Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181119plCC 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: 11/19/2018 Document dates: 10/31/2018 – 11/07/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Thursday, November 1, 2018 4:18 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Eggleston, Brad; Bobel, Phil; Allen, James Subject:11/5 Council Agenda Questions for Item 7       Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the November 5, 2018 council meeting agenda.     Item 7: Approval to Increase Compensation & Extend Term of Design  Contract  for  Old  Pumping Plant at RWQCP    Item 7: Approval to Increase Compensation & Extend Term of Design Contract for Old  Pumping Plant at RWQCP    Q. 1.   Who was negligent in this to require three amendments, the CONSULTANT who  provided the evaluations or the public works engineers who vetted  the  CONSULTANT?    A. 1.   In rebuilding a treatment unit that is over 60 years old, there is much that is  not visible to designers or construction crews. Only when construction commences  do certain problems and impediments become exposed. We call these “unforeseen  conditions”  and  they  can  cause  delays  and  extra  expenses.  The  first  two  amendments were no cost time extensions. That is, they delayed the work but did  not increase design costs. Only the third one increased design expenses. All parties  involved  have  been  exercising  due  diligence  and  a  proper  standard  of  care  in  upgrading the raw sewage pump station, which was originally built in 1956. Please  note  that  although  the  amendment  attached  to  the  staff  report  restates  the  consultant’s  original  scope  of  work,  the  amendment  only  addresses the time  extension and budget increase for additional design work.    Q. 2.   Shouldn’t these issues been caught during the design workshops?    A. 2.   Some additional services design items, namely the motor control center slab  elevation  and  the  upgraded  hazardous  atmospheric  gas  monitoring system  modifications, were items that arose after the design was complete.  These items  resulted from a discrepancy between datum levels in the City’s record drawings  from 1956, and a plant standardization on gas monitoring that occurred after the  design’s completion, respectively.  The project’s additional services budget was  sufficient to cover these expenses. The rest of the additional design  work  2 was   needed  to  deal  with  difficult  conditions  that  were  revealed  during  construction; it provided critical and timely support of the construction work by the  original design team. Due to the facility’s age (1956) as well as extensive unforeseen  and unknown conditions (that are common when retrofitting an aging facility), the  construction project has encountered numerous conditions requiring additional  design work beyond that originally budgeted. Unforeseen and unknown conditions  have been caused by leaks of raw sewage into the pump station wetwell that  prevented proper dewatering during design; subgrade concrete corrosion that was  not visible during design stage inspections; buried pipes containing asbestos that  were not identified on the original design drawing records; and complex changes to  electrical equipment made over the 60 years of pump station life.    Q. 3.   Did the consultant not know about the delay earlier?    A. 3.   The consultant did not know about the delay earlier. If  the  unforeseen  conditions  and  the  succeeding  construction  delays  had  been  known  to  the  consultant earlier, the consultant’s fees would have been adjusted to support the  larger scope of work. Instead, the increased fees and time extensions are being  addressed by the three amendments.    Q. 4.   Section 16, Option A states that the consultant shall protect, indemnify, defend  and hold harmless CITY,... from and against any claims, demands, or liability of any  nature, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney fees,  experts fees, court costs, and disbursements that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to  negligence,  recklessness,  or  willful  misconduct  of  the  CONSULTANT,  its  officers,  employees,  agents  or  contractors  under  this  Agreement,  under  this  optional  agreement  would  the  CONSULTANT  be  liable  for  any  costs  due  to  the delay of  construction by its own subcontractors?    