior:is on
water utilities before terminating residential water service to non-paying customers. Status: Passed;
to the Governor
• SB 212 (Jackson). The City has a support position on this bill that will create a pharmaceutical waste
and sharps take-back program, operated by manufactures. Status: Passed; to the Governor
• SB 328 (Portantino). Tlie City submitted a letter of concern regarding student safety to the author of
this bill that would mandate middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30. Status: Passed; to
the Governor
• SB 827 (Wiener). The City opposed this bill that would have increased zoning densities and building .
heights around major transit hubs. Status: Failed
• SB 881 (Wieckowski): The City has a support position on this bill that will help authorize funding for
the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project. Status: Passed; to the Governor
The Governor has until September 30 to act on bills.
In addition to legislative activities, Townsend works with City staff to identify funding for City projects.
For example, the recently passed Prop. 68 will provide $4 billion in new bond funding for projects
related to park improvements, ground water and water recycling, water quality, and the like.
Concerning grade separations, a potential for future funding comes from 2017's SB 1, which created the
Road Repair and Accountability Act. The Act invests $54 billion over a 10 year period to fix roads,
freeways and bridges, and puts more dollars toward transit and safety. Funds are split equally between
state and local investments, with money earmarked to public transit projects.
Lastly, should Palo Alto wish to sponsor state legislation, Townsend highly recommends crafting any bills
in mid-Nov~mber. This allows time to propose a final draft to potential authors in early December, in
advance of the 2019 session, beginning in early January.
2
1
Carnahan, David
From:Respicio, Maryknol <mrespicio@rutan.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 4:03 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:RE: 9/10/18 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #12
Attachments:2018 0910 Letter to Mayor and City Council re Renewal of Objections to C....pdf
Please see attached correspondence from David Lanferman regarding tonight’s Agenda Item #12.
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 & 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:Dennis Martin <dmartin@biabayarea.org>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 9:49 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Agenda 9.10.18 Item 13
Attachments:BIA PA CityCouncil 9.10.18 Item 13 RHNA Subregion.pdf
Greetings Mayor and Council,
Please accept and consider the BIA Bay Area recommendations contained within the letter attached to this message.
You may contact me with any questions or comments.
City Clerk, please make this letter part of the public record.
Thank you,
Dennis Martin
BIA Government Affairs
408‐294‐5687
SEPTEMBER 7, 2018
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
PALO ALTO CITY HALL
250 HAMILTON AVE.
PALO ALTO, CA
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
RE: Palo Alto City Council September 10, 2018 Item 13 - Discussion of Establishing a Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) Sub-region
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
BIA Bay Area is optimistic that the Santa Clara County Subregional RHNA Task Force will succeed in its
goal of implementing a new process for cooperation, planning, and achievement of regional housing
needs. Cooperation is especially necessary in what has become an increasingly adversarial
intermunicipal environment that has severe consequences for development. The Cities Association is to
be acknowledged for its preliminary proposals supporting the goal of a subregional RHNA cooperation
agreement.
As a housing production “report card”, RHNA’s ability to predict housing needs, especially market rate
housing has been woefully inadequate, as the CA Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and others have
shown. Poor RHNA projections on market rate housing have allowed jurisdictions to slow or stop
approvals, contending that the need for market rate housing has been met and no more need be built.
According to the LAO:
Rather than suggesting that home building levels are sufficient in California’s coastal areas, the
fact that permitting has kept pace with RHNA targets in these areas may suggest that these
production goals do not reflect the full extent of demand for housing in these areas. Production
goals likely need to be higher if the high cost of and intense competition for housing in these
areas is to be curbed.
BIA makes the following recommendations regarding the RHNA Subregional plan:
• The process of developing RHNA projections should be improved to better account for
unmet housing demand. Incorporate economic indicators such as vacancy, rental rates, and
job growth to give communities a better projection of housing need.
• The overall goal of the effort should be for the combined jurisdictions to approve more new
housing than otherwise would have been approved under the default RHNA distribution.
This suggests that any proposed transfer must be able to demonstrate that it will result in
more new units and/or more efficient and streamlined entitlement in the receiving
jurisdiction.
• Receiving jurisdictions should commit to work with developers to complete general plan and
zoning approvals in anticipation of transfers.
• Receiving jurisdictions should have a demonstrated track record of approving adequate new
housing for all income levels and if they do not, transfers should be conditioned on advance
general plan and zoning being in place.
• No transfer should be approved if it has the effect of reducing or eliminating the
applicability of SB 35 streamlining to the transferring jurisdiction.
• Transfers should be conditional and the transfer reversed if the units are not actually built
within a specified time from the date of the transfer.
It is an undisputed fact that there is a critical need to address the crisis of housing affordability
throughout the Silicon Valley region, including the City of Palo Alto. The LAO and many other authorities
have assessed that housing affordability has become a crisis due to a chronic lack of housing supply,
recent explosive regional job growth, the termination of redevelopment by the state legislature and the
failure of cities to plan and zone land that adequately accommodates future housing needs. These
economic, political and social factors ought to be addressed by a wide range of resources including
major revisions to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Should the City of Palo Alto continue support for the Santa Clara County RHNA Subregional Task Force,
BIA stresses that the measure must be laser focused on a primary outcome: increasing housing supply
throughout the region at all income levels.
Yours truly,
Dennis Martin
BIA|Bay Area
Government Affairs
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 5:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: VTA Reso #6 3 - Oppose Position on Proposition 6
Attachments:image001.jpg; ATT00001.htm; VTA Reso #6 3 - Oppose Position on Proposition 6.pdf; ATT00002.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gentry, Lapreasha" <Lapreasha.Gentry@vta.org>
Date: September 7, 2018 at 3:46:47 PM PDT
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
Subject: VTA Reso #6 3 ‐ Oppose Position on Proposition 6
Hello City Clerk,
Attached is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) adopted resolution opposing
Proposition 6 on the November 2018 ballot, which would repeal Senate Bill 1 (Beall), the “Road Repair
and Accountability Act of 2017” and require voter approval of future transportation fuel tax and vehicle
fee increases. We would ask if you could please share the attached resolution with your Council
Members. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Manolo Gonzalez‐Estay at
manolo.gonzalez‐estay@vta.org or at (408) 321‐5866.
Sincerely,
1
Carnahan, David
From:David L Vander Wilt <vanderwilt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 9, 2018 2:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear council members:
I strongly urge you to collectively and individually oppose the adoption of measure F.
I am a recently retired dentist having practiced in Palo Alto as a sole proprietor for over forty years. Having carefully read
this proposal I see that it’s implementation would only increase the direct cost of care and result in higher costs to
patients. The immense amount of bureaucratic paperwork and detailed accounting would certainly encourage dentists
NOT to practice in Palo Alto. I leave it to the attorneys and courts to determine if such a scheme is even constitutional.
Since I no longer practice dentistry this proposal has minimal effect on me personally. However, I could not let such a
bad idea go unanswered. I am unable to attend the meeting September 10.
For full disclosure I do lease some office space to healthcare practitioners in Palo Alto.
Respectfully,
David L van der Wilt,DDS
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Angelina Bena <angelinabena@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 31, 2018 2:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ordinance for Relocation Assistance for No-Fault Evictions
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
My parents are honorable landlords. They take good care of their property, are kind and responsive to tenants, and get
below‐market rent because they don't feel it is right for them to take advantage of others. They understand that it is a
privilege to own property in Palo Alto (one that they could never do if they tried to buy in the current market) and want
others to raise their families in a community that positively influenced their own.
My parents would be forced to dramatically increase future rent on their rentals if you extend the ordinance to include
smaller rental developments. Even though my father has never evicted a tenant from his properties, he would be forced
to protect himself if he needed to do so. This would mean he would need to increase the rent on future tenants. Other
landlords will have to do the same thing. All of his current tenants would not be able to afford that increase ‐ thus
pricing out a population that currently resides in Palo Alto.
I understand that no‐fault evictions can be difficult. But as long as we have high demand for housing and low supply ‐
tenants will have a difficult time. Please look to the housing crisis with an eye focused on sustainability. I fear that the
extension of this ordinance will in fact make things worse...causing even me to leave the town that has been my home
for 30 years.
Many Thanks,
Angelina Bena Michael
College Terrace Resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:JoAn Chace <joanechace@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 1, 2018 10:57 AM
To:William M. Chace
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Relocation assistance
To City Council Members Liz Kniss, Greg Tanaka, and Greg Scharff:
May I repeat to you this lead paragraph in The Palo Alto Weekly editorial for August 31?
"A five‐person majority of the Palo City Council early Tuesday was ready to vote for a staff proposal to require the
owners of the city’s largest apartment complexes to pay relocation assistance to any tenant they evict without cause.”
Why did you three interrupt this unremarkably normal process? What the staff recommended in assistance is in line
with the policy of other cities. The dollar amounts of assistance are reasonable. Why did you step in to overrule the
staff report and block the will of the majority?
The answer cannot be that you had a better plan for the citizens who vote for you and whom you represent. You three
forced an option that may sound reasonable‐‐to help only those whose incomes are below the county’s median income
level—but it is a policy that in practice will help very few of your fellow citizens. To quote the Weekly again, the policy
which you forced on the majority while at the same time ignoring the staff “is likely to result in very few payments being
made, since rents are so high in Palo Alto that most tenants earning less than the county’s median income level can't
afford to live here in the first place.”
Why did you not follow the staff report, or the practice of Santa Monica, or the will of the council majority? This is a
time when all around you people recognize that the expense of housing here harms individuals, the city (long commutes
for city workers), and our innate sense of fairness.
We are puzzled by your action and embarrassed to see members of our council perform an action that appears to us as
downright shameful: you used a bad procedure in the council to impose a bad policy on the city. And for what?
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 9:24 PM
To:Judy Adams; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Council, City
Subject:Monday PA Council Needs to Hear from YOU
The President Hotel residents need your support this coming Monday when two important items are
addressed, renter protections, and getting rid of 100% of AMI. Check out the Monday agenda and
either send an email to city council, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org asking council members to
support the residents. They are now defining their most important points, and I will send these to folks before
the meeting.
Many thanks,
Roberta
1
Carnahan, David
From:Raj B Apte <bhleh3e@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 8:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Renter proposals
Council members,
While I do understand the desire to provide assistance to renters as prices here increase, I'd like to recommend in the
strongest possible terms that you forbear and do nothing. There are many good neighbors who are getting priced out,
both renters and would‐be owners, but we already have a strong mechanism for ensuring diversity of older, lower
income residents: Prop 13. Many of my Ventura neighbors are working class and retired‐‐and many of the pay less than
a thousand dollars per year in property taxes. Please resist the desire to do more‐‐it will reduce the stock of housing
and/or be costly.
I feel strongly enough that I will use this issue to determine my future votes. I want a city council that is planning for the
future, not clinging to tired old ideas like rent control.
Raj B Apte, PhD
Ventura, Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:G.K. Young <ypmanagement@outlook.com>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 5:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES AND RELOCATION PAYMENTS
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to reject the colleague's memo authored by Councilmembers Holman,
DuBois, Kou, and Wolbach.
Requiring property owners to pay relocation payments unless rent increases are
capped is rent control.
The council already adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no-fault
evictions. Please do not create more legal hurdles and financial burdens on property
owners. These proposals jeopardize my ability to continue to provide safe, stable, and
reliable housing for Palo Alto residents.
The City Council rejected these proposals last October 2017. There’s no need to
debate this again.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto.
Work with housing providers to educate the community on existing renter protections
such as the city’s minimum lease terms and mediation.
The only way our housing problem can be alleviated is by focusing on providing more
housing units and not continue to punish housing providers with costly mandates that
will increase the cost of providing homes for Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Gordon K Young, CCRM
YP MANAGEMENT
PO BOX 50846
PALO ALTO, CA 94303‐0670
650/740‐2624
1
Carnahan, David
From:Chuntao Liao <chuntao.liao@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 6:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No Rent Control in Palo Alto, please!
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I am a Palo Alto resident who owns home in Arbutus Ave and have been living here for over 10 years. I urge
you to reject the colleagues memo authored by Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, Kou, and Wolbach,
requiring property owners to pay relocation payments unless rent increases are capped is rent control.
The council already adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no-fault evictions. Please do not
create more legal hurdles and financial burdens on property owners. These proposals jeopardize my ability to
continue to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents.
The City Council rejected these proposals last October 2017. There’s no need to debate this again.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Work with housing
providers to educate the community on existing renter protections such as the city’s minimum lease terms and
mediation.
The only way our housing problem can be alleviated is by focusing on providing more housing units and not
continue to punish housing providers with costly mandates that will increase the cost of providing homes for
Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Chuntao Liao, resident of Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 10:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rents do come down when free market forces change
Dear Council members,
Rents do come down when market forces change:
In San Francisco, the most expensive major rental market in the US, rents peaked in October 2015,
then began to descend sharply before starting to tick up again, but remain below their 2015 peak.
2
Update on the Rental Bubbles & Crashes in US Cities
3
Update on the Rental Bubbles & Crashes
in US Cities
Asking rents spiral down in Chicago & Honolulu, come unglued in
Washington DC, drift lower in New York City,...
Best Wishes,
Larry Alton
1
Carnahan, David
From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 10:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control/RelocationPayments Issue
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I strongly urge you to reject the colleagues memo authored by Councilmembers Holman, DuBois,
Kou, and Wolbach.
Requiring property owners to pay relocation payments unless rent increases are capped IS rent
control.
The council already adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no-fault evictions.
Please do not create more legal hurdles and financial burdens on property owners. These proposals
jeopardize and well eliminate my ability to continue to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for
Palo Alto residents.
The City Council rejected these proposals last October 2017. There’s no need to debate this again.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Work with
housing providers to educate the community on existing renter protections such as the city’s minimum
lease terms and mediation.
The only way our housing problem can be alleviated is by focusing on providing more housing units
and not continue to punish housing providers with costly mandates that will increase the cost of
providing homes for Palo Alto residents.
Sincerely,
Michael Maurier
Palo Alto Resident
2
Carnahan, David
From:Rodgers, Jeff <JRodgers@ngkf.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Relocation Payments
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to reject the colleagues memo authored by Councilmembers Holman, DuBois, Kou, and Wolbach, requiring
property owners to pay relocation payments unless rent increases are capped is rent control.
The council already adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no‐fault evictions. Please do not create
more legal hurdles and financial burdens on property owners, and don’t mandate how I’m to run my business as a small
business owner. These proposals jeopardize my ability to continue to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo
Alto residents.
The City Council rejected these proposals last October 2017. There’s no need to debate this again.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Work with housing providers to
educate the community on existing renter protections such as the city’s minimum lease terms and mediation.
The only way our housing problem can be alleviated is by focusing on providing more housing units and not continue to
punish housing providers with costly mandates that will increase the cost of providing homes for Palo Alto residents.
Best,
Property Owner of 875 & 861 University Ave.
Jeffrey A. Rodgers
Executive Managing Director
CA RE License #00942763
Newmark Knight Frank
3055 Olin Avenue, Suite 2200
San Jose, CA 95128
D 408.987.4143 F 408.988.6340
jrodgers@ngkf.com Profile
RE License #00942763
3
þ Save a Tree - Think Before You Print. Sustainably Newmark Cornish & Carey.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error,
please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
NOTICE: This e‐mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient, and may
contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or take any action in reliance
upon this message and any attachments, and we request that you promptly notify the sender and immediately delete
this message and any attachments as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message to an unintended recipient is
not intended to waive any right or privilege. Newmark Knight Frank is neither qualified nor authorized to give legal or tax
advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own
choosing.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 9:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:pay relocation due to sizable rent increase
Dear City Council,
Controlling rents (via relocation payments due to sizable rent increases) to provide lower housing
costs is futile and will result in fewer apartments and even higher rents. Free market forces will work
best. When rents are too high in Palo Alto, companies will hire in other locations with lower housing
costs and workers will want to take those jobs rather than ones in Palo Alto.
Recent Mountain View rent controlled Landlords are selling their apartments and or redeveloping them
into single family home development, retail, office, startups, etc. spaces which results in fewer
apartments available.
Costs of mortgages, repairs, remodeling and maintenance, utilities (you know about these), landscaping, gardeners, taxes, are also going up. You can not keep up with all of these costs and try to adjust the relocation payments to compensate.
Real Estate is a business like any other business, ie restaurants. You don't tell a restaurant owner how
much to charge for the food he serves or put limits on meal increases. If meal prices go up too much at a
restaurant in Palo Alto, customers will go elsewhere.
Best Wishes,
Larry Alton
1
Carnahan, David
From:Erika Enos <erika.enos@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent Control on tonight's agenda
Dear City Council Members:
Rent control, in the abstract, seems a reasonable way to monitor out of control rent increases
which displace residents in Palo Alto who add to the flavor & diversity of our population.
All of these populations are desirable and make Palo Alto the vibrant city it has been for a long time and we all hope it
continues to be.
The reality is, however, that we live in a market based, capitalistic society and income property
is an investment which people hold in the anticipation of making an income. When rents are looked at, all too often the
costs of income property are overlooked: mortgage, property taxes, insurance and maintenance and in some cases
utilities are not factored into the net profit of a property owner when rent is calculated.
These costs are bourn by the owners whether rent is being received or not.
Since profit & loss is the basis of income property ownership ‐ let's look at the wak‐a‐mo that rent control would
create. Since mortgage, property taxes, & insurance are fixed costs the only
area that property owners can use to balance out higher costs vs lower rent is maintenance.