A. 4.   Staff has not identified any negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct.  For  clarification,  the  amendment is  to the professional services agreement.  Actual  construction  of  the  project  by  the  contractor  and  its  subcontractors  is  being  conducted under a separate construction contract.      Thank you,  Judy Ng          Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2105  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org    1 Carnahan, David From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 4, 2018 12:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lum, Patty Subject:On Monday please approve the Public Safety Building the Application for Architecture Review Action Item On Monday please approve the Public Safety Building the Application for Architecture Review.    The 2014 Infrastructure Plan identified the new PSB as the highest priority project for the city.  The current police facility  which is about 70 years old is woefully outdated and seismically unsafe.  Our surrounding cities such as Mountain View and San Mateo have much better police buildings. The current facility impedes the ability to  attract and retain top police officers as well as reduces modern operational efficiency.    Any major changes such as trying to change the site location will effectively derail this project as happened with the Park  Boulevard site back in 2007 / 2008.    As council members you have an opportunity to continue to significantly contribute to improving the safety of this city  for its residents and workers for the next 50 years.  Please support this action item on Monday. Thank you.    Hamilton Hitchings  1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public safety building This matter is before council tonight.  It appears there may be higher cost associated with it's construction.  However  there are a myriad of possibilities with which to address this and making the project smaller should not be one of them.   As the City grows you  want the new public safety building to be to be able to handle this increased demand.    Thank you    Paul Machado  Evergreen Park  1 Carnahan, David From:Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 1, 2018 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: California pensions Attachments:CalPERS-Actuarial-Report-Data-Cities-and-Counties-incl-totals.xlsx  Hi all,      A friend na dI weere emailing about the impact on city funding of pensions. It appears likely this will seriously  hurt school funding and likely will bankrupt some cities.    This article gives a glimpse into the impact to California cities of the "catchup payments" in coming  years.  See https://californiapolicycenter.org/much‐will‐cities‐counties‐pay‐calpers/    See above spreadsheet for Palo Alto's status.    What are you doing to control pension (and health care) costs?    Ed        https://reason.org/policy‐brief/ca‐pepra‐pension‐reform/    Analysis of the California Public Employees’ Pension ... The state of California and its local governments are saddled with unfunded public pension liabilities estimated to be as high as $583 billion. As a result, several municipalities in the state now have the difficult task of balancing budgets in a way that is fair to both public employees and taxpayers, while continuing to provide basic services. reason.org   NOTES Payroll Payroll percentage increases 2018 to 2025 C I T Y Total % Normal % Catch-Up % Total % Normal % Catch-Up %payroll tot c norm c unfun c Adelanto 2.0 0.2 8%0.1 7%0.0 0%2.2 0.3 13%0.2 9%0.1 4%8%79%28%877% Agoura Hills 3.4 0.5 13%0.3 8%0.2 5%4.1 1.0 23%0.4 10%0.5 13%22%111%47%217% Alameda 49.5 18.8 38%6.8 14%12.0 24%63.0 37.1 59%10.3 16%26.8 43%27%97%51%123% Albany 8.2 2.3 28%1.3 15%1.0 12%13.1 5.3 41%2.1 16%3.2 25%59%136%66%223% Alhambra 33.1 11.9 36%4.7 14%7.2 22%39.5 21.0 53%6.5 17%14.5 37%19%77%39%101% Aliso Viejo 1.7 0.2 10%0.1 8%0.0 2%2.3 0.4 15%0.2 10%0.1 6%34%101%57%279% Alturas 0.9 0.3 32%0.1 14%0.2 19%1.1 0.5 47%0.2 15%0.4 32%22%78%39%107% American Canyon 5.5 1.0 17%0.5 9%0.4 8%7.5 1.6 21%0.8 11%0.8 10%38%68%63%75% Anaheim 190.4 66.7 35%27.0 14%39.7 21%242.8 129.4 53%40.6 17%88.8 37%27%94%51%124% Anderson 3.3 1.0 29%0.5 14%0.5 16%4.0 1.9 48%0.6 15%1.3 33%19%96%31%152% Antioch 26.4 9.5 36%4.0 15%5.5 21%33.6 18.4 55%6.1 18%12.3 37%27%93%51%124% Arcadia 29.2 11.6 39%4.1 14%7.5 26%36.1 21.5 59%6.0 17%15.4 43%24%86%48%107% Arcata 7.3 1.8 25%1.0 13%0.9 12%8.6 3.6 42%1.3 15%2.4 28%17%98%34%167% Arroyo Grande 7.3 2.9 39%1.1 15%1.8 25%8.9 3.8 43%1.5 17%2.4 26%23%34%40%30% Artesia 1.6 0.2 15%0.1 8%0.1 7%2.0 0.6 28%0.2 9%0.4 19%26%131%48%216% Arvin 2.7 0.3 12%0.3 10%0.1 2%3.4 0.7 21%0.4 11%0.3 10%26%119%46%396% Atascadero 9.4 2.8 30%1.4 14%1.5 15%11.6 5.0 43%1.9 16%3.1 27%23%78%39%114% Atwater 5.2 3.1 60%0.8 16%2.3 44%6.2 4.0 64%1.2 18%2.8 45%19%26%36%23% Auburn 4.8 1.5 30%0.7 15%0.7 15%6.4 3.1 48%1.1 17%2.0 31%32%112%55%167% Avalon 4.5 1.3 28%0.5 11%0.8 17%5.9 1.8 31%0.8 13%1.0 17%30%41%57%31% Avenal 2.5 0.4 17%0.3 11%0.1 6%3.4 0.8 24%0.4 13%0.4 11%34%91%57%156% Azusa 23.1 6.3 27%3.1 13%3.2 14%27.6 12.7 46%4.3 16%8.4 30%19%103%41%162% Bakersfield 114.8 35.9 31%15.2 13%20.8 18%137.7 68.8 50%21.7 16%47.1 34%20%91%43%127% Baldwin Park 13.6 4.5 33%1.9 14%2.6 19%17.4 9.2 53%2.9 17%6.4 36%29%106%51%147% Banning 9.6 3.4 36%1.1 11%2.3 24%13.0 5.9 45%1.7 13%4.2 32%36%72%56%79% Barstow 10.6 2.6 24%1.5 14%1.1 10%13.7 5.3 39%2.2 16%3.1 23%29%106%47%183% Beaumont 10.4 2.6 24%1.6 16%0.9 9%10.9 3.9 36%2.0 18%1.9 18%4%53%22%108% Bell 6.1 2.8 45%1.0 16%1.8 29%7.4 5.4 73%1.3 18%4.0 55%20%93%35%125% Bell Gardens 11.7 4.6 39%1.8 15%2.8 23%14.8 6.7 45%2.6 18%4.1 28%26%46%44%48% Bellflower 6.6 1.1 17%0.6 10%0.5 8%8.2 2.5 30%0.9 11%1.6 19%23%116%43%205% Belmont 12.5 3.5 28%1.5 12%2.0 16%15.4 6.0 39%2.1 14%3.9 25%23%72%44%92% Belvedere 2.2 0.4 19%0.2 10%0.2 8%2.7 0.9 33%0.3 13%0.5 20%21%110%45%192% Benicia 17.6 5.5 31%2.5 14%3.0 17%21.8 10.9 50%3.4 16%7.4 34%24%97%39%145% Berkeley 131.5 45.6 35%18.8 14%26.8 20%162.5 83.4 51%27.1 17%56.3 35%24%83%44%110% Beverly Hills 77.0 23.2 30%9.5 12%13.7 18%95.9 43.9 46%14.2 15%29.7 31%25%89%50%116% Biggs 0.4 0.1 18%0.0 7%0.0 11%0.5 0.1 24%0.0 9%0.1 16%43%90%70%102% Bishop 3.2 0.9 29%0.5 15%0.5 15%4.0 2.0 49%0.7 17%1.3 32%24%108%45%170% Blue Lake 0.4 0.1 27%0.0 9%0.1 17%0.4 0.1 33%0.0 10%0.1 23%16%43%18%57% Blythe 4.0 1.5 38%0.5 14%1.0 25%4.7 2.8 60%0.7 15%2.1 45%17%84%27%115% Bradbury 0.2 0.0 7%0.0 7%0.0 0%0.3 0.0 15%0.0 9%0.0 6%45%190%77%4111% Brawley 8.4 2.7 32%1.1 13%1.6 20%10.2 4.0 39%1.5 15%2.4 24%21%46%44%48% Brea 27.9 9.3 33%3.1 11%6.2 22%34.5 18.2 53%4.6 13%13.5 39%24%96%50%119% Brentwood 26.4 5.7 22%3.7 14%2.1 8%33.2 11.3 34%5.2 16%6.0 18%25%97%43%191% Brisbane 7.6 1.9 25%1.0 13%0.9 12%9.7 3.9 40%1.4 15%2.4 25%27%103%45%165% Buellton 1.3 0.2 17%0.1 9%0.1 8%1.7 0.4 25%0.2 11%0.2 14%36%96%55%144% Buena Park 21.8 8.1 37%3.0 14%5.1 23%26.4 16.3 62%4.2 16%12.2 46%21%102%41%139% Burbank 117.3 32.8 28%13.6 12%19.1 16%141.1 64.4 46%19.5 14%44.9 32%20%96%43%134% Burlingame 19.2 5.7 30%2.6 13%3.2 17%25.0 11.4 46%3.8 15%7.7 31%30%99%48%140% Calabasas 7.6 0.9 12%0.6 8%0.3 4%9.2 1.7 19%0.9 10%0.8 9%21%80%44%154% Calexico 10.6 2.5 23%1.0 9%1.5 14%11.6 4.4 38%1.4 12%3.0 26%9%75%35%103% California City 5.6 1.9 34%0.7 13%1.1 20%7.1 2.5 35%1.1 15%1.5 21%27%34%43%27% Calimesa 0.8 0.1 11%0.1 8%0.0 3%0.9 0.2 20%0.1 9%0.1 11%3%91%19%262% Calipatria 0.6 0.2 27%0.1 9%0.1 18%0.6 0.2 27%0.1 11%0.1 17%7%6%22%-2% Calistoga 3.8 1.2 31%0.4 11%0.7 19%4.8 1.8 38%0.6 13%1.2 25%27%58%43%66% Camarillo 11.9 2.9 24%1.1 9%1.8 15%14.3 5.2 36%1.5 11%3.7 26%20%81%43%103% Cambbell 17.9 5.7 32%2.3 13%3.4 19%22.7 9.6 42%3.5 15%6.1 27%27%68%49%81% Canyon Lake 0.2 0.0 18%0.0 8%0.0 10%0.4 0.1 19%0.0 9%0.0 10%194%217%222%212% Capitola 5.9 1.8 31%0.8 14%1.0 17%7.4 3.7 50%1.2 16%2.5 34%26%103%45%150% Carlsbad 57.2 19.7 34%8.5 15%11.2 20%71.5 30.5 43%12.0 17%18.4 26%25%55%41%65% Carmel-by-the-Sea 5.2 1.5 28%0.6 12%0.8 16%7.7 3.3 42%1.0 13%2.3 29%48%124%61%171% Carpenteria 2.6 0.6 24%0.3 10%0.4 15%3.2 1.2 38%0.4 11%0.9 27%22%93%42%128% Carson 27.1 7.9 29%2.9 11%5.0 19%30.7 14.9 49%3.9 13%11.0 36%13%88%36%117% Cathedral City 15.6 3.5 23%2.1 14%1.4 9%20.9 7.7 37%3.3 16%4.4 21%34%118%54%216% Cerritos 18.7 5.4 29%1.8 10%3.6 19%21.4 10.0 47%2.5 12%7.5 35%15%86%40%109% Chico 27.3 11.3 42%4.6 17%6.8 25%34.2 20.7 60%6.7 19%14.0 41%25%82%46%106% Chino 30.3 7.9 26%3.7 12%4.2 14%39.3 16.0 41%5.6 14%10.4 26%30%104%52%150% Chowchilla 4.1 1.1 26%0.4 11%0.6 16%4.4 1.9 42%0.6 13%1.3 29%7%72%26%103% Chula Vista 86.1 28.7 33%12.9 15%15.8 18%105.6 