Consequently, repairs and maintenance to rentals will be curtailed, put‐off or just not done.
The renters, in the end , wind up paying the price of shoddy living conditions. minimal repairs,
and total lack of upgrades.
A road trip to Berkeley will illustrate the general condition of properties in that rent control town.
In the '80's many owners just walked away from their properties in NYC because the costs
of maintaining their properties plus the costs involved in owning the properties just did not make financial sense, based
on rent control laws. It was cheaper to just walk away from these properties and huge housing stock was lost to those
who needed housing.
We are a supply & demand society so why not create more supply to satisfy the demand.
The passage of the ADU ordinance in my view, makes the most sense since Palo Alto has limited development area and
residents don't want hi‐rises in town.
However ‐ the City's onerous approval process and high costs of permit application (even if the ADU is NOT approved)
make the addition of ADU's not practical for many of the residents who can most benefit from these structures to
supplement income and allow owners to stay in Palo Alto, while creating more low impact housing units for renters.
‐‐ Respectfully‐‐
--erika enos--
2110 Columbia St. PA
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Massey <jimmasters8@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 2:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rent control
This well meaning plan will not work. The situation does not require this type of action. I urge a no vote. Do not over
react. Thank you. Jim Massey
3
Carnahan, David
From:Keller, Jeff <jeff@jkeller.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 2:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Council Agenda Item 14 - rental home costs
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to reject the colleague’s memo authored by Council Members Cory Wolbach, Tom DuBois, Lydia
Kou, and Karen Holman.
Adding costs to owners providing rental homes ultimately reduces the number of rentals available.
Any attempt to tie relocation payments to an increase in rent is rent control, and was voted down by council
less than a year ago. In the short months between now and then, there has been no indication that evictions
are on the rise or that rents have been spiking drastically. In fact, the average one bedroom, according to
ApartmentList.com, has only increased $44 since last October. This does not merit relocation payments or any
other mandate to provide rental assistance.
Additionally, the council adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no‐fault evictions. This
addressed the most pressing issue in Palo Alto and was targeted to those truly in need. Any need to expand
this program has not been justified, and may jeopardize the ability to find safe, stable and reliable housing for
Palo Alto residents.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has worked
hard in the past to provide below‐market‐rate housing, and recently has expanded programs to encourage
affordable housing, ADUs, and workforce housing for Palo Alto residents. I support these efforts and
encourage you to keep the focus on housing growth, which is the only real solution to the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Since 1926
510 WAVERLEY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 389
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
18 SEP I 0 PH 3: 2 9
(650) 321-1711 or 888-321-1711 TOLL FREE
FAX (650) 327-2383
Email: info@daltonrealty.com
PALO ALTO, CA 94302-0389
September 10, 2018
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to reject the colleague's memo authored by Council Members Cory Wolbach, Tom
Dubois, Lydia Kou and Karen Holman.
Any attempt to tie relocation payments to an increase in rent is rent control, and was voted
down by council less than a year ago. In the short months between now and then, there has
been no indication that evictions are on the rise or that rents have been spiking drastically. In
fact, the average one bedroom, according to Apartmentlist.com, has only increased $44 since
last October. This does not merit relocation payments or any other mandate to provide rental
assistance.
Additionally, the council adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no-fault
evictions. This addressed the most pressing issue in Palo Alto and was targeted to those truly in
need. Any need to expand this program has not been justified, and may jeopardize the ability to
find safe, stable and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Palo Alto
has worked hard in the past to provide below-market-rate housing, and recently has expanded
programs to encourage affordable housing, ADUs, and workforce housing for Palo Alto
residents. I support these efforts and encourage you to keep the focus on housing growth, wich
is the only real solution to the housing crisis.
Property manager
Talking Points: Why Rent Control is Not a Viable Solution for Palo Alto
1. In the nine months since October, the housing and rental market in Palo Alto has not
drastically changed. What was a terrible idea in October is still a terrible idea in August.
2. Protections for tenants being evicted was voted on two weeks ago, and is specifically
targeted at those most in need. Any expansion of this ordinance is unnecessary and an
attempt to solve problems that don't exist beyond the Presidential Hotel.
3. Any relocation payment or tenant protection fee that is tied to rent increases is, in fact,
rent control. Landlords being forced to keep rent control below a mandated cap, or pay
relocation assistance, is no different than limits on annual rent increases.
4. Palo Alto already has a mediation program, mandated lease offerings, and required
notification of large rent increases. There has been no indication that these programs
aren't working, or that evictions are a problem that need to be addressed in Palo Alto.
Beyond the Presidential Hotel, what issue needs to be addressed?
5. Palo Alto met only 38% of its housing allotment over the past eight years. It has
produced an even lower rate of affordable and BMR units, and is below the county
average on both targets. Supply is the issue and Palo Alto, until recently, has been doing
little to address the true driver of housing costs.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kevin Lu <kevinlu@serenogroup.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Where do economists stand on Rent Control?
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
Advocacy groups on both sides of rent control policies are competing to outvoice the other. Bottom line, there is a
housing problem, and we turn to you to help solve these problems.
But there are short‐term solutions, and there are long‐term solutions. For the benefit of our community, I urge you to
stay grounded in facts and in the science of economics. The long‐term solution is one in which our situation gets worse
before it gets better. That is, rents may continue to rise, up until the point in which supply of affordable housing
increases to alleviate rents.
At the end of the day, people will do or say whatever is in their best self‐interest. It is up to the wise members of this
Council to see through the noise for a sustainable, long‐term solution for our community as a whole.
Sincerely,
Kevin Lu
‐‐
Kevin Lu
REALTOR®
Sereno Group Real Estate ‐ Palo Alto
(650) 446-5888 |www.kevinclu.com
DRE # 01999867 |Leading Insight for Enduring Value
ᐧ
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 9, 2018 7:21 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; jdong@paweekly.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com;
price@padailypost.com
Subject:PAN Supports the Business Registry
Attachments:Business Registry.docx
Please see the attached analysis of the recent Business Registry Audit.
Thank you,
Sheri Furman
Becky Sanders
PAN Co-chairs
Subject: PAN Supports the Business Registry
September 9, 2018
Dear City Council Members and Staff:
Neighborhood leaders at this month’s PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) meeting voted unanimously to urge the City to improve its Business Registry. With parking and traffic issues continuing to plague Palo Alto, we believe
that the registry is an extremely valuable tool. If managed properly, it will provide important information unavailable through other sources, including:
• how to better tune parking requirements by type, size, and location of business
• insight into traffic demand, again by type, size, and location of business
• displacement of community-serving businesses
The above all have a vital impact on Palo Alto and the daily lives of our residents. Providing better registry data to the City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission, the press, and the public must therefore be a priority. The registry errors pointed out in an April 23, 2016 Palo Alto Weekly article (https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/04/23/errors-undermine-data-in-palo-altos-new-business-registry), including that major businesses such as Safeway and McDonald’s had failed to register, emerged precisely
because the press and public were actively trying to use the registry.
The Business Registry Audit offers many good points about how to improve the quality of the Business Registry
and thus its value to city staff and the public. We offer additional suggestions below.
Thank you,
Sheri Furman and Rebecca Sanders
PAN Co-Chairs
Data Accuracy
The Audit is correct that staff did not have a process to validate the accuracy and completeness of the registry data it collected. We agree with the audit recommendations and City response for:
• System settings to prevent errors or inconsistencies in data entry and formatting [page 15]
• Use of data analytic software to identify and correct unreliable data [page 15]
• Providing each business with a unique account [page 15]
• Comparing business registry records to other city database of businesses [page 16]
• In-person observation of businesses, although we note that a less-expensive approach in some cases is
to use online resources, which often provide employee counts and business descriptions [page 16]
• Updating the Business Registry administrative manual with contact information [page 16] and data reliability steps [page 16], such as for periodic testing of a sample of records
• Merging with the Downtown Business Improvement District record collection [page 18]
• Possibly discussing the registry with external stakeholders [page 20], although we believe this should be mandatory and must include residents actively investigating spillover traffic and parking.
As to the recommendation on page 16 to identify key City stakeholders to help clarify existing and potential uses and priorities for business registry data, we would add that preparing reports on average company density by
business type and permits purchased for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission would give that commission and the public the opportunity to review how well the Business Registry is achieving some of its
top priorities. Such a review would no doubt yield valuable feedback for further quality and compliance improvements. We also do not see why this can’t be done before June 30, 2019 [page 20].
We have further suggestions for improving the data quality:
• Including contractual requirements for data quality in future years (we note the audit on page 16 says,
the contract does not specify what comparable data MuniServices should use to verify the accuracy of the business registry or the frequency for making such comparisons)
• Spot-checking data continuously and contacting businesses with likely errors, as well as incremental
improvements in the system to reduce such errors in the future
• Correlating data with parking permit issuance
• Sorting data by fields such as number of employees, square footage, parking provided onsite, and permits issued to look for extreme values
• Sorting data by employer to look for duplicate entries
• Providing a contact person for data quality for when users or other members of the public notice problems
• Linking data to other city permit issuances and utility service, to better assure correctness and compliance (more on this below)
• Periodically publishing the data quality testing plan and error types found and fixed, along with general
statistics about the registry
• Providing a real-time connection to the data through the city’s Open Data site so that others can more easily access and use the information collected this connection could automatically convert employee
counts into ranges and hide confidential fields
• Showing businesses their past data when entering information so as to improve consistency and accuracy, while possibly saving them time as well and reducing duplicate entries
It is unfortunate that the audit did not look [page 10] at the data quality currently being collected under the new contract. Even a sample of a few dozen entries could help spot many problems. The city website at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/business/business_registry/default.asp says that renewal letters from the City went out in February 2018 and a third from MuniServices went out in March 2018. If MuniServices has been collecting data since February 2018, it is unclear why an audit released in September of 2018 could not examine that data.
Data Linking
The audit has a short mention on page 17 of the importance of linking commercial and residential area parking permit issuance to the Business Registry. Rather than simply sharing information for data checking off-line, as the audit recommends, we urge active linkages. For example, commercial and residential area parking permit issuance systems should not allow a business and its employees to receive more permits than are claimed in its Business Registry entry. Similarly, Use and Occupancy permits should not be issued for more square footage than claimed in the Business Registry. These linkages will motivate businesses to ensure that their Business Registry entries exist and remain up-to-date.
Budgeting
The audit did not examine whether the $85,000 cost of a two-year contract with MuniServices LLC [page 10] is sufficient to ensure accurate testing and quality control. Does the contract specify levels of quality controls and reporting? Also, the audit does not mention that it is customary to ensure quality by having a separate party provide independent data checking rather than to rely on the provider of the collection service.
The audit does not address what other cities pay to operate similar registries. A comparison to cities that have registries with high-quality data and how they achieve that would have been very helpful.
Inclusiveness
The exemption of small (fewer than one full-time employee) businesses and non-profits and religious organizations with no ancillary business operations onsite (per https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/business/business_registry/default.asp) seems fine. Home-based businesses should be exempt if they have no employees, customers, or deliveries that come to the residence, since they then have negligible impact on parking or traffic. For that reason, we do not agree with the audit statement [page 15] that, “To provide reliable and useful information, the registry should include all Palo Alto businesses and their addresses, even if some are exempt from paying a registry fee.” In fact, it seems a poor use of effort to include businesses that have no impact on parking, traffic, and displacement of community-serving entities.
Compliance
Fees charged to companies that do not participate in the Business Registry should be raised to more than the current nuisance level. The common perception is that the penalty is no more than the fee to register, making compliance moot, and that failing to register does not hamper a company in any way.
Oversight
We hope that city councilmembers and incoming city managers will voice strong support to improve the Business Registry, as well as the larger process of using registry and other data to better inform city planning. Such support will help encourage staff and contractors to ensure the Registry improves in quality and usefulness. We note that almost two-and-a-half years have transpired from the 2016 Palo Alto Weekly exposing
major problems with the Business Registry until this audit emerged, and yet we still await evidence that the problems have been fixed. We encourage the Policy and Services Committee to review the audit and proposed solutions fully now and again after the first six month staff review.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 12:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cool Blocks
Council Members:
Please vote NO on continuing the Cool Blocks Program. It’s a waste of money for an unnecessary project.
Thank you,
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tracy Zhao <shzhao2003@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 9:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against Rent Control
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to reject the colleague’s memo authored by Council Members Cory Wolbach, Tom DuBois, Lydia Kou, and
Karen Holman.
Any attempt to tie relocation payments to an increase in rent is rent control, and was voted down by council less than a
year ago. In the short months between now and then, there has been no indication that evictions are on the rise or that
rents have been spiking drastically. In fact, the average one bedroom, according to ApartmentList.com, has only
increased $44 since last October. This does not merit relocation payments or any other mandate to provide rental
assistance.
Additionally, the council adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no-fault evictions. This addressed the
most pressing issue in Palo Alto and was targeted to those truly in need. Any need to expand this program has not been
justified, and may jeopardize the ability to find safe, stable and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has worked hard in the
past to provide below-market-rate housing, and recently has expanded programs to encourage affordable housing, ADUs,
and workforce housing for Palo Alto residents. I support these efforts and encourage you to keep the focus on housing
growth, which is the only real solution to the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Shihui Zhao
1
Carnahan, David
From:Russell Reid <russell@reidclan.org>
Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 2:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bicycle safety plea: ban orange cones and beyond!
Dear mayor and council members,
I am a Palo Alto resident, a long‐time resident and 50 year cyclist, and I have some requests on behalf of cyclists. I hope
that mitigation requires insight and action, not money and time! Palo Alto seems uniquely situated to understand
problems and lead toward mitigation, so there is hope. But the current trend is savagely toward greater, not lesser, risk
for cyclists.
Bicycle lanes are for cyclist safety. That’s why our city, and nearby cities, put in all the time, money and effort, and why
everyone tolerates the disruption of roads while modifications are made. Bicycle lanes also modify driver and cyclist
behavior; drivers expect bikes to be in a bike lane.
If bicycle lanes improve safety, however, it follows that forcing cyclists out of those lanes impairs that safety. It should
not be allowed.
Forcing cyclists out of lanes even temporarily puts us at substantial physical risk, especially because of the existence of
dedicated lanes. A child cyclist fatality because a few years ago in Palo Alto put an exclamation point onto that fact.
However, an entire culture of casually blocking bicycle lanes for reasons of convenience has arisen in recent years, and
no city appears to be fighting it, nor even to be aware of it.
Every day I ride from my home in Palo Alto through Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and into Cupertino. Here is
some of what I encountered today. In the last couple of years I have often stopped to confront people when they are
present, always with the same result, whether city utility, UPS driver, other delivery, or just citizen stopping to tap on a
cell phone. Succinctly explained by a truck driver in Mountain View: “Sorry, Bro, it’s closer!” ( to the door. Did not wish
to carry heavy stuff very far. )
First photo is from Palo Alto, right outside a school, in the morning on a school day. A similar situation stayed in place
for several days directly across from Gunn High School, with the bike lane completely blocked simply to notify
automobile drivers of a lane closure on *the other side of the street*. Who does stuff like that?? An institution putting
the lives of children at risk to notify automobile drivers of something they can see anyway? It turns out just about
everybody does stuff like that, but Palo Alto can lead the way into something more reasonable.
If a city truck obstructs a bike lane the risk to cyclists is no different than if any other vehicle obstructs the bike lane. It
is a major risk on a road like Arastradero with impatient drivers driving fast. The purpose in this case was the usual,
which is to say simple convenience while workers stood around discussing school safety. The workers in this case, as
always, thought I was nuts when I objected to their use of orange cones to protect their truck from cyclist impact while
forcing cyclists the rest of the way out into traffic. I have been hit from behind by a car who was not paying full
attention. It hurts… a lot, actually. And you get permanent injuries, though you and your spouse are the only ones likely
to pay attention to those for the next few decades. Some such cyclists die. The drivers are always fine. The police
always shield the drivers.
Who does stuff like this? Just about everybody, it turns out.
2
Request to council: ban the use of orange cones in obstructing bike lanes in 100% of circumstances. Even regular
citizens do it regularly now. And then, importantly, establish some reporting and enforcement mechanism. Like a
phone number where people like me can text photos or location offending instances, for instance?
Below, all from the same day except for the very last one, which is last night.
Palo Alto, on Charleston outside Hoover Elementary this morning. Following that are photos today from Mountain
View, (where workers were working across the street and not using their truck. They insisted that it made perfect sense
because it was closer to walk to their tools. It made no sense to them that impairing safety was a problem ), another
one from Mountain View where the bike lane is obstructed essentially every day, one on Foothill in Los Altos, where I
thought it was unsafe to photograph most of today’s offenders but a truck was stopped for some reason of convenience
while cyclists passing him swerved out into 50mph traffic. Then Sunnyvale, then Cupertino. All photos should embed
location and time, but all of them were this morning. Just like every day. Every offender oblivious, because it is fine to
blow off cyclist safety for your convenience. All of our police and city councils know that!
The last photo attached to this email is one from yesterday on a bike lane in Sunnyvale, where the bike lane is
obstructed to announce to motorists ( of *course* ignoring cyclists! Who cares about cyclists? ) that one week hence the
*on‐ramp*, not even this road will be restricted. Why is this minor convenience notification to motorists worth risking
the lives of passing cyclists? I have no answer to that. But I see it every day, in fact a dozen times a day ( The sign in the
photo works fine, is announcing the ramp closure next week, but it didn't photograph properly with a cell phone. )
Russell Reid
50 years of cycling still not dead despite many close calls and quite a few impacts.