54.5 52%18.5 18%36.1 34%23%90%43%129% Citrus Heights 16.3 2.9 18%2.4 15%0.5 3%21.0 5.4 26%3.6 17%1.8 9%28%86%49%258% City of Angels 2.8 0.7 25%0.3 12%0.4 13%3.5 1.1 33%0.5 14%0.6 19%23%64%45%83% City of Industry 2.2 0.7 32%0.3 12%0.4 20%2.5 1.3 52%0.3 13%1.0 39%16%89%22%131% Claremont 12.8 4.3 33%1.4 11%2.8 22%16.0 7.9 49%2.1 13%5.7 36%25%85%48%103% Clayton 2.2 0.7 30%0.2 11%0.4 19%2.4 0.8 34%0.3 12%0.5 21%10%23%24%22% Clearlake 2.7 0.9 34%0.4 13%0.5 20%3.3 1.2 36%0.5 15%0.7 22%26%36%40%34% Cloverdale 3.2 0.9 29%0.4 12%0.5 17%4.2 1.7 40%0.6 14%1.1 26%31%83%59%99% Clovis 42.2 11.9 28%5.5 13%6.5 15%53.6 22.5 42%8.2 15%14.3 27%27%89%51%121% Coachella City 5.6 1.5 27%0.7 12%0.9 15%7.1 2.8 40%1.0 14%1.9 26%27%85%46%116% Coalinga 5.1 0.5 10%0.5 10%0.0 0%6.2 0.8 14%0.7 11%0.1 2%21%68%39%47038% Colfax 0.3 0.0 8%0.0 7%0.0 1%0.6 0.1 11%0.0 9%0.0 3%81%145%111%426% Colton 24.1 7.4 31%3.3 14%4.1 17%27.5 15.0 55%4.3 16%10.7 39%14%102%30%161% Colusa 1.7 0.5 30%0.2 11%0.3 19%2.3 1.1 47%0.3 13%0.8 33%36%108%59%137% Commerce 11.5 2.3 20%1.0 9%1.2 11%14.8 4.9 33%1.6 11%3.4 23%28%118%55%170% Compton 21.8 10.0 46%2.9 13%7.1 33%28.9 19.3 67%4.2 15%15.1 52%32%94%48%113% Concord 37.9 14.3 38%5.5 15%8.7 23%45.8 24.8 54%7.8 17%17.0 37%21%74%41%94% Conring 2.7 0.6 22%0.3 13%0.3 10%3.3 1.2 37%0.5 14%0.7 23%22%100%37%182% Corcoran 3.5 0.9 25%0.4 12%0.5 13%4.4 1.4 33%0.6 14%0.8 19%25%66%46%85% Corona 56.3 23.8 42%8.5 15%15.4 27%67.0 40.8 61%12.2 18%28.6 43%19%71%44%86% Coronado 20.0 5.1 25%2.9 14%2.2 11%23.7 9.9 42%3.9 16%6.0 25%18%94%35%168% Costa Mesa 47.2 23.2 49%7.1 15%16.1 34%56.5 41.7 74%9.9 18%31.8 56%20%80%40%98% Cotati 2.9 1.2 41%0.4 12%0.9 29%3.7 1.7 45%0.5 13%1.2 32%27%37%38%37% Covina 16.0 4.5 28%2.3 14%2.2 14%16.0 9.6 60%2.8 18%6.8 42%0%114%23%209% Crescent City 3.2 1.0 31%0.3 10%0.7 21%3.7 1.5 42%0.4 11%1.1 30%16%56%32%67% Cudahy 1.2 0.3 28%0.1 9%0.2 20%1.3 0.5 38%0.1 10%0.4 28%11%48%29%57% Culver City 55.0 18.1 33%6.6 12%11.5 21%68.6 34.6 50%9.8 14%24.7 36%25%91%48%116% 2017-18 2024-25 P A Y M E N T S T O C A L P E R S P A Y M E N T S T O C A L P E R S CalPERS Actuarial Report Data - Cities ($=M) Cupertino 15.2 4.0 26%1.6 10%2.4 16%19.8 7.2 37%2.3 12%4.9 25%30%82%45%106% Cypress 12.9 3.8 30%1.8 14%2.0 16%16.3 8.0 49%2.7 17%5.3 32%27%111%51%164% Daly City 45.2 13.5 30%6.3 14%7.2 16%55.3 28.6 52%9.1 16%19.5 35%22%112%45%171% Dana Point 5.8 0.7 12%0.5 9%0.2 3%7.2 1.4 19%0.7 10%0.7 9%24%102%48%246% Davis 28.3 9.9 35%3.4 12%6.5 23%34.3 18.6 54%5.0 15%13.6 40%21%87%46%109% Del Mar 4.4 1.1 24%0.6 13%0.5 11%5.7 2.2 39%0.8 15%1.4 24%28%106%46%176% Del Rey Oaks 0.9 0.2 23%0.1 10%0.1 13%1.1 0.3 26%0.1 11%0.2 15%23%40%40%40% Delano 4.1 1.3 31%0.6 15%0.7 16%5.2 1.4 27%0.9 17%0.5 10%25%9%45%-23% Desert Hot Springs 3.2 1.1 36%0.5 14%0.7 21%4.3 2.0 47%0.7 16%1.3 31%35%77%50%95% Diamond Bar 4.9 0.6 13%0.4 8%0.2 4%5.6 1.2 22%0.6 10%0.7 12%16%102%40%224% Dinuba 10.1 2.3 22%1.2 12%1.1 10%13.3 4.2 32%1.9 14%2.4 18%31%87%52%127% Dixon 7.4 2.4 32%1.0 14%1.3 18%9.4 3.6 38%1.4 15%2.1 23%27%51%43%57% Dos Palos 1.3 0.3 25%0.2 14%0.1 11%1.5 0.6 39%0.2 16%0.4 23%23%93%41%158% Downey 37.5 14.5 39%5.5 15%9.0 24%45.4 28.0 62%7.9 17%20.1 44%21%93%43%123% Duarte 4.0 1.5 37%0.4 11%1.1 26%4.8 2.1 43%0.6 13%1.5 31%22%42%45%41% Dublin 9.7 1.8 18%1.1 11%0.7 7%11.8 3.3 28%1.6 13%1.7 14%22%86%43%156% Dunsmuir 0.3 0.1 26%0.0 8%0.1 18%0.7 0.2 31%0.1 10%0.1 21%105%143%143%143% East Palo Alto 8.7 1.7 19%1.0 12%0.6 7%11.0 2.9 26%1.5 13%1.4 13%27%73%45%120% Eastvale 0.5 0.0 7%0.0 7%0.0 0%0.9 0.1 9%0.1 8%0.0 1%73%115%103%1327% El Cajon 32.2 15.1 47%4.8 15%10.4 32%36.9 25.5 69%6.5 18%19.0 52%15%69%37%83% El Centro 15.0 5.4 36%1.9 13%3.5 23%19.9 8.2 41%3.0 15%5.2 26%33%53%55%51% El Cerrito 15.1 5.6 37%2.4 16%3.2 21%19.2 10.2 53%3.4 18%6.8 35%27%84%44%115% El Monte 24.1 13.5 56%4.1 17%9.4 39%29.9 20.0 67%6.1 21%13.8 46%24%48%50%47% Elk Grove 27.2 4.7 17%4.1 15%0.6 2%34.5 8.4 24%5.9 17%2.5 7%27%77%43%294% Emeryville 4.5 2.4 53%0.8 19%1.5 34%6.5 5.1 79%1.4 22%3.7 57%46%115%66%142% Encinitas 19.8 5.1 26%2.5 13%2.6 13%24.3 9.7 40%3.6 15%6.1 25%23%91%46%136% Escalon 1.6 0.6 37%0.2 13%0.4 24%2.0 1.0 50%0.3 15%0.7 35%21%64%37%80% Escondido 63.8 22.6 35%8.9 14%13.7 21%78.9 41.0 52%12.8 16%28.1 36%24%82%44%106% Etna 0.3 0.0 15%0.0 9%0.0 6%0.4 0.1 21%0.0 10%0.0 12%27%80%39%139% Eureka 12.6 4.7 37%1.6 13%3.1 25%14.7 7.7 52%2.1 14%5.6 38%17%63%31%79% Exeter 2.6 0.7 26%0.4 14%0.3 12%3.5 1.1 31%0.5 15%0.6 16%34%62%53%73% Fairfield 47.4 14.6 31%6.5 14%8.1 17%59.1 29.0 49%9.6 16%19.5 33%25%99%48%140% Farmersville 1.8 0.3 17%0.2 10%0.1 7%2.4 0.4 19%0.3 11%0.2 7%35%51%54%47% Fillmore 1.8 0.6 35%0.2 11%0.4 24%2.4 0.9 39%0.3 12%0.6 27%29%45%38%49% Firebaugh 2.1 0.5 24%0.3 13%0.2 12%2.4 0.8 33%0.3 14%0.4 19%16%57%32%85% Folsom 35.4 13.0 37%4.8 14%8.2 23%42.5 20.4 48%6.7 16%13.7 32%20%57%40%66% Fontana 52.5 14.2 27%6.3 12%7.9 15%63.8 24.8 39%9.2 14%15.6 24%21%75%46%98% Fort Bragg 3.9 0.9 22%0.4 11%0.5 12%4.8 1.7 36%0.6 12%1.1 24%22%97%42%148% Fortuna 3.5 0.9 26%0.5 13%0.4 13%4.4 1.7 40%0.7 15%1.1 25%25%93%41%147% Fountain Valley 20.1 6.8 34%3.2 16%3.6 18%25.1 13.9 55%4.6 18%9.3 37%25%105%45%158% Fowler 1.8 0.5 28%0.3 14%0.3 14%2.3 0.9 40%0.4 16%0.5 24%24%77%42%110% Fremont 91.1 34.1 37%11.9 13%22.2 24%114.4 60.3 53%17.3 15%43.0 38%26%77%45%94% Fullerton 50.0 17.7 35%6.5 13%11.1 22%62.5 35.4 57%9.7 15%25.7 41%25%100%48%131% Galt 9.9 2.3 24%1.1 11%1.2 12%12.1 3.8 32%1.6 14%2.2 18%22%65%47%80% Garden Grove 59.5 22.5 38%8.2 14%14.2 24%73.1 42.7 58%12.1 17%30.6 42%23%90%47%115% Gardena 30.5 9.0 30%3.8 12%5.3 17%38.1 16.1 42%5.7 15%10.4 27%25%78%52%98% Gilroy 25.3 8.0 32%3.8 15%4.2 17%29.9 14.3 48%5.2 17%9.1 30%18%80%38%118% Glendale 143.0 47.4 33%17.3 12%30.2 21%176.0 92.5 53%25.3 14%67.1 38%23%95%47%123% Glendora 16.5 4.8 29%2.2 14%2.5 15%19.6 9.5 48%3.1 16%6.4 33%19%98%38%151% Goleta 5.4 0.6 11%0.5 9%0.1 2%6.7 1.0 16%0.7 10%0.4 5%24%82%47%234% Gonzales 2.2 0.3 14%0.2 9%0.1 5%2.7 0.7 25%0.3 11%0.4 13%21%108%43%237% Grand Terrace 1.5 0.5 32%0.1 9%0.3 23%2.0 0.7 34%0.2 10%0.5 24%38%45%57%41% Grass Valley 5.7 1.6 29%0.8 14%0.8 15%7.1 3.3 46%1.1 16%2.1 30%24%100%41%157% Greenfield 2.9 0.6 21%0.3 11%0.3 10%4.2 1.1 25%0.5 13%0.5 12%45%71%64%77% Gridley 3.4 1.0 29%0.4 12%0.6 17%4.0 1.8 45%0.6 14%1.3 31%19%85%41%115% Grover Beach 3.9 1.1 29%0.5 12%0.6 17%5.1 2.1 41%0.7 14%1.4 27%33%89%55%114% Guadalupe 2.0 0.3 16%0.2 10%0.1 6%2.5 0.7 27%0.3 12%0.4 15%27%111%50%210% Gustine 1.3 0.3 27%0.2 12%0.2 15%1.5 0.5 36%0.2 15%0.3 21%18%60%46%71% Half Moon Bay 2.0 0.8 42%0.2 9%0.7 33%2.7 1.5 56%0.3 10%1.2 46%37%84%56%91% Hanford 17.0 6.0 36%2.6 15%3.4 20%20.8 10.1 49%3.7 18%6.4 31%23%68%43%87% Hawaiian Gardens 4.3 1.2 28%0.5 12%0.7 16%5.0 1.7 35%0.7 15%1.0 20%15%41%36%45% Hawthorne 25.9 9.2 35%3.8 15%5.4 21%27.8 17.8 64%4.8 17%12.9 46%8%94%27%141% Hayward 83.6 31.6 38%11.7 14%19.9 24%108.8 60.1 55%18.0 17%42.1 39%30%90%54%112% Healdsburg 10.8 2.8 26%1.3 12%1.5 14%14.2 5.7 40%1.9 13%3.8 27%31%100%42%152% Hemet 19.5 8.8 45%2.9 15%5.8 30%24.1 14.3 59%4.2 17%10.1 42%24%64%44%74% Hercules 5.2 1.8 35%0.7 13%1.2 22%6.4 2.5 39%1.0 15%1.5 24%23%37%43%33% Hermosa Beach 12.2 5.9 48%1.7 14%4.2 34%15.5 7.3 47%2.4 15%4.9 32%27%24%41%17% Hesperia 8.1 1.8 22%0.9 11%0.9 11%9.0 3.0 34%1.1 12%1.9 21%10%70%22%118% Hidden Hills 0.3 0.0 12%0.0 7%0.0 5%0.4 0.1 22%0.0 9%0.1 13%25%133%53%255% Highland 2.5 0.5 21%0.2 10%0.3 11%3.3 0.9 26%0.4 11%0.5 15%32%66%54%76% Hollister 11.1 3.2 29%1.5 14%1.7 16%14.2 5.8 41%2.2 16%3.6 25%29%81%49%110% Hughson 0.9 0.3 31%0.1 12%0.2 19%1.2 0.5 42%0.2 13%0.3 29%33%82%55%98% Huntington Beach 95.7 35.4 37%13.3 14%22.1 23%114.0 64.8 57%18.8 17%45.9 40%19%83%41%108% Huntington Park 12.2 4.1 34%1.8 15%2.3 19%14.7 8.4 57%2.5 17%5.8 40%21%103%41%149% Imperial 3.7 0.6 16%0.4 10%0.3 7%4.2 0.9 22%0.5 11%0.5 11%15%57%35%86% Imperial Beach 5.5 1.2 22%0.7 12%0.5 10%6.4 2.4 37%0.9 14%1.5 23%16%96%34%176% Indian Wells 3.1 0.6 20%0.4 12%0.2 8%3.7 0.9 23%0.5 14%0.3 9%22%43%44%41% Indio 19.8 6.5 33%2.8 14%3.7 18%23.4 11.2 48%3.9 17%7.4 32%18%74%37%102% Inglewood 46.8 17.9 38%6.8 15%11.1 24%56.9 37.0 65%9.7 17%27.2 48%22%106%43%145% Ione 1.1 0.4 34%0.1 11%0.3 23%1.3 0.4 32%0.2 12%0.3 19%26%16%42%4% Irvine 78.0 23.6 30%10.7 14%12.8 16%98.5 32.0 32%15.9 16%16.1 16%26%36%48%25% Irwindale 6.7 1.7 26%0.9 14%0.8 12%8.5 3.7 44%1.4 16%2.3 28%26%116%49%192% Jackson 1.9 0.6 32%0.2 13%0.4 19%2.3 1.0 42%0.4 15%0.6 27%22%60%44%72% Kerman 3.6 0.4 12%0.3 9%0.1 3%4.6 0.9 20%0.5 10%0.4 9%29%105%49%255% King City 2.0 0.6 28%0.2 11%0.3 17%2.4 0.9 39%0.3 12%0.6 27%19%63%30%85% Kingsburg 3.0 0.8 26%0.3 12%0.4 15%3.6 1.3 37%0.5 14%0.8 23%21%69%42%90% La Canada Flintridge 2.6 0.4 14%0.2 9%0.1 5%3.2 0.7 23%0.3 10%0.4 12%24%106%47%216% La Habra 21.0 6.2 29%2.5 