Summary: There is no such thing as a bike lane, in Palo Alto or anywhere else. Keep that in mind. A primary effect of
dedicated lanes is intolerance for cyclists on all other roads.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eddie Smith <smitsky@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 6:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Campers parking in our neighborhood
Attachments:IMG_7537.jpg
Hello City Council Members,
Attached you'll find a picture of the campers parked along Park Boulevard, between Lambert and
Olive Avenue from yesterday.
I've owned a home and lived in Palo Alto for the past 25 years and I drive by these campers every
day now because they are parked in my neighborhood. They've been parked there for weeks on end,
just like the campers on Portage and the village of campers on Acacia next to Equinox, who have
been there for months on end.
I pay property and local taxes to live here and have for the past 25 years.
The people living in these campers do not pay for anything.
Where does their waste go?
Where do they get their water from?
Why are we giving up parking spaces to vehicles that are permanently parked on our streets that we
need?
Do we find it visually pleasing to see campers parked in our neighborhoods?
I've filled out online forms with the Palo Alto Police department 4 times for abandoned vehicles over
the past two months, providing license plates and details for these vehicles, attesting that they are
parked in the same space for days on end in each instance. Most recently weeks on end is what I
reported. Yet, nothing gets done.
Your job is to serve our community, yet I'm getting no response by seeing these vehicles moved and I
do not understand how you, and our police force are not enforcing having the vehicles moved.
What steps are you taking to put in place tighter restrictions, and policing, to ensure our
neighborhoods do not have campers taking up our parking spaces and utilizing the resources we pay
for?
Why do we not have these vehicles towed once warned?
It's one thing to have the parade of campers parked all along El Camino Real, which is its own
problem that needs to get resolved.
It's another situation when we have these vehicles parked in our neighborhoods.
I'm want you take action by consistently warning and removing vehicles.
Why are you taking so long to deal with this problem?
Tax Paying Palo Alto Citizen
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:58 PM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Eggleston,
Brad; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Goodell, Erin; Jonsen, Robert;
Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov;
Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price;
Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; richard@alexanderlaw.com; Aram James;
Debra@firstpaloalto.com; Bear.ride@fprespa.org; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org
Subject:City of Palo Alto plays favoritism to large developer
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Madame:
Following find validation for LG's obligation to maintain several off-street public parking spaces, and LG's continued
noncompliance.
1.) Lytton Gardens (LG) is obligated to provide public off-street parking.
A recent preliminary review application was filed, for the LG site on June 28, 2018, and was heard by
the ARB on August 16, 2018.
Below is a link to the Staff Report.
As noted on Page 8 of the Staff Report, the project is currently required to have “three parallel off-
street parking spaces and turnout on Lytton Avenue side of the project …”--
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66298
2.) Lytton Gardens continues to thumbs nose at City codes for public parking.
Below is a link to the Webpage for prelim with proposed plan set.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4334
While working to get our City to do its job and right a wrong, I am shuffled from one City department to another. Starting
with the City Clerk's Office, I'm sent to The Director of The Office of Transportation who strings me along for a month
before sending me to the Planning & Community Environment Department which sends me to another department, and on
and on ...
Molly, what the heck is going on? It appears you spend all your time taking care of City employees, and can't give the
Citizen the time of day. Please intervene. Do your job, and order your attorneys and Code Enforcement to hold LG and
City staff accountable for ignoring Palo Alto Codes.
I wait your response.
2
Respectfully,
-Danielle
-----------------------------
Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
PS: Nobu Restaurant just had expansion designs killed over proposed removal of three parking spaces
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:09 PM
Subject: 4th REQUEST | Palo Alto ‐ Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Spaces
To: <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Liz (internal)
<liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, Gregory (internal) <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, Beth <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>,
<Kimberly.Lunt@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@cityofpaloalto.org>, David <David.Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org>, Judy <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, Peter
Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>,
<Allison@padailypost.com>, <EmiBach@padailypost.com>, <AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov>, <Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov>, <Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov>, Alex Kobayashi
<Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>, <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, <Micaela.Hellman‐Tincher@bos.sccgov.org>, <VHS101@yahoo.com>, <richard@alexanderlaw.com>,
Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Andrew Pierce <apierce@pierceshearer.com>, <Debra@firstpaloalto.com>, <Bear.ride@fprespa.org>, <CHamilton@da.sccgov.org>,
<JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>, <Erin.Goodell@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>
Josh Mello
Chief Transportation Official
Palo Alto's Transportation Division
Mr. Mello:
In the future, it would make things much easier if you would take stewardship of your privileged position.
Again, you have complete City resources available to you, including a team of excellent City attorneys. YOU tell me if
the destroyed Handicap Zones are on private or City property. Your office is only four (4) blocks from LG, walk over and
take a look, then make a call to the Palo Alto County Assessor and afterwards query a City attorney for clarity. As a life-
time Palo Altan, I know first-hand that property lines in my town are often creative and not intuitive. Looks like City
property to me.
MAN UP.
I will no longer do your work for you. It is not up to me to bring the inappropriate use of the Streets of Palo Alto to other
departments' attention. YOU must take responsibility.
It should not be this hard for a resident to get a straight answer from you to a simple and direct question. For the
FOURTH time, I demand to know,
"Why has LG been allowed to obliterate FIVE Handicap Zones in front of their main entrance (656 Lytton
Avenue) ?"
-Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016 & 2005
3
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 1:29 PM
Subject: CPRA Request | LG obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Zones
To: Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Kniss, Liz (internal) <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, Scharff, Gregory
(internal) <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, Minor, Beth <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Kimberly.Lunt@cityofpaloalto.org>,
Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@cityofpaloalto.org>, Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org>, Kleinberg, Judy <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, Bill Johnson
<BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>, <Allison@padailypost.com>, <EmiBach@padailypost.com>,
<AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov>, <Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov>, <Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov>, Alex Kobayashi <Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>,
<Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, <Micaela.Hellman‐Tincher@bos.sccgov.org>, <VHS101@yahoo.com>, <richard@alexanderlaw.com>, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>,
Andrew Pierce <apierce@pierceshearer.com>, <Debra@firstpaloalto.com>, <Bear.ride@fprespa.org>, <CHamilton@da.sccgov.org>, <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>,
<Erin.Goodell@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>
Molly Suzanne Stump, JD
City Attorney at City of Palo Alto
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST (made this 25th day of August, 2018)
Dear Madame:
Pursuant to California Public Records Act Request (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), re the recent destruction of FIVE
downtown Handicap Zones by Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG) on Lytton Street, I request the release of copies
of the following documents:
1. All emails and communications that Transportation Division Official Joshuah Mello received on the topic.
2. All city communications with LG on the issue.
3. All City-LG issues going back 36 months.
Absent some legitimate reason for delay provided in the government code, make sure that I receive the requested
documents within ten (10) days of this CPRA Request. Send all correspondence via my email
to dmPaloAlto@gmail.com.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate your time and help.
Respectfully,
-Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: 3rd REQUEST | Palo Alto ‐ Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Spaces
To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Ms. Martell:
I have passed your concern on to the Planning and Community Environment Department. The Office of Transportation
does not regulate disabled parking outside of the public right‐of‐way.
In the future, it would make things much easier if you would respond when asked for additional clarifying information.
4
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
City of Palo Alto
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520
fax: 650.329.2154
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 1:22 PM
To: Mello, Joshuah
Cc: Lauing, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Minor, Beth; Lunt, Kimberly; Brettle, Jessica; Carnahan, David;
Kleinberg, Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; 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; micaela.hellman‐tincher@bos.sccgov.org; vhs101@yahoo.com; richard@alexanderlaw.com;
Aram James; Andrew Pierce; debra@firstpaloalto.com; bear.ride@fprespa.org; chamilton@da.sccgov.org; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; Goodell, Erin; Jonsen, Robert
Subject: 3rd REQUEST: Palo Alto ‐ Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Spaces
Joshuah Mello
Chief Transportation Official
Palo Alto's Transportation Division
Mr. Mello:
As a quisi-public facility, what legal obligations bind LG to offer Handicap Zones?
With LG's recent destruction of FIVE Handicap Zones, Lytton Gardens --trusted with housing 600 elderly and
compromised souls-- now provides ZERO Handicap Zones !
You have access to an entire department of fancy Palo Alto City attorneys. Your Palo Alto City salary with benefits totals
about $250,000 annually. Taxpayers require direct answers to all questions put to you, and for you to be accountable at
all times.
For the THIRD time, I demand to know,
"Why has LG been allowed to obliterate FIVE Handicap Zones in front of their main entrance (656 Lytton
Avenue) ?"
-Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016 & 2005
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018
Subject: Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces To: roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu
Cc: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kniss, Liz
(internal)" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Minor, Beth" <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kleinberg, Judy" <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson
<jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>, Allison@padailypost.com, EmiBach@padailypost.com, Jason Green
<jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com>, AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov, Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov, Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov, Alex Kobayashi
<Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>, Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org, Micaela.Hellman-
5
Tincher@bos.sccgov.org, VHS101@yahoo.com, WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com, richard@alexanderlaw.com, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Andrew Pierce
<apierce@pierceshearer.com>, Debra@firstpaloalto.com, Bear.ride@fprespa.org, CHamilton@da.sccgov.org, JRosen@dao.sccgov.org, Erin.Goodell@cityofpalo
alto.org, Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org
Professor Roberta Ahlquist
WILPF, Low-Income Housing Committee
Dear Professor Ahlquist:
Thank you for speaking out for Palo Alto City Government accountability and transparency. I believe City of Palo Alto's Chief
Transportation Official Joshuah Mello should be admonished for his poor stewardship over public need.
As aquasi-public facility supported by HUD funding, Lyttons Garden Senior Communities is a type of corporation in the private sector
that is backed by a branch of government that has a public mandate to provide for the needs of the public.
Respectfully,
-Danielle
---------------------------
Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:34 PM
Subject: 5 Handicapped parking spaces
To: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org
Dear Mr. Mello,
I would like an explanation for why these five spots have been removed: 1. Under what guidelines, 2. Who made this decision? 3. Why?
Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist
for the WILPF Low-Income Housing Committee
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:57 PM
Subject: Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces
To: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kniss, Liz (internal)" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Minor, Beth"
<beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kleinberg, Judy" <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson
<jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>, Allison@padailypost.com, EmiBach@padailypost.com, Jason Green
<jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com>, AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov, Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov, Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov, Alex Kobayashi
<Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>, Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org, Micaela.Hellman-
Tincher@bos.sccgov.org, VHS101@yahoo.com, WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com, richard@alexanderlaw.com, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Andrew
Pierce
<apierce@pierceshearer.com>, Debra@firstpaloalto.com, Bear.ride@fprespa.org, CHamilton@da.sccgov.org, JRosen@dao.sccgov.org, Erin.Goodell@cityofpaloalto.org
Joshuah Mello
Chief Transportation Official
Palo Alto's Transportation Division
6
Mr. Mello:
Don't ask me to do your job; you have the address.
Handicapped must come first.
This downtown Palo Alto property has, at minimum, a quasi-public nature given their Mission Statement and the Founding Documents for
Lytton Gardens Senior Communities.
-Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM
Subject: RE: Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Ms. Martell:
Thank you for writing. Is this within the public right‐of‐way (on‐street parking) or in the private Lytton Gardens parking lot?
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520
fax: 650.329.2154
7
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com]
Date: Mon, August 13, 2018 5:34 PM
Subject: Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces
cc: Lauing, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly
<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>; Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>; Dave Price
<price@baydailypost.com>; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
To: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Joshuah Mello
Chief Transportation Official
Palo Alto's Transportation Division
Dear Mr. Mello:
Why has Palo Alto's downtown Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG), 656 Lytton Avenue, been allowed to obliterate five (5) Handicap
Parking spaces in front of their entrance?
This includes paved asphalt sans parking lines, and red curbs. For decades, PAPD ticketed autos without Handicap Plaques that parked in
front of LG. --Two of the five former parking spots share a LG dumpster. Together, the site of all five former parking spaces resembles an
expanding entryway for LG, and add greatly to the aesthetics of their building.
Curious minds want to know why FIVE downtown Handicap Zones have "vanished like a fart on the breeze".
Please respond.
Sincerely,
-Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anjani Sarma <anjani.sarma@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 9:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hillary Miller; Star-Lack, Sylvia
Subject:Construction on Rorke way across from Palo Verde Elementary
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Anjani Sarma and I am the parent of an elementary school child at Palo Verde and also a safe routes to
school volunteer for Palo Verde . I wanted to bring to your attention the bottleneck construction trucks are creating on
Rorke Way during peak drop off times 8:05‐8:20 am. There is a home under reconstruction ‐ 871 Rorke Way which is
across from the rear entrance to the school. Rorke Way is a very small street and on normal days when cars are parked
on both sides of Rorke, there is room for only one car to pass. To ensure smooth traffic circulation and the safety of our
kids, parents are encouraged to use the following traffic circulation map (this is a suggested route and not enforceable)
to get in and out of Rorke and drop their kids off safely on the school side. The house under construction is indicated by
the purple dot. Please see image below.
Last week on 08/29, when I was dropping my child off at about 8:07 am or so, I noticed a pick up truck with a long trailer
(marked in red circle below) making it’s way to the construction site, pull up near and then start backing up to park
curbside at the construction site entrance. This caused quite a bit of a bottleneck. Please see picture below. The cars
following the above suggested traffic circulation guidelines had to reverse to let the grey mini van pass.
2
Today in the morning when I dropped my child off at about 8:13 am, I saw construction trucks parked on both sides of
Rorke with orange cones around them. Please see picture below. As you can see Rorke Way has now been considerably
narrowed. We have a PAUSD bus that drops off and picks up students from near the kindergarten entrance on Rorke.
The bus follows the traffic circulation map above and you can tell from the picture that it would be considerably difficult
for the bus to make it’s way on Rorke especially when we have incoming traffic from the opposite side.
My concern is that with the construction site so close to the school and especially when we start seeing more cars
coming on Rorke to drop off during cold/rainy days, if we also have construction traffic coming in and/or parked on
Rorke Way during our peak drop off time 8:05‐8:20 am, we will see a lot of frustration and bottlenecking on Rorke. It
may also pose a safety hazard for our 4th and 5th graders who bike to school on Rorke because their classrooms are
closer to the Rorke entrance. My question to you is, will the city please consider reaching out to the
3
contractor/homeowner and ask them to not bring in trucks/heavy equipment till 8:30 am on school days and not park
their vehicles on the school side of the curb so the PAUSD bus can come in easily and parents can drop their kids off
smoothly on the school side?
I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Anjani
650‐575‐0469
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Bennett, Clesi@BCDC <clesi.bennett@bcdc.ca.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 12:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Fiala, Shannon@BCDC
Subject:Environmental Justice in Palo Alto
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. I am a planner at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), working on an amendment to the San Francisco Bay Plan to incorporate policies on
environmental justice and social equity.
We hope to talk with community members and advocacy organizations around the Bay about how BCDC can
integrate environmental justice and equity into its planning and regulatory work. We are hoping to get your
insight on community leaders, neighborhood groups and/or organizations in your communities that are
working on environmental justice or related issues, particularly if those groups hold regularly occurring
meetings. We hope to build relationships with these groups and individuals, ensuring that this amendment is
crafted and implemented as equitably as possible.
Additionally, we are interested in if (or how) your jurisdiction is incorporating environmental justice or equity
into your planning efforts. We would be grateful if you could point us to the department(s) in your jurisdiction
spearheading any efforts on this front.
Thank you for your assistance,
Clesi Bennett
‐‐
Clesi Bennett
Coastal Planner
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
455 Golden Gate, Suite 10600 San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: clesi.bennett@bcdc.ca.gov
Tel: (415) 352‐3613
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.cid:image001.png@01D3DBBB.962DAF20
1
Carnahan, David
From:Charlene Liao <charlene.liao@immuneonc.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5:18 PM
To:Council, City; Rius, Rafael; Aggarwal, Ruchika; Arthur Keller
Cc:Jeff Peterson; Laura Tyree; Charlene Liao
Subject:Fw: [pan: 2653] City of Palo Alto, CA - San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection
Improvements
Dear City Council,
Please see below the letter from another CEO in this community.
From: Jeff Peterson <jeff_peterson@targetdiscovery.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:21 PM
To: Charlene Liao
Cc: Scott, Randy; Laura Lawton; Laura Tyree; Gloria Vasquez
Subject: Re: [pan: 2653] City of Palo Alto, CA ‐ San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection Improvements
Hi Charlene,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I had not heard about it.
I completely agree that the long term solution proposed with great reduction in parking on the San Antonio
frontage road is completely unacceptable to us for the reasons you noted. The short term solutions A, B and C
lose up to 3 valuable spaces. Any parking space loss is painful in our jammed neighborhood. Nonetheless,
those short term proposals could be workable, if truly necessary for the improved pedestrian safety objectives
cited by the City. However, as a 16+ year tenant of multiple buildings on the adjoining block of Fabian, the
long term proposal would be a crushing blow to all of us struggling with parking constraints around this
neighborhood.
I am on the East Coast this week, and cannot attend the community meeting this evening, but on behalf of
ourselves and our multiple sub‐tenants, please do read my email into the record. I would be glad to speak
with City representatives that are ready to listen to inputs of the building owners and occupants that will be
severely injured by this inadequately‐considered proposal.