12%3.7 17%26.2 12.6 48%3.7 14%9.0 34%25%105%47%145% La Habra Heights 1.3 0.2 14%0.1 8%0.1 6%1.3 0.3 21%0.1 9%0.2 12%-3%52%14%105% La Mesa 18.8 7.6 40%2.8 15%4.8 26%22.6 14.2 63%3.9 17%10.3 46%20%89%42%115% La Mirada 5.5 1.0 18%0.5 9%0.5 9%6.9 2.2 32%0.7 10%1.5 22%24%120%48%187% La Palma 4.9 1.7 34%0.8 15%0.9 19%5.0 3.1 63%0.8 16%2.3 47%1%86%6%152% La Puente 1.7 0.5 30%0.2 11%0.3 19%2.3 1.0 45%0.3 13%0.8 33%36%103%56%129% La Quinta 5.8 1.1 19%0.5 9%0.6 10%7.2 2.2 30%0.8 11%1.4 20%25%97%40%153% La Verne 14.3 4.5 32%2.2 15%2.3 16%17.4 8.8 51%3.1 18%5.8 33%22%96%40%148% Laguna Beach 23.9 6.4 27%3.2 14%3.1 13%30.1 12.5 42%4.8 16%7.7 26%26%97%48%147% Laguna Hills 3.4 0.4 12%0.3 8%0.1 4%4.3 0.9 20%0.4 10%0.5 11%27%119%50%272% Laguna Niguel 5.8 0.8 14%0.5 9%0.3 5%7.4 1.7 23%0.7 10%0.9 13%27%110%48%214% Laguna Woods 1.0 0.1 11%0.1 9%0.0 2%0.8 0.1 14%0.1 10%0.0 4%-18%5%-3%33% Lake Elsinore 5.3 1.3 25%0.5 9%0.8 16%6.7 1.9 29%0.7 10%1.2 19%25%45%38%49% Lake Forest 6.0 0.5 9%0.5 9%0.0 0%7.6 1.2 16%0.8 10%0.4 6%27%128%49%5260% Lakeport 2.5 0.5 21%0.3 11%0.2 10%3.2 1.2 38%0.4 12%0.8 26%28%131%41%233% Lakewood 17.0 2.7 16%1.2 7%1.6 9%20.3 5.5 27%1.7 9%3.7 18%19%100%48%139% Lancaster 21.3 5.1 24%2.4 11%2.7 13%26.2 9.5 36%3.4 13%6.2 24%23%85%38%127% Larkspur 4.9 1.3 27%0.7 13%0.7 14%6.1 2.7 45%0.9 15%1.8 30%24%105%41%168% Lathrop 5.0 0.6 12%0.4 8%0.2 4%7.0 1.3 19%0.7 9%0.6 9%39%120%65%232% Lawndale 4.1 0.6 16%0.4 9%0.3 7%4.8 1.3 28%0.5 11%0.8 17%17%110%42%199% Lemon Grove 4.2 0.9 22%0.6 13%0.4 9%5.4 1.7 32%0.8 15%0.9 17%29%87%46%149% Lemoore 5.9 1.2 20%0.6 10%0.6 9%7.2 2.3 31%0.8 12%1.4 20%21%95%39%155% Lincoln 10.5 2.7 25%1.4 13%1.3 12%14.1 4.8 34%2.2 15%2.6 19%35%79%53%109% Lindsay 3.5 1.1 32%0.5 13%0.7 19%3.3 1.4 44%0.5 15%0.9 29%-6%27%9%39% Live Oak 1.2 0.3 22%0.1 11%0.1 11%1.4 0.4 25%0.2 12%0.2 13%19%35%36%34% Livermore 38.4 11.4 30%4.9 13%6.5 17%48.1 20.6 43%7.3 15%13.3 28%25%81%48%106% Livingston 2.7 0.5 20%0.3 10%0.3 10%3.6 1.1 31%0.4 11%0.7 20%32%108%52%165% Lodi 30.3 10.1 33%3.5 12%6.6 22%37.4 19.5 52%5.2 14%14.3 38%23%94%48%118% Loma Linda 6.2 1.6 25%0.8 12%0.8 13%7.1 3.0 42%1.0 14%2.0 28%15%91%34%144% Lomita 3.2 0.9 28%0.3 9%0.6 18%3.8 1.2 32%0.4 10%0.8 22%20%41%36%44% Lompoc 23.1 7.0 30%2.9 13%4.1 18%29.7 13.6 46%4.3 14%9.3 31%29%94%45%130% Long Beach 377.7 100.8 27%48.4 13%52.5 14%457.7 209.9 46%69.7 15%140.2 31%21%108%44%167% Los Alamitos 4.9 1.6 33%0.8 16%0.8 17%6.0 3.2 53%1.1 18%2.1 36%24%102%40%159% Los Altos 12.9 3.3 26%1.7 13%1.6 12%15.7 6.4 41%2.3 15%4.1 26%22%96%38%156% Los Banos 8.8 2.9 33%1.4 16%1.5 18%11.0 4.4 40%2.0 18%2.4 22%25%51%45%56% Lynwood 7.9 3.2 41%0.8 10%2.5 31%9.1 5.0 55%1.1 12%3.9 43%16%55%45%59% Madera 14.1 4.2 30%1.7 12%2.5 17%18.4 7.5 40%2.6 14%4.8 26%30%77%50%97% Malibu 5.7 0.7 13%0.5 9%0.2 4%6.8 1.4 21%0.7 11%0.7 10%18%93%40%228% Manhattan Beach 29.7 7.2 24%4.1 14%3.2 11%38.0 14.9 39%6.2 16%8.7 23%28%106%53%173% Manteca 30.6 10.7 35%4.5 15%6.2 20%38.7 18.4 48%6.6 17%11.8 30%26%72%47%91% Marina 7.6 1.9 25%1.2 15%0.8 10%9.2 3.8 42%1.6 18%2.2 24%21%99%41%186% Martinez 3.9 2.6 67%0.7 18%1.9 49%5.7 3.7 64%1.1 19%2.6 45%45%40%55%35% Marysville 3.3 1.2 38%0.4 12%0.8 26%3.7 2.0 53%0.5 13%1.5 39%14%59%29%73% Menifee 4.2 0.5 12%0.5 11%0.0 0%5.5 0.8 14%0.7 13%0.1 2%30%63%46%680% Menlo Park 22.4 5.8 26%2.8 13%2.9 13%28.9 11.3 39%4.1 14%7.2 25%29%96%43%147% Merced 29.5 7.2 24%3.4 11%3.8 13%36.8 14.4 39%5.0 14%9.4 26%25%100%48%147% Mill Valley 13.9 3.4 25%1.7 12%1.7 13%16.7 6.7 40%2.3 14%4.4 26%20%96%38%152% Millbrae 6.3 3.7 59%0.8 13%2.9 46%7.7 6.8 89%1.0 13%5.8 75%23%85%32%99% Milpitas 37.9 15.0 39%5.3 14%9.7 25%47.0 27.1 58%7.8 17%19.3 41%24%81%46%100% Mission Viejo 11.5 2.4 21%1.2 10%1.2 11%13.5 4.3 32%1.6 12%2.7 20%18%79%36%121% Modesto 79.8 23.3 29%9.5 12%13.8 17%98.0 47.1 48%13.7 14%33.4 34%23%102%45%142% Monrovia 19.5 8.2 42%3.3 17%4.9 25%23.3 15.4 66%4.5 19%10.9 47%20%87%37%121% Montague 0.2 0.0 10%0.0 7%0.0 3%0.3 0.1 21%0.0 8%0.0 12%22%153%44%411% Montclair 12.5 5.1 41%1.7 14%3.3 27%15.1 10.1 66%2.4 16%7.6 50%21%98%40%129% Monte Sereno 0.8 0.1 13%0.1 8%0.0 5%0.9 0.2 18%0.1 10%0.1 8%13%55%37%86% Montebello 29.8 11.1 37%4.0 13%7.2 24%35.1 20.2 58%5.5 16%14.6 42%18%81%39%105% Monterey 39.1 13.4 34%5.5 14%7.9 20%48.1 24.2 50%7.7 16%16.5 34%23%81%41%108% Monterey Park 25.0 8.3 33%3.4 14%4.9 20%29.9 16.0 54%4.8 16%11.2 37%20%93%43%128% Moorpark 5.6 0.6 10%0.5 8%0.1 2%6.6 1.3 19%0.6 10%0.6 10%17%121%40%456% Moreno Valley 22.1 6.6 30%2.5 11%4.1 19%26.3 11.5 44%3.4 13%8.1 31%19%74%37%96% Morgan Hill 19.8 4.9 25%2.4 12%2.6 13%24.4 9.1 37%3.5 14%5.7 23%23%85%47%120% Morro Bay 6.9 2.4 34%0.9 13%1.4 21%8.1 3.9 48%1.3 16%2.7 33%17%66%36%86% Mountain View 64.7 21.1 33%8.5 13%12.6 20%78.9 39.0 49%12.2 16%26.8 34%22%85%44%112% Mt. Shasta 1.6 0.4 21%0.2 10%0.2 11%2.2 0.7 30%0.3 12%0.4 19%36%93%59%124% Murrieta 21.9 4.9 23%3.4 15%1.5 7%26.5 8.4 32%4.8 18%3.7 14%21%72%41%139% Napa 42.2 14.3 34%5.7 14%8.6 20%52.7 25.2 48%8.3 16%17.0 32%25%76%45%97% National City 22.6 8.6 38%3.5 16%5.1 23%28.7 16.1 56%5.2 18%10.9 38%27%87%48%114% Needles 2.3 0.4 18%0.2 8%0.2 9%2.8 0.8 29%0.3 10%0.5 19%21%95%40%144% Nevada City 1.9 0.5 24%0.2 13%0.2 11%2.6 0.9 36%0.4 15%0.5 21%34%104%52%166% Newark 17.7 7.6 43%2.4 14%5.1 29%21.7 14.1 65%3.4 16%10.7 49%23%86%39%109% Newman 2.2 0.7 30%0.3 13%0.4 17%2.9 1.0 34%0.4 15%0.5 18%30%48%52%44% Newport Beach 76.0 34.4 45%9.4 12%25.0 33%92.6 51.7 56%13.5 15%38.2 41%22%50%43%53% Norco 3.0 1.5 48%0.3 10%1.2 38%4.0 2.5 62%0.5 12%2.0 50%31%68%52%72% Norwalk 16.8 4.3 26%1.8 10%2.5 15%21.0 8.6 41%2.6 13%6.0 29%25%101%50%136% Novato 17.8 4.1 23%2.0 11%2.1 12%20.1 8.2 41%2.7 13%5.5 28%13%100%31%169% Oakdale 4.8 1.7 35%0.7 14%1.0 21%6.6 3.6 55%1.0 15%2.6 40%35%115%52%155% Oakland 363.5 138.2 38%50.7 14%87.6 24%467.9 239.4 51%75.1 16%164.3 35%29%73%48%88% Oakley 2.8 0.3 12%0.2 8%0.1 4%7.8 1.2 15%0.9 12%0.3 3%180%244%297%134% Oceanside 71.4 23.2 32%10.7 15%12.4 17%88.9 44.3 50%15.5 17%28.8 32%25%91%44%132% Ojai 2.0 0.6 30%0.2 9%0.4 21%2.4 0.7 30%0.2 10%0.5 20%22%23%38%17% Ontario 87.2 24.5 28%11.9 14%12.6 14%110.1 47.5 43%17.7 16%29.8 27%26%94%49%136% Orange 58.8 21.6 37%8.5 15%13.0 22%70.7 40.9 58%12.1 17%28.7 41%20%90%42%121% Orange Cove 1.9 0.2 11%0.2 10%0.0 1%2.1 0.4 19%0.2 12%0.1 7%5%76%28%402% Orland 1.9 0.5 26%0.2 13%0.3 13%2.4 1.0 41%0.4 15%0.7 27%29%102%47%155% Oroville 6.6 1.8 27%0.9 13%0.9 14%8.9 3.9 43%1.4 15%2.5 28%35%116%56%171% Oxnard 95.6 27.8 29%13.3 14%14.6 15%108.8 49.7 46%18.1 17%31.6 29%14%79%36%117% Pacific Grove 6.1 2.4 40%0.7 11%1.7 28%7.0 5.2 75%0.9 13%4.4 62%15%118%28%154% Pacifica 15.5 4.1 27%2.1 13%2.0 13%19.1 8.9 47%3.0 16%5.9 31%23%116%44%189% Palm Desert 12.0 4.2 35%1.3 11%2.9 24%13.5 5.9 44%1.8 14%4.1 30%12%41%37%42% Palm Springs 35.0 12.9 37%5.1 14%7.9 22%44.5 25.4 57%7.7 17%17.7 40%27%96%51%125% Palmdale 13.3 3.5 26%1.4 10%2.1 16%16.8 6.9 41%2.1 13%4.8 29%26%99%51%131% Palo Alto 101.4 35.1 35%12.2 12%22.9 23%126.1 64.5 51%17.6 14%46.9 37%24%84%44%105% Palos Verdes Estates 5.1 1.3 25%0.7 14%0.5 11%6.8 2.7 40%1.1 16%1.6 24%34%115%53%198% Paramount 6.6 1.8 28%0.6 9%1.2 19%8.2 3.9 47%1.0 13%2.8 35%24%111%75%127% Parlier 1.6 0.3 15%0.2 10%0.1 6%2.2 0.5 21%0.2 11%0.2 10%31%80%49%132% Pasadena 158.1 44.8 28%16.7 11%28.1 18%194.8 79.6 41%24.9 13%54.7 28%23%78%50%95% Paso Robles 14.8 4.3 29%1.9 13%2.4 16%18.2 7.1 39%2.7 15%4.4 24%23%65%44%81% Patterson 5.9 1.2 20%0.7 12%0.5 8%7.5 1.9 26%1.0 13%0.9 12%25%58%40%84% Perris 5.6 1.0 19%0.6 11%0.4 8%7.8 2.5 32%1.0 12%1.6 20%39%141%58%253% Petaluma 26.1 8.7 33%3.5 13%5.3 20%33.0 16.2 49%5.2 16%11.0 33%27%86%50%110% Pico Rivera 9.4 2.8 30%0.8 9%2.0 22%12.2 5.1 42%1.3 10%3.8 31%30%78%53%89% Piedmont 9.8 2.6 27%1.6 16%1.1 11%11.8 5.3 45%2.2 18%3.1 26%20%99%39%186% Pinole 8.3 2.5 30%1.1 13%1.4 17%9.0 4.9 55%1.4 16%3.5 39%9%97%29%150% Pismo Beach 6.8 2.3 33%0.8 12%1.5 21%8.2 3.0 37%1.1 13%1.9 24%20%34%34%34% Pittsburg 22.2 5.0 23%2.9 13%2.1 9%28.4 10.0 35%4.3 15%5.7 20%28%99%47%171% Placervilled 5.0 1.5 30%0.6 11%0.9 18%6.0 2.7 45%0.8 13%1.9 32%20%84%39%113% Plancentia 8.0 4.0 50%1.1 14%2.8 36%10.8 6.0 56%1.6 15%4.4 40%36%51%45%54% Pleasant Hill 11.2 3.2 28%1.4 12%1.8 16%13.6 6.5 48%1.9 14%4.6 34%22%105%40%154% Pleasanton 52.6 17.4 33%7.6 14%9.8 19%64.8 32.2 50%11.0 17%21.1 33%23%84%45%115% Pomona 41.4 14.7 36%5.7 14%9.0 22%51.7 29.9 58%8.5 16%21.4 41%25%103%48%137% Port Hueneme 9.2 2.5 27%1.2 13%1.3 14%9.9 4.9 49%1.6 16%3.3 34%7%93%28%152% Portola 0.5 0.1 12%0.0 10%0.0 2%0.8 0.2 24%0.1 11%0.1 14%55%218%69%864% Portorville 16.4 4.7 29%2.0 12%2.6 16%21.5 8.9 41%3.1 15%5.8 27%31%91%54%121% Poway 16.7 4.1 24%1.8 11%2.2 13%20.5 8.1 39%2.6 13%5.5 27%23%99%42%144% Rancho Cordova 5.3 0.7 13%0.6 11%0.1 3%7.5 1.4 18%0.9 12%0.5 6%40%92%56%244% Rancho Cucamonga 