Many thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey N. Peterson
Veritomyx, Inc., Chairman & CEO
Target Discovery, Inc., CEO
Direct: 650-812-8121
Cell: 650-703-8557
jeff_peterson@targetdiscovery.com
4030 Fabian Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
2
Pressure Biosciences, Inc. (PBIO), Chairman
Imaging3, Inc. (IGNG), Chairman
BayBio, Board and Institute Chair Emeritus
21st Century Medicine Coalition
BIO Personalized Medicine & Diagnostics Group
CA Technology Council, Advisory Board
HUPO, Industrial Advisory Board
IR2Dx, Advisor
On Sep 5, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Charlene Liao <charlene.liao@immuneonc.com> wrote:
Dear Randy, Jeff, Laura T, Laura L, and Gloria,
Please see below the proposed intersection improvement project and the community meeting this evening. I
plan to go and I hope you all could go.
I am very concerned about the reduction in parking by the "Frontage Road", which will push more people to
park on Fabian Way, making our already difficult street parking more challenging, and IMPOSSIBLE.
If you cannot go, please let me know what your point of view may be and I am happy to speak on behalf of
you.
Kind regards,
Charlene
Charlene Liao, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Immune‐Onc Therapeutics, Inc.
4030 Fabian Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650‐460‐8898
www.Immune‐Onc.com
Begin forwarded message:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/transportation_projects/san_antonio_road_and_east_c
harleston_road_intersection_improvements.asp
San Antonio/East Charleston Intersection
Improvements
3
San Antonio Road/East Charleston Road Intersection Improvements
This project was initiated in response to residents concern of traffic safety and
operations of this intersection. The motor vehicle level of service of this signalized
intersection is currently D which can be described as approaching unstable flow of
traffic and occasionally waiting through more than one signal cycle before proceeding.
Proposed improvements for this intersection aim to improve pedestrian safety-mainly
crossing west leg of East Charleston Road with two conflicting southbound right-turn
lanes on San Antonio Road. During field observations it was noted that vehicles in the
second right-turn lane do not always yield to pedestrians. This project would also
address intersection operations and poor motor vehicle level of service.
Based on the feedback received at the first community meeting in April, staff has
developed additional conceptual layouts of potential improvements for this intersection
and will share with the community on September 5th, at a public meeting (details
below).
Project Managers
Rafael Rius
Rafael.Rius@CityofPaloAlto.org
650-329-2442
Ruchika Aggarwal
Ruchika.Aggarwal@CityofPaloAlto.org
650-329-2442
4
Upcoming Meetings & Events
Community Meeting
Wednesday, September 5, 2018: 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center - Room E 104, Building E
3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto CA 94303
Additional Information & Resources
Short Term Idea A
Short Term Idea B
Short Term Idea C
Long Term Idea
12AM Turning Movement Counts
12AM Bike Turning Movement Counts
12PM Turning Movement Counts
12PM Bike Turning Movement Counts
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobemeadow" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
toadobemeadow+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to adobemeadow@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/adobemeadow.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Filseth <efilseth@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 9, 2018 8:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Zume Pizza trash is still in the water fountain of Palo Alto High School on September 9, 2018
I sent a note to the CEO and got a reply, so hopefully this is taken care of. Eric
From: Lancero, Hope [mailto:Hope.Lancero@alumni.ucsf.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2018 7:18 PM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Zume Pizza trash is still in the water fountain of Palo Alto High School on September 9, 2018
Dear City Council,
I wrote you last week hoping that the trash I found in the water fountain at Palo Alto High School near the tennis courts
would be cleaned up. I was there at 4:00pm today, September 9 and the trash is still in the water fountain. If you are
the wrong people to contact about littering the city of Palo Alto, please direct me to the correct people.
I wrote the Palo Alto Police Department about seeing Zume Pizza littering near Palo Alto High School and never got a
response. I went by there and the trash was still there on September 5, 2018.
I saw employees of Zume Pizza littering on Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 4:45pm. Zume Pizza truck is parked
on El Camino Real in front of the Palo Alto High School tennis courts everyday. As I was doing my usual jog
past Palo Alto High School, I witnessed a Zume Pizza employee dump trash and leftover pizza into the water
fountain in front on the tennis courts.
Can you have them clean up their trash? Thank you.
Regards,
Hope
Hope Lancero, PhD
hope.lancero@alumni.ucsf.edu
From:Charlene Liao
To:Rius, Rafael; Aggarwal, Ruchika; Randy Scott; Charlene Liao; Arthur Keller; Alison Cormack; Council, City
Subject:Fw: [adobemeadow] Fwd: [pan: 2653] City of Palo Alto, CA - San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection Improvements
Date:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:38:19 PM
Dear Project Managers, City Council Members and City Leaders,
As a resident in this neighborhood, and CEO of a new start-up company located on Fabian Way, I am veryconcerned about the proposed intersection improvement, particularly its impact on available parking spaces by
the "Frontage Road". The proposed long-term idea would reduce the parking spaces from 33 down to 15.
As you know, the building my company is located is facing the "CA Historical Landmark" building where the"First Commercially Practicable Integrated Circuit" was invented in 1959. Please see the attached photoscelebrating the achievements made at small startups that led to the birth of Silicon Valley.
I am saying this to emphasize the importance of small startups in Palo Alto, and small businesses that bring tax
income to the city too. This is part of our culture and we should cultivate them, and not impede them. Theimportance of parking to the employees working in these startups and small businesses cannot be ignored,which is a constant requirement. By comparison, pedestrians walking across the intersection are occasionalevents, and are accommodated quite well.
At any time, you will find all 33 parking spaces fully occupied at the Frontage Road, perhaps because the twonearby buildings (809 and 821 San Antonio Road) have ZERO parking space on their lots. If the parking spaces
by the Frontage Road is reduced (even by 3 spaces, according to 2 of 3 short-term ideas), it will cause thesecars to park along the bottom of the L-shaped Fabian Way (this segment is parallel to East Charleston, behindthe corner 76 Gas Station). Even right now, street parking along this segment of Fabian Way is nearlyIMPOSSIBLE due to spaces all taken.
This project should also take into consideration of traffic flow from the concerned lane (second from right laneon south-bound San Antonio Road at the intersection) directly to the Frontage Road upon green light, which we
need in order to reach the bottom of Fabian Way without stopping all traffic due to a left turn at the EastCharleston and Fabian Way interaction.
In my opinion, the simplest solution is to make and MARK the second right lane a NO-Right-Turn lane, whileallowing traffic to flow to 76 Gas Station and the Frontage Road, preserving the parking, and addressing theconcern of pedestrians not visible to the right-turn cars from this particular lane. This does not involve anylandscape or concrete extension, or street changes, and only involves painting the lane and traffic signs. It
should also be the cheapest option.
I appreciate your consideration.
Charlene Liao, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Inc.
4030 Fabian Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
----- Forwarded Message -----From: Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>To: "adobemeadow@googlegroups.com" <adobemeadow@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 4:00:15 AM PDT
Subject: [adobemeadow] Fwd: [pan: 2653] City of Palo Alto, CA - San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection Improvements
Begin forwarded message:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/transportation_projects/san_antonio_road_and_east_charleston_road_intersection_improvements.asp
San Antonio/East Charleston Intersection Improvements
San Antonio Road/East Charleston Road Intersection Improvements
This project was initiated in response to residents concern of traffic safety and operations of this intersection. The motor vehicle
level of service of this signalized intersection is currently D which can be described as approaching unstable flow of traffic and
occasionally waiting through more than one signal cycle before proceeding.
Proposed improvements for this intersection aim to improve pedestrian safety-mainly crossing west leg of East Charleston Road
with two conflicting southbound right-turn lanes on San Antonio Road. During field observations it was noted that vehicles in
the second right-turn lane do not always yield to pedestrians. This project would also address intersection operations and poor
motor vehicle level of service.
Based on the feedback received at the first community meeting in April, staff has developed additional conceptual layouts of
potential improvements for this intersection and will share with the community on September 5th, at a public meeting (details
below).
Project Managers
Rafael Rius
Rafael.Rius@CityofPaloAlto.org
650-329-2442
Ruchika Aggarwal
Ruchika.Aggarwal@CityofPaloAlto.org
650-329-2442
Upcoming Meetings & Events
Community Meeting
Wednesday, September 5, 2018: 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center - Room E 104, Building E
3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto CA 94303
Additional Information & Resources
Short Term Idea A
Short Term Idea B
Short Term Idea C
Long Term Idea
12AM Turning Movement Counts
12AM Bike Turning Movement Counts
12PM Turning Movement Counts
12PM Bike Turning Movement Counts
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobemeadow" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to adobemeadow+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to adobemeadow@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/adobemeadow.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 2:55 PM
To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Mayor; Council, City; terry;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; kfsndesk; newsdesk;
kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Joel Stiner; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; nick yovino;
huidentalsanmateo; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg;
scott.mozier; robert.andersen; fmerlo@wildelectric.net
Subject:Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C-130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 1:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:29 PM
Subject: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sat. Sept. 8, 2018
To all‐ Cal Fire is getting seven C‐130s from the Coast Guard. They can carry 4,000 gallons of retardant. A BIG deal
is made by Cal Fire that they will be the only fire fighting agency with its own fleet of C‐130s. It was a tough, big deal that
had to be brokered by Senator Diane Feinstein, and it still needs final approval by Congress, this implies. The 747 tanker
can carry 24,000 gallons of retardant, twice what the DC‐10 tanker can carry and six times what a C‐130 can carry.
2
https://www.sfgate.com/california‐wildfires/article/Water‐rescue‐aircraft‐set‐to‐join‐Cal‐Fire‐fleet‐
13107572.php#photo‐13613987
I am confused as to why this had to be brokered in tough negotiations by Diane Feinstein!! California is burning,
people are dying, the wildfire smoke we are forced to breath here is dangerous and deadly to our health, and it takes
something like the Paris Peace Talks to get a few old C‐130s for Cal Fire. Then, they stand around and talk about setting
records in that they are the first to have them!! Get off the record‐setting stuff and do your job! Top people at Cal Fire
should be fired. Ironic wordage, isn't it. They should be demonstrating outside the White House and the Calif. State
House and be all over TV denouncing Gov. Brown and Pres. Trump, and demanding a fleet of the 50 747 tankers. They
look so calm and collected! Big rich salaries, great benes, great job security. What, me worry? You bums at the top of Cal
Fire, demand 50 747 tankers as fast as they can be readied with a 24‐7 effort. Trump has crowed that the new $714
billion DOD budget is the largest in history, to enrich his pals in the defense industry, so the money is available. We just
have a sadist for a President. That can be changed with a good impeachment.
How can Cal Fire officials not have noticed that California is in a crisis with these unrelenting wild fires? Another
huge fire is burning today up near the Oregon border, the Delta fire. 24,000 acres burned over 38 sq. miles as of last
night, with zero containment. This fire too will fill the Central Valley of Calif. with deadly wild fire smoke. We've had a
few days of clearer skies with the Car Fire, the Mendocino Complex Fire and the Ferguson Fire under control. Here we go
again though.
Rich Republican Trump is REALLY biting now in his display of total contempt for the people with his astronomical
DOD budget. Congress should peel off $50 billion to buy and retrofit 50 747s to serve as tankers in the west fighting wild
fires.
Because of the horrific health impact of breathing wild fire smoke for months on end every summer now in the
Central Valley of California, which produces 25% of the food consumed in the U.S., I believe that the CV is rapidly
becoming unfit for human habitation. As that happens, the economy here will collapse, of great interest to rich
Republicans everywhere. What company is going to locate facilities here if the air is dangerous to breath.? If their top
people start quitting to get out of here, they will reconsider having operations here. Who would move here now? Only
the IQ challenged, and we have enough of them here now, many of them holding elected office. If all of the big gun
physicians leave, who will want to live here? These people can make money anywhere, and they won't endanger their
health and that of their loved ones if out of control wild fires that rage for weeks on end are now a permanent feature
here.
The rich Republican scum who own the TV stations in Fresno are having their on‐air people lie to minimize the
health impact of breathing wild fire smoke for months every year. They do not broadcast in the public interest. They
broadcast in the interest of the Republican business community here, and they should lose their broadcast license for it.
Here is information about the new re‐fueling tanker plane the Air Force is buying, the KC‐46. It will replace the KC‐
135. The federal government should convert the retiring KC‐135s to fight wild fires, if possible, and do it on a crash
basis.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mattis‐warning‐boeing‐air‐force‐kc‐46‐tanker‐program‐2017‐12
I have yet to hear one word from any member of Congress from California about the horrific health impact of
breathing wild fire smoke. They are not doing their jobs. They should issue reports about the health impacts and
demand a hugely stepped effort to control wild fires in California. They should demand that the FCC ask the TV station
owners in Fresno Ca. why they are lying about the health impacts on their viewers and threaten them with license
revocation if they don't stop lying about it.
3
Where is the U.S. Surgeon General on this, the CDC and the NIH? Let's have a stream of reports and warnings about
the health impact of wild fire smoke on the people of California and other western states. People at the top of these
agencies should be fired for their silence.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 3:21 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
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: mayor@cityofpaloalto.org, citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org
Date: September 10, 2018 at 3:14 PM
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.
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
2
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
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
3
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
Brettle, Jessica
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing for Whom?
Dear Council Members:
I hope that you will address some of these issues for renters in the upcoming weeks.
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/08/31/guest‐opinion‐palo‐alto‐housing‐for‐whom
Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Low‐income Housing Committee
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lancero, Hope <Hope.Lancero@alumni.ucsf.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 8:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I saw Zume Pizza littering near Palo alto High School on September 2
Dear City Council,
I wrote the Palo Alto Police Department about seeing Zume Pizza littering near Palo Alto High School and never got a
response. I went by there and the trash is still there today, September 5, 2018.
I saw employees of Zume Pizza littering on Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 4:45pm. Zume Pizza truck is parked
on El Camino Real in front of the Palo Alto High School tennis courts everyday. As I was doing my usual jog
past Palo Alto High School, I witnessed a Zume Pizza employee dump trash and leftover pizza into the water
fountain in front on the tennis courts.
Can you have them clean up their trash? Thank you.
Regards,
Hope
Hope Lancero, PhD
hope.lancero@alumni.ucsf.edu
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 11:56 PM
To:wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC;
Kniss, Liz (internal); Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Tony Dixon; Kilpatrick, Brad; Kan,
Michael; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; apardini@cityofepa.org;
jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; myraw@smcba.org; Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org;
cmartinez@cityofepa.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary
Subject:Kavanaugh will kill the constitution
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/opinion/kavanaugh‐supreme‐court‐partisan.html
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rice, Danille
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 2:01 PM
To:dan.elwell@faa.gov
Cc:trevor_higgins@feinstein.senate.gov; dennis.roberts@faa.gov; Flaherty, Michelle; Keene, James;
Stump, Molly; Isaac_Irby@harris.senate.gov; eric.henshall@mail.house.gov; Council, City
Subject:Letter to FAA regarding Noise Concerns
Attachments:Update on Phase Two of FAA Initative to Address Noise Concerns.pdf
Good afternoon Mr. Elwell,
I am emailing on behalf of Deputy City Manager, Michelle Flaherty. Please find attached letter regarding the November
2017 update and April 2018 further update on Phase Two of the FAA initiative to address noise concerns of Santa
Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille Rice | Administrative Assistant
Office of the City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2229 | E:
Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 9:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Low-income Housing NOT Another WOMEN'S CLUB
The Roller Hapgood property should NOT be rezoned to allow another Club.
It's located across the street from Addison Elementary School, right next to
Webster Woods. The logical place for low income housing is there!
The Women's Club on the Corner of Cowper and Homer is under‐utilized and is
only a few blocks away from the Hapgood property. WE NEED HOUSING, NOT ANOTHER CLUB FOR high tech women.
Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Low‐Income Housing Subcommittee
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@outlook.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:03 PM
To:scottlargent38@gmail.com
Cc:patriciabond70@gmail.com; rua@uglyjudge.com; angelo.c.tom@hud.gov; hotline@hudoig.gov
Subject:Fwd: Markham Plaza Apartments
Scott can you please contact Patricia Bond and help get her story out. Her contact info is down below.
Heidi Yauman
650.656.7458
From: patriciabond70 <patriciabond70@gmail.com>
Date: September 11, 2018 at 10:13:34 AM PDT
To: Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: Markham Plaza Apartments
My contact information is
Patricia Bond
669‐350‐3851
patriciabond70@gmail.com
Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@outlook.com>
Date: 9/11/18 10:07 AM (GMT‐08:00)
To: patriciabond70@gmail.com
Cc: scottlargent38@gmail.com, angelo.c.tom@hud.gov, angelo.tom@hud.gov
Subject: Markham Plaza Apartments
Patricia can we get your number? Cary wants to talk with you. Also, Please follow up with Scott Largent
at scottlargent38@gmail.com about the abuses you have witnessed and experienced at Markham Plaza.
Cary and Scott will know what to do. My number is 650.656.7458 and Cary is 650.213.6324
Thank you Heidi Yauman
3
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 5:22 PM
To:kimberly.y.nash@hud.gov
Cc:larry.wuerstle@hud.gov
Subject:Markham Plaza Murders
HUD wants documentation in writing but the sheriff department in San Jose is threatening people to not put anything in writing about the Markham Plaza murders. Robert died in 2012 and Rhonda this past April 24 in the same apartment under similiar circumstances. http://www.uglyjudge.com/santa-clara-county-hiding-deaths-robert-moss-charles-copeland/ http://www.uglyjudge.com/santa-clara-county-hiding-death-crime/
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 at 10:06 PM
From: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
To: Angelo.Tom@hud.gov
Cc: andrew.hughes@hud.gov, Alfonso.Costa@hud.gov, 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
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
2
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
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:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 3:19 PM
To:CAC-TACC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; UAC
Subject:More about Boulder's 05-08-18 staff report about a backbone for FTTP
CAC members,
In my message of 08-12-18, "RFP 171422 (FTTN) interviews" (available here, pages 27-28),
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66531
I reported that the City of Boulder is building a $15 million fiber "backbone" because their City Council think's it's a
necessary first step towards getting citywide FTTP. After the "backbone" is built, they'll decide whether to build and
operate citywide FTTP as a municipality or partner with a private-sector company to do it. Boulder's "backbone" is
conceptually almost identical to Palo Alto's FTTN idea. (Both Boulder and Palo Alto have been using CTC as a
consultant.)
Here's Boulder's 05-08-18 staff report (396 pages).
https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2018_05_08_SS-Broadband_packet-1-201806151108.pdf
Below the "######" line are some excerpts from the staff report. I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with
"###").
HIGH-LEVEL COMMENTS:
* Why does CTC think 144-strand fiber optic cable costs $3.50 per foot?
* It might be smarter to have more hubs, so FDCs didn't have to go so far to reach them.
* This "backbone" design postpones having to get real about what fiber distribution cabinets will look like. When the time
comes, I hope they're still willing to consider the possibility of putting AE electronics in the FDCs.
* Building the "backbone" first postpones having to get real about whether the city or a third party will do the last mile. I
think the municipal option would be best.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
############################################################################################
EXCERPTS FROM BOULDER'S 05-08-18 STAFF REPORT:
--- page 26 ---
2 Additional Information Applied to Unit Pricing
CTC collected several new data points to concretize cost estimates for the fiber backbone and FTTP access networks.
This process included discussions with the City’s Public Works personnel to collect information related to the prevalence
2
of subsurface hard rock in Boulder, a review of bids and soil reports from recent construction projects completed by the
City, and additional desktop surveys of candidate backbone routes.
These data points were used to refine the unit pricing as follows:
• Increasing the cost of installation of 2-inch conduit using directional boring by $4 to $18
per foot
• Increasing the cost of subscriber drop installations by $2 to $8 per foot
• Increasing incremental construction costs due to encountering intermittent rock by $27 to $40 per foot
• Increasing the cost of 144-count fiber cable by $1.10 to $3.50 per foot
### What kind of fiber cable is this? (Loose tube? Ribbon?) Did a previous document say the cost estimate was $2.40
per foot? What about the costs of all the other fiber cables the backbone project will use?
### In 2009, CTC said, "...an 864-count cable is $50,000 per mile, implying a marginal cost of approximately $50 per
fiber per mile." (Or about a penny per strand per foot.)
http://www.ctcnet.us/CTCCostsForAnchorInstitutions.pdf
Is this still a good rule of thumb?
### In 2013, CTC said, "... the material cost of fiber strands represents a very minor component of the overall cost of fiber
construction (about $0.01 per strand per foot....)"
http://www.ctcnet.us/HollySprings.pdf
In 2017, CTC said the same thing.
https://www.lexingtonky.gov/sites/default/files/2017-05/CTC%20report%20-%20Fayette%20County%20broadband%20-
%20final%2020170523.pdf
• Decreasing the prevalence of intermittent rock from 35 percent to 5 percent
############################################################################################
--- page 30 ---
3 Backbone Network Cost Estimate and Design Assumptions
The backbone design is optimized to support a citywide FTTP network and to connect unserved City sites. The design
has sufficient capacity and penetration throughout the City to support potential AMI and Smart City infrastructures in key
locations identified by the City. Should the City choose to construct the backbone network without the FTTP access
network, the backbone will serve as an institutional network, connecting facilities that the City has prioritized while also
serving as a starting point for a future FTTP network to be built by the City or a partner.
3.1 Backbone Cost Estimate
The construction of a citywide fiber backbone will cost about $9 million to $11 million, inclusive of OSP construction labor,
materials, engineering, permitting, and testing. This estimate, which is itemized in Table 3, does not include any
electronics, hub shelters,[2] or backbone terminations—
### What is a "backbone termination"? Either an FDC or a hub?
nor does it include ongoing operational costs.[3]
Table 3: Breakdown of Estimated Backbone Cost
Cost Component Total Estimated Cost
OSP Engineering $1.4 million – $1.7 million
Quality Control/Quality Assurance $530,000 – $640,000
General OSP Construction Cost $6.7 million – $8 million
Special Crossings $90,000 – $110,000
Backbone and Distribution Plant Splicing $50,000 – $60,000
Total Estimated Cost: $8.8 million – $10.5 million
3
### This 06-12-18 article says the estimate is now $15 million.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_31941127/public-support-high-boulder-moves-fund-citywide-
fiber?source=mostpopular
3.2 Backbone Design Assumptions
The network design and cost estimates assume the City will:
• Use existing City locations for two core facilities to house network electronics and provide backhaul to the internet
### Does a core facility also provide the functionality of a hub? Is a core facility in fact a kind of hub?
• Construct fiber to connect core sites to distribution hub sites
### How many distribution hub sites? Two, apparently. (See Figure 3 and its description below.)
• Construct fiber to connect the distribution hubs to fiber distribution cabinets (FDC)
### The term "fiber distribution cabinet" is misleading, since it seems to imply that the cabinet won't have any electronics.
### How many FDCs will there be? Elsewhere, the number of premises to be passed is estimated to be 44,000, and the
number of premises served by a FDC is (up to?) 512. So, assuming the design should accommodate up to (at least)
100% take rate, that might mean the number of FDCs might be 44,000 / 512 = 86. Or more? Maybe 100?
The design assumes fully underground fiber backbone construction, providing a high level of flexibility and scalability to
support desired open access
### Is this talking about layer 1 open access (like in Huntsville) or layer 2 open access (like in Ammon) or either? I prefer
the latter.
configurations and a variety of architectures used by third-party FTTP network operators. The backbone contains a
sufficient number of strands to allow for either active electronics or passive splitters to be placed in FDCs
### OK. How many strands is that? If an FDC served 512 premises using 32-way splitters, it would need 16 strands (not
counting the strands to premises). If it used 16-way splitters, it would need 32 strands. (Assuming there are no splitters
between the FDC and premises.) Plus spares. How many strands would CTC say are needed if the 512 premises
connected with active Ethernet electronics in the FDC? (Say the FDC has to connect to two hubs, for redundancy. How
many links to each? And how many strands per link?) Should any premises be able to connect directly to a hub without
going through either a splitter or an AE switch at the FDC? Keep in mind that the main cost of bringing a fiber cable to an
FDC is the installation cost, not the cost per strand.
### Obviously, a single cable in the backbone could contain strands going to several different FDCs, which is why it
might make sense for a cable to have 144 strands, or 288, or 432. Since the current backbone design seems to have
only two hubs, and for the sake of redundancy, each FDC should connect to both hubs, and since there might be 100
FDCs, each hub might need to connect to 100 * 16 = 1,600 or 100 * 32 = 3,200 strands (not counting the strands that
connect hubs to cores and other hubs). How many cables should there be to contain that many strands altogether?
------
[2] See Section 4.4.2 for more details on hub sites.
[3] For a full picture of the cost for each of these scenarios, refer to the financial analysis in our 2016 feasibility study.
--- page 31 ---
along the backbone routes and for strands to be leased to providers who may wish to place their own distribution cabinets
[4].
### In other words, the backbone cost doesn't include the cost of the FDC cabinets connected to it? Will the fiber cables
just be left exposed to the elements at the FDC locations?
4
The design also seeks to minimize the range of costs for FTTP construction throughout the City.
### Why? Why not just seek to minimize cost?
Figure 4 (below) illustrates the backbone network. Using City fiber where possible will decrease the cost of constructing
the backbone. Existing City fiber resources may also allow the City to conduct FTTP pilot programs or begin deployment
in neighborhoods where demand is greatest.
Based on conversations with City staff, we selected the North Boulder Rec Center and a new City fire station as candidate
core sites (an actual site has not yet been selected), and the Municipal Service Center and the Alpine-Balsam site as
candidate distribution hub sites for the purposes of the cost estimate (see Figure 3). These locations provide adequate
size, security, and geographical diversity—and housing electronics at locations that are attached to the City’s fiber
network will reduce costs.
Figure 3: Candidate Network Core and Hub Locations
### The four hubs (i.e., the two core facilities plus the two distribution hubs) chosen for the estimate are all located fairly
close to each other, which is not ideal.
------------
[4] Further discussion of open access models can be found in Section 5 of the 2016 Broadband Feasibility Study.
### This feasibility study is included in the staff report, starting at page 184. Section 5 starts at page 254.
Futher discussion of the FTTP network design can be found in Section 3.3.
--- page 32 ---
Figure 4: Candidate Backbone Routes
3.2.1 Network Core Sites
The core sites are the bridges that link the FTTP network to the public internet and deliver all services to end users. The
proposed network design includes two core locations, based on the
--- page 33 ---
network’s projected capacity requirements and the need for geographical redundancy (i.e., if one core site were to fail, the
second core site would continue to operate the network).
The location of core network facilities also provides physical path diversity for subscribers and all upstream service and
content providers. The Boulder core sites should be housed in secure locations with diverse connectivity to the internet
and the City’s existing fiber optic network.
The core locations in this plan will house providers’ Operational Support Systems (OSS) such as provisioning platforms,
fault and performance management systems, remote access, and other operational support systems for FTTP operations.
The core locations are also where any business partner or content / service providers will gain access to the subscriber
network with their own point-of-presence. This may be via remote connection, but collocation is recommended.
The core locations are typically run in a High Availability (HA) configuration, with fully meshed and redundant uplinks to
the public Internet and/or all other content and service providers. It is imperative that core network locations are physically
secure and allow unencumbered 24x7x365 access to authorized engineering and operational staff, including non-City
staff should the City partner with a third-party ISP to provide FTTP service.
The operational environment of the network core and hub locations is similar to that of a data center. This includes clean
power sources, UPS batteries, and diesel power generation for survival through sustained commercial outages. The
facility must provide strong physical security, limited/controlled access, and environmental controls for humidity and
temperature. Fire suppression is highly recommended.
5
Equipment is to be mounted securely in racks and cabinets, in compliance with national, state, and local codes.
Equipment power requirements and specification may include -48 volt DC and/or 120/240 volts AC. All equipment is to be
connected to conditioned / protected clean power with uninterrupted cutover to battery and generator. The required size of
the facilities will vary based on several factors, including the final network design, desired colocation space, and physical
access requirements. Telecommunications shelters are typically 100 to 250 square feet in size.
CTC and the City discussed several potential locations for the core and hub sites:
• The Boulder County Communications Center and Boulder Municipal Airport were identified as desirable facilities, but
were rejected due to issues with access and availability for use by the City.
• The East Boulder Community Center and the George F. Reynolds Branch Library were identified as potentially suitable
facilities, but are located farther from the most fiber-dense parts of the network than the selected sites as well as from
potential commodity
--- page 34 ---
bandwidth providers. This could increase the length, and therefore cost and exposure to fiber cuts, of the most critical
segments of the network which connect the core sites to the internet and interconnect the core and hub sites.
• The Public Safety building has existing data center facilities, but likely would not have enough space to accommodate
the required equipment. The City also may not be able to guarantee 24/7 physical access to the facility because of the
security requirements
imposed by existing law enforcement and public safety communications roles of the building.
• The Municipal Building has existing network equipment, but is in a high-flood-risk area.
3.2.2 Distribution Network
The distribution network is the layer between the hubs and the FDCs, which provide the access links to the taps. The
distribution network aggregates traffic from the FDCs to the core. Fiber cuts and equipment failures have progressively
greater operational impact as they happen closer to the network core, so it is critical to build in redundancies and physical
path diversities in the distribution network, and to seamlessly reroute traffic when necessary.
The distribution network design proposed in this report is flexible and scalable enough to support two different
architectures:
1. Housing both the distribution and access network electronics at the hubs, and using only passive devices (optical
splitters and patches) at the FDCs
2. Housing the distribution network electronics at the hubs and pushing the access network electronics further into the
network by housing them at the FDCs
By housing all electronics at the hubs, the network will not require power at the FDCs. This architecture may reduce costs
by allowing smaller, passive FDCs in the field. However, the redundancy capability from the FDCs to the hubs will be
limited.
By pushing the network electronics further into the field, the network would gain added redundancy by allowing the access
electronics to connect to both hub sites.
### This description seems to be saying that the two core facilities aren't being used as hubs. So each FDC that wants
to have redundancy has to connect to both distribution hubs (and there are only two).
In the event one hub has an outage, the subscribers connected to the FDC would still have network access. Choosing a
network design that only supports this architecture may reduce costs by reducing the size of the hubs.
Selecting a design that supports both of these models would allow the City to accommodate many different service
operators and their network designs. This design would also allow service providers to start with a small deployment (i.e.,
placing electronics only at the hub sites) and grow by pushing electronics closer to their subscribers.
--- page 35 ---
6
4 FTTP Network Cost Estimates and Design Assumptions
Based on the inputs described in Section 2 and other guidance from the City, we developed a conceptual, high-level
FTTP design that reflects the City’s goals and is open to a variety of architecture options. The design incorporates the
backbone described in Section 3 as a starting point for the FTTP access network. The access network assumes a
combination of aerial and overhead construction.
Based on this design, we developed two cost examples. The first is the cost to deploy the FTTP OSP. This is the total
capital cost for the City to build a dark FTTP network for lease to a private partner. The second estimate is the cost to
deploy lit FTTP infrastructure, including all electronics, consumer drops, and CPE. This second estimate shows the total
capital costs (paid by the City or its partners) required to build a lit FTTP network to support a ubiquitous, next generation
data service.
4.1 FTTP Design Assumptions
The FTTP network design and cost estimates assume the City will:
• Construct fiber from the FDCs to each residence and business (i.e., from termination panels in the FDC to tap locations
in the ROW or on City easements)
• Construct fiber laterals into large, multi-tenant business facilities and multiple-dwelling units (MDU)
### Why use different terminology for businesses and MDUs?
The FTTP network and service areas were defined based on the following criteria:
• Service areas defined by passing density and existing utilities; broken into categories of high, medium, and low densities
### Can I assume that a FDC's territory doesn't have to be just one kind of density?
• FDCs serving 512 passings
### Is this a maximum? An average?
• Multiple FDCs dispersed throughout each service area
• FDCs suitable to support hardened network electronics, providing backup power and an active heat exchange [5]
• Avoiding the need for distribution plant to cross major roadways and railways
------
[5] These hardened FDCs reflect an assumption that the City’s operational and business model will require the installation
of provider electronics in the FDCs that are capable of supporting open access among multiple providers.
### Again, is this layer 1 open access (like Huntsville) or layer 2 open access (like Ammon) or either?
We note that the overall FTTP cost estimate would decrease if the hardened FDCs were replaced with passive fiber
distribution cabinets (which would house only optical splitters) and the providers’ electronics were housed only at hub
locations.
--- page 36 ---
Coupled with an appropriate network electronics configuration, this design serves to greatly increase the reliability of fiber
services compared to those of traditional cable and telephone networks. The backbone design (Section 3) minimizes the
average length of non-diverse distribution plant between the network electronics and each customer, thereby reducing the
probability of service outages caused by a fiber break.
4.2 Summary of Dark and Lit FTTP Cost Estimates
7
The citywide dark FTTP network deployment will cost about $63 million to $76 million, inclusive of OSP construction labor,
materials, engineering, permitting, and pole attachment licensing. This estimate does not include any electronics,
subscriber equipment, or drops.
Table 4: Estimated Dark FTTP OSP Costs
Cost Component Total Estimated Cost
OSP Engineering $5.9 million – $7.1 million
Quality Control/Quality Assurance $2.2 million – $2.6 million
General OSP Construction Cost $48.5 million – $58.2 million
Special Crossings $90,000 – $110,000
Backbone and Distribution Plant Splicing $1.6 million – $1.9 million
Backbone Hub, Termination, and Testing $4 million – $4.8 million
Core and Hub Shelters $800,000 – $1,000,000
FTTP Lateral Installations $0
Total Estimated Cost: $63.1 million – $75.7 million
This estimate assumes that the City constructs and owns the FTTP infrastructure up to a demarcation point at the optical
tap near each residence and business, and leases the dark fiber backbone and distribution fiber to a private partner. The
private partner would be responsible for all network electronics, fiber drops to subscribers, and CPE—as well as network
sales, marketing, and operations.
A citywide lit FTTP network deployment, including the backbone and access network, will cost between $102 million and
$123 million, or an average of $2,550 per passing.
### On page 38, it says there are 44,000 passings. So the cost per passing would be between $2,318 and $2795,
This total is inclusive of OSP construction labor, materials, engineering, permitting, pole attachment licensing, hub
shelters, network electronics, drop installation, CPE, and testing. The estimate assumes that 35 percent of residents and
businesses will subscribe to the service (i.e., a 35 percent “take rate”).
### It would be nice to see this estimate divided into a) a cost per premises passed and b) an additional cost per
premises connected.
Table 5 summarizes the cost estimates.
--- page 37 ---
Table 5: Estimated Lit FTTP Cost at 35 Percent Take Rate
Cost Component Total Estimated Cost
Dark FTTP OSP $63.1 million – $75.7 million
Central Network Electronics $6.9 million – $8.3 million
FTTP Service Drop and Lateral Installations $21.9 million – $26.3 million
Customer Premise Equipment $10.7 million – $12.8 million
Total Estimated Cost $102.6 million – $123.1 million
Figure 5 Error! Reference source not found.
### What should this reference have been?
shows the total estimated cost for a lit FTTP network at varying take rates. The blue line represents the low-end cost
estimate with error bars showing the high-end estimate. The cost is roughly linear by take rate because the cost of adding
additional subscribers is a fixed cost.
Figure 5: Total Estimated Cost of Lit FTTP at Different Take Rates
### It's just a nearly-straight-line graph -- between $68M and $80M for 0% take rate and between $167M and $201M for
100% take rate.
Actual costs for the dark or lit FTTP deployment may vary due to unknown factors, including: 1) costs of private
easements, 2) utility pole replacement and make ready costs, 3) variations in labor and material costs, 4) subsurface hard
rock, and 5) the City’s operational and business model (including the take rate). We have incorporated suitable
8
assumptions to address these items based on our experiences in similar markets and data collected from the City as
described in Section 2.
--- page 38 ---
The City also requested a rough estimate of the cost of building the FTTP distribution plant completely underground.
Though the results of our field surveys indicate that a 100% underground build may not be feasible, we provide these
estimates in Table 6 for reference.
### At the 06-12-18 City Council meeting, it appeared that CTC's Joanne Hovis acknowledged that Boulder's backbone
network (at least) was going to be 100% underground.
Table 6: Estimated Lit FTTP Cost Using 100% Underground Distribution Construction at 35 Percent Take Rate
Cost Component Total Estimated Cost
Dark FTTP OSP $69 million – $83 million
Central Network Electronics $7 million – $8 million
FTTP Service Drop and Lateral Installations $30 million – $36 million
Customer Premise Equipment $11 million – $13 million
Total Estimated Cost $117 million – $140 million
4.3 FTTP OSP Cost Estimation Methodology
As with any utility, the design and associated costs for construction vary with the unique physical layout of the service
area—no two streets are likely to have the exact same configuration of fiber optic cables, communications conduit,
underground vaults, and utility pole attachments. Costs are further varied by soil conditions, such as the prevalence of
subsurface hard rock during construction; the condition of utility poles and feasibility of “aerial” construction involving the
attachment of fiber infrastructure to utility poles; and crossings of bridges, railways, and highways.
To estimate costs for a citywide network, we extrapolated the costs for strategically selected sample designs on the basis
of street mileage and the number of potential customer connections or “passings.” Specifically, we developed sample
FTTP designs to generate costs per passing for three representative areas of the City. [6] (See Figure 6.)
We estimated approximately 44,000 passings [7]
### NOTE. Are any street lights or utility poles counted as premises, just in case?
based on census data as well as GIS and demographic data provided by the City. This number includes single dwelling
units (SDUs), multidwelling units (MDUs) with fewer than twenty units, and businesses in standalone buildings or small
business complexes. Small business complexes and MDUs with between five and nineteen units are treated as a single
passing for construction purposes as these buildings will likely be served by a single fiber drop.
### Does Council approve? What entity within the MDU translates the single fiber drop into a connection for each
residential premises that wants one? I think this risks making MDU premises "second-class citizens."
Large business complexes and MDUs with twenty or more units are not included in this estimation and should be treated
on a case-by-case basis. These larger
------
[6] The sample design was 37 percent of the total City street mileage.
[7] According to City staff, the electric utility in Boulder has approximately 55,000 meters. CTC notes that this number may
be higher than the number of potential passings because of the number of situations, such as meters for industrial
customers, street lighting, and traffic fixtures, where meters do not represent a potential broadband customer.
--- page 39 ---
complexes are often served by niche service providers and may be difficult to obtain as customers.
### Does Council approve? Shouldn't the city pass every premises, just in case?
9
Downtown business districts in urban areas tend to have underground utilities; utilities are predominantly aerial in urban
residential areas (although the poles there tend to require more make ready). Medium and low-density areas tend to have
the greatest variation in the percentages of aerial versus underground construction. Generally, the newest subdivisions
and developments tend to be entirely underground, whereas older neighborhoods have a mixture of aerial and
underground construction. Many areas also tend to have rear easements for utilities, which can increase the cost of
construction due to restricted access to the utility poles. In areas with aerial utility construction and insufficient green
space in the ROW, it may be possible to construct fiber beneath sidewalks.
The assumptions, sample designs, and cost estimates were used to extrapolate a cost per passing for the OSP. This
number was then multiplied by the number of passings in each area based on the City’s GIS data, checked against
population information from the United States Census Bureau.
The actual cost to construct FTTP to every premises in the City could differ from the estimate due to changes in the
assumptions underlying the model. For example, if access to the utility poles is not granted or make-ready and pole
replacement costs are too high, more of the network would have to be constructed underground—which could significantly
increase the cost of construction. Alternatively, if the City were able to partner with a local telecommunications provider
and overlash to existing pole attachments, the cost of the build could be significantly lower.
--- page 40 ---
Figure 6: Expanded FTTP Sample Design Areas
--- page 41 ---
4.4 FTTP Cost Components
In the sections below, we describe OSP, hub site, and electronics costs that underpin the dark and lit FTTP estimates.
4.4.1 OSP Costs
In terms of OSP, the estimated cost to construct the proposed FTTP network is about $63 million to $76 million, or $1,420
to $1,710 per passing. [8] As discussed above, our model assumes a mixture of aerial and underground fiber
construction, depending on the construction of existing utilities in the area as well as the state of any utility poles and
existing infrastructure. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the estimated OSP costs by area. (Note that the costs have been
rounded.)
### See page 27 (Table 2) and page 28 (Figure 1) for more information about Area A, Area B, and Area C.
Table 7: Estimated OSP Costs for FTTP
Area Distribution Total Cost Passings Cost per Passing Cost Per
Plant Mile
Plant Mileage (millions)
Backbone 93.4 $8.8 – $10.5 – NA $94,000
– $113,000
Dark FTTP Area A 32.8 $7.6 – $9.1 6,000 $1,270 – $1,520 $232,000
– $277,000
Area B 179.5 $32.5 – $39 27,000 $1,200 – $1,440 $181,000
– $217,000
Area C 80.8 $14.2 – $17 11,000 $1,290 – $1,550 $176,000
– $210,000
Total 386.5 $63.1 – $75.7 44,318 $1,420 – $1,710 $163,000
– $196,000
### I don't understand why the total number of premises in Table 7 is not the sum of the premises in Area A, Area B, and
Area C.
OSP costs include engineering, quality assurance and quality control, general construction, special crossings, and
splicing. Costs for aerial and underground placement were estimated using available unit cost data for materials and
estimates on the labor costs for placing, pulling, and boring fiber based on construction in comparable markets.
4.4.2 Backbone Core and Hub Costs
10
The shelters for the core and hub sites will cost between $800,000 and $1,000,000. The hub shelters serve as the
termination point for the fiber rings that will distribute service throughout
------
[8] The passing count includes individual single-unit buildings and units in small multi-dwelling and multi-business
buildings as single passings. It treats larger buildings as single passings.
--- page 42 ---
the City. The core shelters house the central network electronics and provide redundant connections to the internet and
the hub shelters. Costs are inclusive of typical standalone telecommunication shelters and fiber terminations. This amount
could be applied to new construction or retrofitting of an existing City facility.
The core and hub facilities may be constructed along with the backbone or as part of the FTTP access network if
constructed separately. However, we have included these costs as part of the FTTP cost estimate because it may be
preferable to construct the core and hub locations along with the FTTP access network. This would allow more flexibility
should the City partner with a private entity to provide service over the network. The backbone design will allow the City to
serve sites from existing network locations before the new core and hub sites are constructed.
4.4.3 Central Network Electronics Costs
Central network electronics will cost about $7 million to $8 million, or $160 to $190 per passing, based on an assumed
take rate of 35 percent.[9] (These costs may increase or decrease depending on take rate. Also, the costs may be phased
in as subscribers are added to the network.) The central network electronics connect subscribers to the FTTP network at
the core, hubs, and cabinets. Table 8 below lists the estimated costs for each segment.
Table 8: Estimated Central Network Electronics Costs
Network Segment Subtotal Passings Cost per Passing
(millions)
Core and Distribution Electronics $4.7 – $5.6 44,000 $110 – $130
FTTP Access Electronics $2.3 – $2.7 44,000 $50 – $60
Total $6.9 – $8.3 44,000 $160 – $190
### It would be helpful to explain more carefully how much of this cost can be deferred until customers actually sign up,
i.e., how much is part of the cost per premises connected.
4.4.4 Customer Premises Equipment and Service Drop Installation (Per Subscriber Costs)
CPE are the subscribers’ interface to the FTTP network. There are a wide variety of CPEs offering other data, voice, and
video services. Devices such as magicJack and Roku provide “over the top” (OTT) serivces via the data network and can
usually retail between $30 and $100. For this cost estimate, we selected CPEs that provide only Ethernet data services.
### OK.
### It would be good to consider what kind of CPE. Should it be 1-Gbps (symmetrical) or 10-Gbps
(symmetrical)? Should it be AE or PON? Should it have SDN/NFV capabilities? Should it have battery backup? What
premises-facing ports should it have? Copper Ethernet? Phone? Wireless?
Assuming a 35 percent take rate, we estimate the cost of CPE for residential and business customers will be between $11
million and $13 million.
### That's between $714 ($11,000,000 / (0.35 * 44,000)) and $844 ($13,000,000 / (0.35 * 44,000)) per customer
premises. That's too high. This 2015 CTC report estimates the cost of a CPE plus its installation at $455.
https://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/santacruz/ctc_santa_cruz_ftth_estimate_may2015.pdf
This 2008 document estimated the cost of a CPE (AE, 1-Gbps) at $347.
http://www.ipaloalto.com/pdf/Overview_2008June16.pdf
When UTOPIA was starting up, it was getting CPEs (AE, 100-Mbps) for $175. As a general rule, electronics tends to get
less expensive over time (for a given capability) until it becomes obsolete.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 11:55 PM
To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; dcbertini@menlopark.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu;
council@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; Kniss, Liz (internal); wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com;
apardini@cityofepa.org; myraw@smcba.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Council, City;
Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; HRC; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org;
cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org;
Zelkha, Mila; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org
Subject:Nike backs a man of justice, integrity, and true American patriotism....
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/05/pitts‐a‐corporation‐takes‐a‐risk‐to‐support‐a‐man‐who‐gave‐up‐his‐
career‐for‐justice/amp/
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Liya Su <liyasu.luo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 10:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No rent control in PA please
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to reject the colleague’s memo authored by Council Members Cory Wolbach, Tom DuBois, Lydia Kou, and
Karen Holman.
Any attempt to tie relocation payments to an increase in rent is rent control, and was voted down by council less than a
year ago. In the short months between now and then, there has been no indication that evictions are on the rise or that
rents have been spiking drastically. In fact, the average one bedroom, according to ApartmentList.com, has only
increased $44 since last October. This does not merit relocation payments or any other mandate to provide rental
assistance.
Additionally, the council adopted a relocation assistance program on August 29 for no‐fault evictions. This addressed the
most pressing issue in Palo Alto and was targeted to those truly in need. Any need to expand this program has not been
justified, and may jeopardize the ability to find safe, stable and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents.
Instead, please continue your effort to build housing at all income levels in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has worked hard in the
past to provide below‐market‐rate housing, and recently has expanded programs to encourage affordable housing,
ADUs, and workforce housing for Palo Alto residents. I support these efforts and encourage you to keep the focus on
housing growth, which is the only real solution to the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Liya Su
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 1:32 PM
To:De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed
Cc:John Guislin; Michael Hodos; Paul Machado; Becky Sanders; Fred Balin; Nadia Naik; Beamer Norman
H.; Wolfgang Dueregger; Council, City; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; Adrian Fine; Cory Wolbach; Lydia
Kou; Holman, Karen (external); Furman, Sheri; Jeff Levinsky; Allen Akin; Mary Gallagher; Tommy
Derrick; Dedra Hauser; Beth Rosenthal
Subject:overdue date for community meeting about city-wide RPPs
Rob, please set a date ... now is the time to set a date for the meeting you suggested 2 months
ago.. issues are building and dialogue is stagnant.
Below is example of latest effort to disrupt neighborhoods. What is city response? Action. Delay.
Blind eye. Await public reaction? This is just one small facet of unaddressed issues. Passive
management of delayed issues is not acceptabe despite constraints of budgets and staffing.
FYI: The city's pledge to review RPPs will actively discussed tonight among many
neighborhoods. Can I give them any new information re meeting objective, format, date?
Paris Taylor, Downtown North
Do you have a driveway that's generally empty during the day? I'd love to pay you to park in your
driveway instead of paying a meter or moving my vehicle every few hours. I'm not the only one that needs
parking. My entire office of 150 is looking for a similar Airbnb for parking arrangement. Any help would be
greatly appreciated. Residential driveways only please! Thank you :)
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gard, Nancy <Nancy.Gard@marcusmillichap.com>
Sent:Monday, September 10, 2018 3:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,
I am unable to attend the City Council meeting this evening and would like to know how to get a copy of the meeting
minutes or an update on the issues spoken about this evening, specifically Rent Control.
Thank you,
Nancy Gard
Licensed Assistant for Mike Henshaw
Marcus & Millichap
2626 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 391-1700 main
(650) 391-1710
nancy.gard@marcusmillichap.com
Follow us on: NYSE: MMI
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE and DISCLAIMER: This email message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so
advise the sender immediately. Nothing in this communication should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or
other legal document. The recipients are advised that the sender and Marcus & Millichap are not qualified to provide, and have not been contracted to provide, legal,
financial, or tax advice, and that any such advice regarding any investment by the recipients must be obtained from the recipients’ attorney, accountant, or tax
professional.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:50 PM
To:Keene, James; City Mgr; Ng, Judy; Binder, Andrew; Lee, David; 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
Subject:Palo Alto City Manager James Keene cannot claim ignorance
James Keene
Palo Alto City Manager
You have the evidence and therefore cannot claim you do not have have the information necessary to
hold Ofc. Conde accountable.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Palo‐Alto‐s‐soul‐searching‐over‐profiling‐3260954.php#photo‐
2322150
2
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PALO‐ALTO‐D‐A‐won‐t‐retry‐officers‐accused‐of‐2664973.php
3
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2004/2004_04_14.police14ja.shtml
4
https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/10/31/palo‐alto‐police‐chiefs‐remarks‐reignite‐race‐controversy/
Palo Alto police chief’s remarks reignite race controversy ...
www.mercurynews.com
Faced with a spike in street robberies, Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson is under fire after revealing at
a meeting Thursday night that she instructed officers to stop African-Americans and ...
5
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Palo‐Alto‐police‐chief‐denies‐racial‐profiling‐3263562.php
This is the code Officer Conde used to justify to pull me over and unlawfully detain me and unlawfully search
me.
Ofc. Conde knew that I was not violating this code and therefore Ofc. Conde's detention was illegal.
He then changed his story in order to justify the stop but each time he was exposed as lying.
6
You have no excuse for not holding Ofc. Conde accountable.
Tony Ciampi
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 12:38 PM
To:Keene, James; City Mgr; Ng, Judy; Binder, Andrew; Lee, David; 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:Palo Alto City Manager James Keene
James Keene
Palo Alto City Manager
Dave Lee
PAPD
Sgt. Lee,
Are you the same officer who illegally detained and beat up Albert Hopkins and was found guilty by 8
jurors for doing so?
Mr. Keene
Apparently you didn't get the message. I have given you a complete statement as to what happened and you
have your own MAV recording as to what happened. You don't need anything further from me.
Therefore you do not need anything else to make a determination as to whether Ofc. Conte violated dept.
policy and the Constitutions.
The fact that you cannot provide me with a determination regarding Ofc. Conde's conduct reveals that you
have concluded that he has not violated department policy and has not violated the Constitution.
The fact that you have not held Ofc. Conde accountable tells me that you do not believe in the "Rule of Law"
and that you believe that your officers have a right to violate department policy, the city ordinances and the
Constitution of the United States whenever they decide to.
2
3
4
5
1
Carnahan, David
From:lukash@rocketmail.com
Sent:Sunday, September 9, 2018 4:22 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen;
lydia.kuo@cityofpaloalto.org; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Public comment - 980 Middlefield
September 9, 2018
Dear Council member, hardworking city staff, fellow residents,
(RE: 980 Middlefield Road [18PLN‐00129]: Request for Prescreening of a Proposal to Amend the Existing Planned
Community (PC) 2152 Zoning in Order to Change the Allowed use From Mortuary to a Private Club or Similar use)
Imagine for a moment your next‐door neighbor decides to throw a party with 300 guests. The imagine they decided to
have aparty daily, and on weekends invite up to 400 people to multiple parties with an outdoor sound system providing
speakers and music with amplified noise? Then imagine they wanted to operate on this basis from 7 AM to 7 PM every
day of the week? How happy would you be with this situation?
Well it is not a hypothetical question to over 100 families who are the direct neighbors to this proposed zoning change
and proposed project. 100 Families is not an exaggeration; there are some 85 units in Webster Wood Apartments
(Which surrounds the site on two sides) , as well as an additional 15 single family homes along Middlefield road and
Addison Avenue that are neighbors to this project. So, assuming 3‐4 persons per family, that is 300‐400 residents.
It will also negatively impact the children of Addison Elementary school directly across the street. Per the PAUSD, the
2008/2009 Enrollment at Addison Elementary is 443 Children. Thus there are about 1000 Palo Alto residents directly
impacted by this proposed Zoning changeproposed and project.
As a longtime resident on the corner of Addison Avenue and Middlefield Road, I can state that the previous owners,
Roller Hapgood and Tinney, were excellent neighbors. They had adequate parking for all but the most heavily attended
services. Even then the mourners were exceptionally respectful of the neighborhood and its residents, and the residents
were moved with sympathy for their grieving neighbors and an hour or two of increased parking density once or twice a
year was not disruptive at all. Sadly the new owners are trying to compare their proposed usage to be “Less impactful”
than that of the previous funeral home‐that comparison is “Dead on Arrival” in my opinion.
2
Under the current owner’s tenure a series of lavish parties were thrown at the site, replete with amplified sound,
portable pizza ovens, games, catering, even a temporary ice rink. The vendors servicing these private events tied ups
city streets before and after the event, and the police were notified on several occasions about the amplified noise after
city quiet hours. In fact the city files list numerous complaints about improper use of the facility for entertaining and all
subsequent proposed permits have been met with neighborhood opposition.
City staff in the planning department wrote an excellent letter asking questions about this proposed zoning change and
proposed project on May 8, 2018 and received a veryilluminating response from the agents of the
owner. Unfortunately, this information is NOT in your packets, though it is in the city files in the planning department. (I
took time off work last week just to go review the file, as this impacts my life from now forward one way or another.)
As this information directly impacts the proposed zoning change, the council shouldobtain and review this
information from staff.
To summarize the questions from the city’s planning department and the responses of the agent(s) of the owner show
that the entire proposed project “public image” is built around falsehoods. Among the facts provided in response to the
city’s questions;
a) The proposed club is NOT open to the public, it is by membership only (with token “Public” events”) – hence
it is a private club, not a community center as has been falsely stated
b) Operating Hours are 7 AM to 7 PM, which does not seem appropriate for a residential area.
c) Membership level: 200‐500 people (In a residential area?)
d) Facility usage: 300 people daily, 400 on the weekend for “Multiple events” – plus 20‐75 “Workers” (In a
residential area?)
e) Frequency of afterhours/weekend “Events”: Weekly! (In a residential area?)
f) Elimination of existing parking spaces, despite increased usage. Not enough spaces remain for the staff much
less the visitors to the site
g) They state no changes to the site, yet have full detailed plans from a prominent San Francisco Architectural
firm showing many changes to the site
h) This is not one property, it is three lots. The previous owners secured the necessary land for parking for their
use, and obtain special zoning to do so – the new owner plans the opposite
i) Etc. etc. almost too numerous to name – read the letter and responses for yourself
Dear representatives of the people, the famed “Palo Alto Process” is being bypassed by someone with great wealth,
influence, and power. The owner has never communicated her plans with her neighbors. Instead of this proposed
zoning change and proposed project being reviewed by the planning department, going through the appropriate
committees for zoning, architecture, etc. the owner is using her wealth and power to attempt to gain privileges not
afforded the average citizen. In the process she is denying the rights of her neighboring property owners and
residents by eliminating their participation in the legally proscribed process. “Why waste time? – Go straight to the city
council” seems to be the approach. Only you can stand for the rights of the approximately of people she
has already bypassed.
This project offers nothing new or different to our neighborhood;
a) A place/club for Women? The Palo Alto Women’s club on Homer has been there 100 years,
3
b) A community Center? The Lucy Stern Community Center is only a few blocks away,
c) Access to childcare for working mothers? PACCC(Palo Alto Community Child Care) provides onsite child care
in their facilities at Addison Elementary and on Channing Avenue (In addition there are many other PACCC and
other licensed child care centers in the city).
The only thing we do not have is a “member’s only” private club offering the elite a place to meet, which we frankly
do not have a need for in our neighborhood.
Middlefield road is a residential arterial street, and already overloaded with traffic. Adding another 300 trips per day, in
direct conflict with Addison Elementary traffic, seems not advisable. Addison Avenue is a bicycle thoroughfare
andadding more cars on the streets will endanger the bicyclists. Addison Elementary already has traffic challenges, this
proposed use would exacerbate the problem and place children at risk
The neighborhood is part of the residential parking permit zone, and the city should insist that all necessary parking
spaces be retained, and this proposed project is barred from obtaining any parking permits. There is no need to
grandfather a proposed new facility, and current city law mandates that all proposed uses provide adequate parking for
their proposed use. As previously stated, There are no public benefits to offset this parking requirement.
The proposed plan even violates the Palo Alto Fence code, by obstructing visibility at the Addison/Middlefield
intersection via the creation of a walled garden of the front lawn, endangering the students who cross to go to and from
school. (Though I am flattered the architect “borrowed” my picket fence style in their designs, the hedges are clearly
planned to grow to a height to block the view.)
The neighborhood is not against appropriate professional uses. There are several psychiatrists, psychologists, dentists,
orthodontists, small offices etc. all along Middlefield road. All behave in a very professional fashion, provide adequate
parking, and operate during reasonable hours. So the neighborhood is not against non‐residential uses, it
is simply against inappropriate uses such as a large private club with hundred of members and “Events” on a regular
basis. There are many commercial and industrial zoned areas of the city where this would be an acceptable project; it is
simply inappropriate in a neighborhood next to an elementary school and a low incomehousing complex where traffic
and parking are already stretched beyond limits.
There is also the element of an appropriate use of a property. If one decided to place a cemetery next to a hospital,
while it might be legal it would most certainly be in poor taste and an inappropriate use of the land. In the same
fashion, placing a private club serving the richest 1/10 of 1% of America next to a low‐income housing development is
not only in poor taste, but presently illegal under city zoning. Picture the psychological impact on these hard‐
working citizens as the 1/10 of 1% flaunt their privilege from 7 AM to 7 PM seven days a week. Picture the children of
these families growing up in the shadow of paradise they can never hope to enter. It does not seem to be in line of the
values of our city.
4
So I am here asking you, the city council, to balance the needs of a thousand residents for a peaceful home against the
desires of one wealthy and powerful resident to create a private club. I am asking you if “due process” and the rights of
all citizens regardless of income is still the law of the land or can the rich and powerful buy our fair city to create their
personal “MembersOnly” sandboxes in which to play. This project offers no community benefit to justify the change
in zoning, much less approval of such an audacious scheme for a wealthy resident to usurp the rights of other residents
in the neighborhood they have decided to make their personal playground.
As for me and how it impacts me personally, I live at ground zero. I am the owner of “the Corner house on Addison”,
though I imagine that term is presently being trademarked and I shall soon be sued for infringement just giving
directions to my own home.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Lukash
703 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
980 Middlefield Road [18PLN‐00129]: Request for Prescreening of a Proposal to Amend the Existing Planned Community
(PC) 2152 Zoning in Order to Change the Allowed use From Mortuary to a Private Club or Similar use
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Martin Sommer <martin@sommer.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 12:30 PM
To:Transportation
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Rail Grade Separation Options Narrow - Follow-up questions
Dear Rail Committee / Transportation Dept,
I would lie to ask two followup questions regarding the options listed on this site:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4278 . I am sorry for not being at a number of the rail
meetings this summer, as I have been dealing with a dying parent.
> Closing Palo Alto Avenue to traffic in conjunction with yet‐to‐be‐determined transportation improvements (these
could include a widened University Avenue or a new bike tunnel at Everett) ... a "hybrid" option that would slightly
depress the road and partially elevate the tracks
Two questions:
1) I had talked with the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, to extend Alma St over the San Francisquito Creek, in parallel
to closing the correct crossing, and received a favorable response from both. I then presented this option to both the
City Counsel and at one of the rail meetings, and it was incorporated into the list of 34 options. On what basis has it
been removed, and can you please add this option back?
2) University Ave is already 4 lanes, with full access to/from Alma St.
Wouldn't it be a better solution, to open up Embarcadero Road to/from both directions of Alma St, and widen it in the
process? Right now, it is only 3 lanes, and has no access from Alma St, to go under the tracks.
Thank you, and please let me know.
Martin
‐‐
Martin Sommer
650‐346‐5307
martin@sommer.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer
"Turn technical vision into reality."
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:barbara wilcox <babspmalone@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:50 PM
To:tarzantom@pobox.com; Marci Dragun; mphistorical@gmail.com; hscherf@yahoo.com; Michael Hill-
Jackson
Cc:Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; 'Ac Ralston'; Romie Bassetto;
historicalsociety@stanford.edu; david.s.baldwin.mil@mail.mil; Arteaga_la_spina@smcl.org; 'David
Ellison'; 'Sebby, Daniel M, SGM CSMR CMD Military Historian & Curator'; 'Thomas Weissmiller'
Subject:Re: 100th Anniversary of World War I
Thank you, Tom! This is impressive. I'll reach out to Sup. Slocum's office if I don't hear from them soon. I'm available on
Armistice Day before 1pm for local centennial activities, but am booked later in the day.
Cheers, Barbara Wilcox
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Thomas Weissmiller
<tarzantom@pobox.com> wrote:
UPDATE AS OF Sep 10, 2018 (as best as I know)
Purpose
To enhance Veteran’s Day activities in the San Francisco Bay Area by connecting persons and groups
with historical knowledge of World War I with local communities and Veterans organizations to
commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the Armistice of World War I on the San Francisco Peninsula.
General
The San Francisco Peninsula was active in the war effort. Camp Fremont, located in
Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Stanford was one of 32 Army training camps in the
United States to train National Guard soldiers. Thanks to the Menlo Park Historical
Association and author Barbara Wilcox, much of the history of Camp Fremont and
the SF Peninsula is documented. The story is exciting, and this is a great opportunity to share this
important time in history with veterans and the community. Many WWI records are digitized and
available through Ancestory.com. The San Mateo County Libraries and the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter‐day Saints Family History Centers have free access to Ancestory.com and can assist persons to
search records of ancestors that were part of the war effort.
2
Knowing our history is a good thing. With Camp Fremont and the ability to locate digitized records,
this history becomes tangible and personal.
Barbara Wilcox, wrote a book as a graduate student at Stanford, World War I Army Training
by San Francisco Bay, The Story of Camp Fremont, published 2016. Jim Lewis and Bo Crane
of the Menlo Park Historical Association are planning an event specifically for this occasion
in Menlo Park.
My nephew asked if anything was going on locally to commemorate the 100th
Anniversary. I am a retired Army Officer and involved with veteran activities. My
regimental affiliation is with the 159th Infantry Regiment whose crest includes the fleur‐de‐
lis for its participation in WWI. I served on active duty at Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation, and later drilled at Fort Hunter Liggett with the California Army National
Guard. The post was named after Lieutenant General Hunter Liggett who served under
General Pershing in WWI. He retired in San Francisco and is buried at the Presidio of
San Francisco. I was again involved with Hunter Liggett in 1995 as the Base
Realignment and Closure officer for the National Guard Bureau. Through
Ancestory.com I was able to find my uncle’s draft registration and his name on a ship
manifest. I also found my aunt who served as a nurse in WWI.
Resolution to Honor and Commemorate the 100th Year Anniversary
Marci Dragun, Senior Legislative Aide to Supervisor Warren Slocum, District 4 graciously volunteered
to draft a resolution for the County Board of Supervisors to recognize the 100th Anniversary of World
War I and Camp Fremont. Marci will be contacting Jim Lewis, President of the Menlo Park Historical
Association and Barbara Wilcox to assist with the resolution.
This resolution, or a similar version, can be adopted by other cities and towns in San Mateo and Santa
Clara Counties.
Points of Contact
Representing Name Phone Email
Menlo Park Historical
Association
Jim Lewis / Bo
Crane
650‐330‐2522 mphistorical@yahoo.com
Author of book on Camp
Fremont
Barbara Wilcox 510‐372‐7755 babspmalone@yahoo.com
County of San Mateo,
District 4, (Legislative Aide)
Marci Dragun 650‐599‐1021 mdragun@smcgov.org
San Mateo County Veterans
Commission (President)
Hank Sherf 650‐464‐0856 hscherf@yahoo.com
Veterans Administration,
Palo Alto (Public Affairs)
Michael Hill‐
Jackson
650‐849‐1222 michael.hill‐jackon@va.gov
3
VA, Golden Gate National
Cemetery (Avenue of Flags)
Kathy McCall 650‐589‐7737 Kathleen.mccall@va.gov
United Veterans Council of
Santa Clara County
Gene Fanucchi GBF22SJ@aol.com
American Legion Post 105,
Redwood City
Romie
Bassetto
650‐207‐0426 Post105rc@aol.com
American Legion Post 82,
San Mateo
AC Ralston 650‐533‐5519 Alpost82@aol.com
Stanford Historical Society Laura Jones 650‐725‐3332 historicalsociety@stanford.edu
Palo Alto Historical
Association
650‐329‐2353 paha@cityofpaloalto.org
California Military History
Curator
SGM Daniel M.
Sebby
916‐768‐4249 daniel.m.sebby@smr.ca.gov
California National Guard
(State Adjutant General)
Major General
David Baldwin
david.s.baldwin.mil@mail.mil
San Mateo County Libraries Joanna
Arteaga La
Spina
650‐323‐0362 Arteaga_la_spina@smcl.org
Menlo Park Family History
Center
David Ellison 650‐704‐6118 fhellison@gmail.com
Thomas
Weissmiller
650‐218‐6386 tarzantom@pobox.com
Veterans Day Activities (currently known – there maybe more)
Day, Date &
Time
Sponsor / Location
More Information
Sun, Nov 11
10:30am
Avenue of Flags /
Golden Gate National
Cemetery, San Bruno
https://sites.google.com/site/avenueofflagsggnc/
Sun, Nov 11
11:00am
Menlo Park Historical
Association / TBD
https://sites.google.com/site/mphistorical/home/
https://sites.google.com/site/mphistorical/home/camp‐
fremont
Sun, Nov 11
11:00am
United Veterans
Council of Santa Clara
County
http://www.uvcscc.org/
TBD VA Hospital, Menlo
Park
4
Feel free to exchange ideas and share. This is a real opportunity showcase our history.
61 days to November 11, 2018
Tom
Thomas Weissmiller (Weiβmϋller)
US Army, LTC (Ret)
US Volunteers, COL, G3
San Mateo, CA 94402
H: 650‐375‐8311
C: 650‐218‐6386
1
Carnahan, David
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 3:16 PM
To:Phil Holtz
Subject:Re: Fw: Sign the Petition to Slash UN Funding!
(Y)
SHARED
On Monday, July 30, 2018, 4:55:35 AM EDT, Phil Holtz <philholtz54@yahoo.com> wrote:
GET U.S. OUT OF THE U.N. AND GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Steve Bergin <bachelor1957@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018, 5:38:56 AM EDT
Subject: Fw: Sign the Petition to Slash UN Funding!
Every American should sign this because the United Nations (UN)is a black hole of waste, fraud, and
abuse for our tax dollars to an organization that constantly tries to undermine our Government on our
own soil! Case-in-point: UN Headquarters is in New York and in front of the building is a statue of a
gun with the barrel tied in a knot signifying they want to take away our 2nd Amendment rights--
complete madness that we allow that!
Donating Optional!
Dear Fellow American,
Our politicians continue to pour your tax money into the United Nations.
When will they learn that the American people are sick and tired of throwing billions of
dollars into this black hole of waste, fraud, and abuse?!
2
Please sign the National Petition ordering Congress to slash U.S. funding for this
wasteful, bloated, anti‐American bureaucracy. Washington needs to hear from you right
now.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has been battling out‐of‐control
spending and taxes since 1984.
But nothing gets on our nerves more than the federal government wasting billions and
billions of our tax dollars to prop up the den of bureaucrats, crooks, dictators, and thieves
at the UN who propagandize and work against America's security and economic interests.
Enough is enough!
With Donald Trump in the White House, we have an unprecedented opportunity to
drastically slash U.S. funding of the bloated and wasteful United Nations.
In fact, last year the Trump Administration negotiated a $600 million reduction in the UN's
2017 peacekeeping budget and a $285 million reduction in the UN's 2018‐2019 operating
budget.
This was a much‐needed down payment toward reducing our UN funding.
But to make significant cuts to the estimated $10 BILLION that the U.S. spends on the UN
each year, we need to telegraph to our lawmakers that this is a top priority for American
taxpayers, which is why I need your signature right now!
Just click here to sign the National Petition to Congress. We must act quickly to
capitalize on last year's progress and ensure Congress doesn't send yet another giant
check to the UN.
The estimated $10 BILLION Americans pay to the UN each year includes our massive
annual dues payment, plus 29 percent of the UN’s peacekeeping budget, as well as
“voluntary payments” for special UN programs and funds.
American taxpayers pay as much as 25 percent of all UN expenses. In fact, we pay more
than all of the other permanent members of the Security Council COMBINED!
3
This nonsense must stop. Please sign your Petition now..
And what do we get for the billions of dollars that we send to the UN? Here are just a few
examples of what your money is paying for:
The UN's World Health Organization routinely has spent about $200 million a year
on travel expenses – more than what it doles out to fight some of the biggest
problems in public health, including AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, and malaria
combined;
Former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros‐Ghali has admitted that "perhaps
half of the UN workforce does nothing useful."
Third World dictators routinely fly to UN headquarters in New York to attack our
great country and undermine our national interests; and,
UN‐funded "peacekeeping" troops have abused the people they are supposed to
be protecting and created a deadly and costly cholera epidemic in Haiti that has
killed 9,000 so far and sickened 800,000.
Adding insult to injury, the UN sent a five‐page memo to the Trump Administration
warning that the repeal of Obamacare would put the U.S. "at odds with its international
obligations" and could violate "the right to social security of the people in the United
States."
American taxpayers should not be paying for this hypocrisy, waste, and abuse..
That's why it's so important that you sign your Petition right now.
Sign the Petition
Members of Congress need to know that this issue is of the utmost importance for the
American people. Just click here to make your voice heard.
And please, please ask everyone you know to sign this National Petition as well.
If we don't stand up now, Congress will continue wasting our tax dollars on the UN year
after year.
Sign your Petition. Tell Congress to slash U.S. funding for the UN!
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
4
Thomas A. Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the nation's largest taxpayer watchdog
organization with more than 1 million members and supporters nationwide. CCAGW is a
501(c)(4) nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that lobbies for legislation to eliminate
waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.. Contributions to CCAGW are
not tax‐deductible for federal income tax purposes. For more information about CCAGW,
visit www.ccagw.org. Make a contribution today to support CCAGW's efforts to rein in
wasteful deficit spending.
1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20036
Unsubscribe
__._,_.___
Posted by: Steve Bergin <bachelor1957@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (2)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 11:06 AM
To:Aram James
Cc:gkirby; dcbertini; Jonsen, Robert; paloaltofreepress; stevendlee; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; HRC;
Council, City; mdiaz; citycouncil; apardini@cityofepa.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; myraw; Kilpatrick,
Brad; michael gennaco; Keene, James; Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Kan, Michael;
cromero; lmoody; mbuell@cityofepa.org; drutherford; lgauthier
Subject:Re: Kaepernick a true American hero with links to 1968 Olympic historic protest... and Muhammad
Ali, et al:
Yes indeed. And what I find interesting is Kaepernick's choice of symbolism. Not thumbing the nose or other insult, but
kneeling, which connotes obeisance. Remember the scene in "The King and I" in which the governess struggles to pose
herself lower than the King because protocol requires it? The football player is saying our rulers are requiring too much
subordination of human rights and human autonomy.
‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: "Aram James" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
To: "gkirby" <gkirby@redwoodcity.org>, "dcbertini" <dcbertini@menlopark.org>, "Robert Jonsen"
<Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, "paloaltofreepress" <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>, "stevendlee"
<stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu>, "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "hrc"
<hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "mdiaz" <mdiaz@redwoodcity.org>,
"citycouncil" <citycouncil@menlopark.org>, apardini@cityofepa.org, jalcaraz@cityofepa.org, "myraw"
<myraw@smcba.org>, "brad kilpatrick" <brad.kilpatrick@cityofpaloalto.org>, "michael gennaco"
<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>, "james keene" <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "mary constantino"
<mary.constantino@cityofpaloalto.org>, "minka vanderzwaag" <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>, "michael
kan" <michael.kan@cityofpaloalto.org>, "cromero" <cromero@cityofepa.org>, "lmoody" <lmoody@cityofepa.org>,
"stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>, mbuell@cityofepa.org, "drutherford" <drutherford@cityofepa.org>,
"lgauthier" <lgauthier@cityofepa.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 8, 2018 12:25:48 AM
Subject: Kaepernick a true American hero with links to 1968 Olympic historic protest... and Muhammad Ali, et al:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/sports/kaepernick‐nike‐kneeling.amp.html
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:martin@sommer.net
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:18 PM
To:Transportation
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Rail Grade Separation Options Narrow - Follow-up questions (corrected)
Corrected ...
On 2018-09-11 12:30, Martin Sommer wrote:
Dear Rail Committee / Transportation Dept,
I would like to ask two followup questions regarding the options listed on this site:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4278 . I am sorry for not
being at a number of the rail meetings this summer, as I have been dealing with a dying
parent.
Closing Palo Alto Avenue to traffic in conjunction with yet-to-be-determined
transportation improvements (these could include a widened University Avenue or a new
bike tunnel at Everett) ... a "hybrid" option that would slightly depress the road and
partially elevate the tracks
Two questions:
1) I had talked with the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, to extend Alma St over the
San Francisquito Creek, in parallel to closing the correct crossing, and received a
favorable response from both. I then presented this option to both the City Counsel and
at one of the rail meetings, and it was incorporated into the list of 34 options. On what
basis has it been removed, and can you please add this option back?
2) University Ave is already 4 lanes, with full access to/from Alma St. Wouldn't it be a
better solution, to open up Embarcadero Road to/from both directions of Alma St, and
widen it in the process? Right now, it is only 3 lanes, and has no access from Alma St,
to go under the tracks.
Thank you, and please let me know.
Martin
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:e n <lynevenew@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re rent control
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. According to my dad in 1950s Britain.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cindy Alvarez <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 12:35 PM
To:Louansee.Moua@sanjoseca.gov; johanna.rodriguez@sanjoseca.gov; leslie@haganres.com;
juliannemckinney@protonmail.com; tam.nguyen@sanjoseca.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov;
kimberly.d.johnson@hud.gov; Angelo.Tom@hud.gov; kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Cc:socialmedia1953@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Threatening witnesses
I want to know what is being done to stop the attacks against the Markham Plaza Apartments? We will be making this
very public so that if more people are killed or injured in relation to this, the world will know who is responsible for it
happening!
The Markham Plaza apartments is in district 7 and you are responsible for this area.
Please tell me what steps are being taken to stop the Sheriff department from injuring or killing more people. You can't claim to be un aware of the problems at the Markham Plaza because it is all over the internet. Just google "EAH Housing Fraud" or talk with people in the neighborhood. Thank you, Cindy Alvarez
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 at 5:02 PM
From: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
To: "Moua, Louansee" <Louansee.Moua@sanjoseca.gov>
Cc: scottlargent38@gmail.com, johanna.rodriguez@sanjoseca.gov, leslie@haganres.com
Subject: Re: Threatening witnesses
Hello Lou,
Thank you for responding but do you understand that the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department has been
threatening witnesses to not bring attention to a murder that happened at the Markham plaza apartments in San Jose? How is it that you think the San Jose Police Department will help when the person who committed the murder is a superior court judge? By covering up the murder of Robert the sheriff department caused the death of Rhonda on April 24th of this year. Rhonda and Bob both died in apartment which may be just a creepy coincidence. Cindy
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 at 7:10 PM
From: "Moua, Louansee" <Louansee.Moua@sanjoseca.gov>
To: "cindy.alvarez@mail.com" <cindy.alvarCc: "Rodriguez, Johanna" <Johanna.Rodriguez@sanjoseca.gov>ez@mail.com>
Subject: RE:
Hi Cindy,
Please call 311 or 911 if you feel threatened.
2
Thanks,
Lou
Louansee Moua
Chief of Staff, Council District 7
Office of Councilmember Tam Nguyen
200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Cell: (408) 396-0258
Office: (408) 535-4985
From: District7
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 11:31 AM
To: Rodriguez, Johanna <Johanna.Rodriguez@sanjoseca.gov>; Moua, Louansee <Louansee.Moua@sanjoseca.gov>
Subject: FW:
From: Cindy Alvarez [mailto:cindy.alvarez@mail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 10:50 AM
To: scottlargent38@gmail.com
Cc: thompson ; sylvia.macdonald@ido.sccgov.org; juliannemckinney@protonmail.com
Subject:
One of our residents, Dan has provided photograghs of property damage caused by Thompson Also, one of the security guards here has provided written testimony that because of Thompson the conditions at Markham Plaza apartments have deteriorated to the point where he is in fear for his life coming to work. Because of Thompson and his collusion with the Santa Clara County Sheriff office , many young children at the Markham Plaza Apartments will likely grow up suffering from post tramatic stress
disorder.
3
I will do my part to warn as many people as possible about Thompson He is a criminal and a danger to society and he must be stopped.
Cindy Alvarez,
Markham Plaza Tenant Association
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terri Shifrin <tshif74@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 11:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RV Housing
I am writing again as there is no evidence that the RV condition on
our streets has improved. In fact,
it has gotten worse.
There are now 3 RV's enjoying living on Middlefield Road across
the street from The Challenger School and in front of the Church.
RV's are enjoying living in our fine city with all the perks of Palo Alto
without paying for the privilege.
Some of these vehicles are up on jacks, wheels up on our
sidewalks, trash around them, generators hooked up, pop out sides
of these vehicles hanging out into the bike lanes.
These vehicles; ARE NOT HOUSES of Palo Alto.
These people are being allowed to live in our grand city for FREE.
Who wouldn't want to live in Palo Alto without having to pay
rent/mortgage/property taxes?
Our beautiful tree lines city streets are now being taken over by
unsightly huge vehicles.
What are you as our representatives, going to do to eliminate this increasing blight to
our renowned city?
I would appreciate a response from each of you.
Thank you,
Terri Shifrin
1
Carnahan, David
From:sharon dougherty <sdougherty@kwrpa.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 2:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support of the Palo Alto Weekly
I look forward to seeing my copy of the Weekly delivered every week and how it keeps me informed of so many
activities and happenings in the community. I have never felt that the Daily was as good or thorough a paper and it can
be difficult find, . I petition you to keep your support of the paper! Unless you think it is better that the public is less
informed!
Thank you,
Sharon Dougherty
50 Tulip Lane
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 11:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:The Weekly
The degree to which print media is struggle for life horrifies me. I don’t understand why the enormous value of print
media isn’t obvious to everyone. Unlike internet “news”, print media has been vetted.
I pay for the Weekly. I also pay for the Merc, the Times, the Post, the New Yorker, and the Guardian. But I’m a rare bird.
Until the rest of Palo Alto develops a conscience, the city needs to continue some financial support (buying notice space)
of the Weekly. They are counting pennies, guaranteed.
My parents used to deragorilly refer to the Weekly and the Week Kneed. Most of what is printed, I am not interested in.
But that doesn’t make it any less important as a venue for public discourse and information. I think it is vital to keeping
Palo Alto on track in terms of values and responsibility.
Seems to me, with all those multi‐million dollar remodels, the city ought to be able to figure out some kind of decent
income stream.
Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St., 06, Davenport1‐7375
From:Aram James
To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); ibain@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; dcbertini@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; myraw@smcba.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka;Constantino, Mary; molly.o"neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; Zelkha, Mila; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; apardini@cityofepa.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; Council, City; HRC; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; drutherford@cityofepa.org;paloaltolife@gmail.com; Holman, Karen (external); mbuell@cityofepa.org; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; citycouncil@menlopark.orgSubject:Turner’s sentence- Daily Post-September 7, 2018-by Aram JamesDate:Friday, September 7, 2018 5:08:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:Weekly vs. Post
It is certainly true that The Weekly reaches everyone in Palo Alto as it is delivered to
each residence and business every Friday. Also, subscribers get it in their mail and it is
available in street boxes. So it is the logical choice for the City to use it for City
meetings including the Council. (As it has for decades.)
The Daily Post reaches few people. It is only available in street boxes and they often
empty out early in the morning. In many boxes, few copies are left by the carrier. The
one closest to me is often empty by 9 am.
Whatever money the City saves by using the Post instead of the Weekly isn't worth
it. The Council should decide this issue, not the administration.
Natalie Fisher
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 6, 2018 10:37 PM
To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; Tony Dixon; Jonsen, Robert; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu;
gkirby@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org;
ibain@redwoodcity.org; myraw@smcba.org; Keene, James; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com;
apardini@cityofepa.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; epatoday@epatoday.org;
lgauthier@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; Council, City; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; HRC;
Constantino, Mary; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com; Lee, Craig;
Kilpatrick, Brad; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Kan, Michael; mbuell@cityofepa.org; sscott@scscourt.org;
Binder, Andrew; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; scharpentier@cityofepa.org; Stump, Molly;
drutherford@cityofepa.org; sdremann@paweekly.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com
Subject:Will cops ever be held to account —from the archives of Aram James
http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2014/12/02/darren‐wilson‐walks‐begging‐question‐will‐cops‐ever‐be‐
held‐account
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
ACIU
AMElllCAll CIVll llBERTIES UlllDll
Northern
California
September 10, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
Mayor Liz Kniss
Vice Mayor Eric Filseth
Council Member Greg Tanaka
Council Member Cory Wolbach
Council Member Adrian Fine
Council Member Lydia Kou
Council Member Karen Holman
Council Member Tom DuBois
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
PENINSULA Pl!ACE AND JUSTICE CENTER
We are a coalition of Bay Area civil rights and civil liberties organizations working to
ensure that all local residents have a seat at the table when decisions about surveillance
technology are at issue. We write to express support for the Surveillance Technology
Ordinance, listed as item 8 on the consent calendar of the City Council's September 10,
CX>
(/)
f"T1 -0
N
-0 ::IC
~
0
N
2018 agenda. At the same time, we strongly urge the Council commit to consider
amendments that are necessary to ensure that the rights of all Palo Alto residents are
protected. What follows is a short explanation of why this legislation is necessary and of our
proposed amendments.
Surveillance technology can fundamentally change the relationship between governments
and residents, operating in secret and collecting information without their knowledge or
consent. The availability of federal grant funding for surveillance technology can short
circuit a full consideration of the costs of surveillance technology, both to taxpayers and to
civil rights. Without adequate public debate, the secretive acquisition of surveillance can
lead to real world harms affecting community members.
The harms of secretive and unaccountable surveillance are disproportionately felt by
residents of color, immigrants, and the poor. In San Francisco, police misused a license
1
('")~ --i -i-< -< no ,.,,
l"Tl~ ::0 Ar v;o
ol> "Tl~ -rio c=;.
rT1 ('") >
plate reader and held a black woman at gun point after mistaking her for a car thief.1
County officials in Sacramento are reportedly using this technology to monitor recipients of
public benefits.2 In Fresno, the police department used social media monitoring software
whose marketing materials labeled protesters and Black Lives Matter activists as targets.3
And finally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has obtained access to a database of
location information about drivers from a company that works with local law enforcement
agencies across the United States.4
A surveillance technology ordinance helps prevent the above harms by subjecting
surveillance proposals to public scrutiny and ensuring that any acquired technologies are
subject to strict limits. First, the Ordinance requires the public be provided with
information describing the technology prior for all surveillance technology proposals,
followed by a public vote by the City Council when a city agency seeks to obtain funds for
surveillance technology, acquire surveillance technology, or share collected information.
Second, for surveillance technologies a City Council decides to approve, the Ordinance
requires the creation of a set of rules governing how a surveillance technology and the data
it collects is used. Finally, the ordinance requires an annual review that enables the
community to reject technologies that are not delivering on their promised public safety
benefits.
While the proposed Ordinance generally accomplishes these goals, essential amendments
must be made to ensure that all surveillance proposals are covered and that all residents
can benefit from its protections. We ask the City Council to commit to considering such
amendments. What follows is a brief summary of our proposed amendments:
• The City Council should provide for an express mechanism to enforce the
Ordinance. The public-not just the City Council-should be able to monitor and
take steps to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. Accordingly, the Ordinance
should be enforceable by a private right of action, with attorney's fees for the
prevailing plaintiff. Other jurisdictions, including Davis, Berkeley, and Santa Clara
County, provide such an express right conditioned on a "right to cure" provision that
provides government officials the chance to come into compliance before being
subject to suit. We think this is a fair and reasonable approach.
• The City Council should confirm the breadth of its oversight role and its
application to all acquisitions of surveillance technology with local
taxpayer funds. The City Council and the public must be able to vet proposed
1 Kade Crockford, San Francisco Woman Pulled Out of Car at Gunpoint Because of License Plate Reader Error,
ACLU Free Future Blog, May 13, 2014, https:/lwww.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/location-tracking/san-
francisco-woman-pulled-out-car-gunpoint-because.
2 Kellen Browning, Sacramento welfare investigators track drivers to find fraud. Privacy group raises red flags,
Sacramento Bee, Aug. 10, 2018, https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article216093470.html.
3 Justin Jouvenal, The new way police are surveillance you: calculating your threat 'score,
Wash. Post, Jan. 10, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-
surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/1O/e42bccac-8e15-1le5-baf4-
bdf'37355da0c_story .html ?utm_term =.3514f883ceeb.
4 Russell Brandom, Exclusive: ICE is about to start tracking license plates across the US, The Verge, Jan. 26,
2018, https://www.theverge.com/2018/ 1/26/16932350/ice-immigration-customs-license-pla te-recognition-
contract-vigilant-solutions.
purchases of surveillance technology prior to the formation of a contract with a
particular vendor. The Council should avoid any potential ambiguity and expressly
state that its oversight obligation under the ordinance is triggered by any steps to
acquire surveillance technology with local taxpayer funds, including steps that
precede the writing of a contract.
• Further clarifying amendments are necessary. First, the Council should clarify
that the definition of surveillance technology is not limited to technology that can
collect personally identifiable information or is used to purposefully track people.
The current definition is inappropriately narrow and invites burdensome inquiries
into the purpose motivating the use of a technology in particular circumstances.
Second, the Council should make clear in the text of the Ordinance that all city
agencies are covered by the Ordinance, which we understand to be the intent.
Finally, the Council should delete a vague provision allowing for City agencies to
withhold information from an annual report based on a unilateral determination of
security risk.
While we support the Ordinance and believe it to be a step forward, we urge the City
Council to take up amendments that will ensure that this law is as strong as those passed
in other Northern California communities, including Oakland, Davis, Berkeley, and Santa
Clara County. Palo Alto residents deserve the same protections as these communities.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ACLU of Northern California
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Media Alliance
Oakland Privacy
Peninsula Peace & Justice Center