28.3 4.7 17%2.4 9%2.3 8%34.9 9.7 28%3.6 10%6.1 17%23%105%49%162% Rancho Mirage 6.9 0.7 11%0.7 10%0.1 1%8.3 1.7 20%0.9 11%0.8 9%20%126%37%842% Rancho Palos Verdes 6.2 1.1 17%0.6 9%0.5 8%7.8 2.1 26%0.8 10%1.3 16%26%95%42%154% Rancho Santa Margarita 2.0 0.3 15%0.2 9%0.1 6%2.8 0.5 17%0.3 11%0.2 7%40%64%63%64% Red Bluff 5.0 1.3 26%0.6 13%0.7 14%6.6 2.8 43%1.0 15%1.9 28%33%116%53%175% Redding 62.2 20.5 33%7.5 12%13.1 21%76.2 37.9 50%10.9 14%27.0 35%22%85%46%107% Redlands 35.6 10.5 29%5.1 14%5.4 15%44.7 21.0 47%7.4 17%13.6 30%26%100%45%153% Redondo Beach 35.2 13.3 38%4.9 14%8.4 24%45.4 26.7 59%7.4 16%19.3 43%29%101%50%130% Redwood City 60.8 21.2 35%8.8 14%12.5 21%77.9 40.0 51%13.0 17%27.0 35%28%88%48%116% Reedley 6.5 1.4 21%0.7 11%0.7 10%7.8 2.5 32%1.0 12%1.5 20%20%85%38%133% Rialto 26.2 12.2 47%4.7 18%7.5 29%32.4 21.7 67%6.7 21%15.0 46%24%77%42%99% Richmond 78.1 26.5 34%12.5 16%14.0 18%94.8 54.1 57%17.7 19%36.4 38%21%104%41%160% Ridgecrest 6.5 2.0 31%0.9 14%1.1 17%7.8 3.3 42%1.2 15%2.1 27%20%63%35%86% Rio Vista 3.2 0.8 24%0.4 11%0.4 13%4.1 1.2 29%0.5 13%0.7 17%27%54%41%64% Ripon 1.9 0.6 35%0.3 18%0.3 17%2.2 0.9 42%0.5 21%0.5 21%20%45%39%51% Riverbank 3.6 0.6 17%0.3 8%0.3 9%4.2 1.1 27%0.4 10%0.7 17%16%86%40%130% Riverside 190.2 56.4 30%28.4 15%28.0 15%234.3 111.5 48%40.9 17%70.5 30%23%98%44%152% Rocklin 21.4 5.1 24%2.9 14%2.3 11%25.6 9.7 38%4.1 16%5.6 22%20%88%42%146% Rohnert Park 14.4 6.2 43%2.1 15%4.1 28%17.9 11.0 62%3.0 17%8.0 45%24%78%41%98% Rolling Hills 0.4 0.1 14%0.0 8%0.0 6%0.6 0.1 23%0.1 9%0.1 13%44%137%69%229% Rolling Hills Estates 1.8 0.4 24%0.2 9%0.3 14%2.5 0.8 34%0.3 11%0.6 23%34%94%57%118% Rosemead 3.8 1.3 35%0.4 11%0.9 24%4.3 1.4 32%0.5 13%0.8 19%15%5%28%-6% Roseville 106.8 31.1 29%13.9 13%17.2 16%135.3 56.2 42%20.9 15%35.4 26%27%81%50%106% Sacramento 304.0 79.9 26%36.9 12%43.0 14%384.1 159.2 41%55.8 15%103.5 27%26%99%51%141% Salinas 43.0 16.6 39%6.6 15%10.0 23%56.1 30.4 54%9.8 17%20.6 37%30%83%48%106% San Bernardino 82.2 31.6 38%11.5 14%20.1 24%92.6 61.1 66%15.5 17%45.6 49%13%93%34%127% San Bruno 23.5 7.4 32%3.3 14%4.1 17%29.5 14.7 50%4.8 16%9.9 34%26%98%44%143% San Buenaventura 51.6 17.4 34%6.4 12%11.0 21%64.3 32.6 51%9.4 15%23.2 36%25%87%46%112% San Carlos 6.9 3.3 48%0.7 10%2.6 37%9.2 5.4 59%1.1 12%4.3 47%34%65%52%69% San Clemente 15.2 2.6 17%1.3 8%1.3 8%17.1 4.8 28%1.7 10%3.1 18%13%89%34%145% San Dimas 5.6 1.1 20%0.5 8%0.6 12%6.9 2.0 29%0.7 10%1.3 19%25%83%47%108% San Fernando 8.9 3.4 38%1.3 15%2.0 23%10.5 6.2 59%1.8 17%4.4 42%18%85%38%116% San Francisco 117.2 34.9 30%23.7 20%11.2 10%137.0 68.5 50%32.1 23%36.4 27%17%96%36%225% San Gabriel 14.6 6.3 43%2.4 17%3.9 27%18.1 11.1 61%3.4 19%7.7 42%25%75%40%97% San Jacinto 2.8 1.0 36%0.3 11%0.7 25%3.0 1.6 55%0.4 13%1.2 42%6%62%24%78% San Joaquin 0.7 0.1 14%0.1 8%0.0 6%0.7 0.2 26%0.1 10%0.1 16%2%95%24%195% San Jose 0.6 0.2 26%0.0 8%0.1 19%1.0 0.2 23%0.1 9%0.1 15%57%39%80%22% San Leandro 33.6 13.1 39%4.6 14%8.6 25%41.8 26.1 62%6.5 16%19.6 47%24%99%44%129% San Luis Obispo 33.0 12.7 38%4.6 14%8.1 25%41.1 22.3 54%6.5 16%15.8 39%24%76%42%95% San Marcos 22.4 7.0 31%3.2 14%3.7 17%27.2 11.7 43%4.5 16%7.2 27%21%68%39%93% San Marino 9.4 2.6 28%1.4 15%1.2 13%11.4 5.4 47%2.0 17%3.4 30%21%104%38%180% San Mateo 53.9 18.0 33%6.7 13%11.2 21%68.0 33.2 49%10.2 15%23.0 34%26%84%51%105% San Pablo 13.1 3.6 28%1.9 14%1.7 13%16.2 7.2 44%2.6 16%4.5 28%24%96%38%160% San Ramon 27.6 4.9 18%3.7 13%1.3 5%33.7 9.7 29%5.3 16%4.4 13%22%97%44%252% Sand City 2.2 0.6 28%0.3 14%0.3 14%2.6 0.9 36%0.4 17%0.5 19%19%54%39%69% Sanger 5.8 2.0 34%0.7 13%1.2 22%7.4 3.4 45%1.1 15%2.3 31%29%70%49%83% Santa Ana 100.6 45.1 45%13.9 14%31.2 31%121.4 89.8 74%20.0 16%69.8 57%21%99%44%124% Santa Barbara 85.9 30.1 35%11.7 14%18.4 21%102.4 54.7 53%16.3 16%38.4 37%19%81%39%108% Santa Clara 107.7 41.9 39%14.6 14%27.3 25%135.7 77.1 57%21.8 16%55.3 41%26%84%49%102% Santa Clarita 30.3 4.8 16%2.5 8%2.3 8%36.7 9.8 27%3.7 10%6.1 17%21%104%46%167% Santa Cruz 64.5 16.0 25%7.9 12%8.1 13%81.1 31.7 39%11.8 15%19.9 25%26%98%48%146% Santa Fe Springs 17.2 8.7 51%2.5 14%6.3 37%20.8 16.1 77%3.5 17%12.6 61%21%84%42%101% Santa Maria 41.0 11.4 28%5.6 14%5.8 14%50.4 22.1 44%7.9 16%14.1 28%23%94%42%144% Santa Monica 199.3 54.0 27%23.7 12%30.3 15%246.8 93.8 38%35.0 14%58.9 24%24%74%47%95% Santa Paula 7.7 2.4 31%1.0 13%1.4 18%8.7 4.0 46%1.3 15%2.7 30%14%68%31%96% Santa Rosa 105.2 30.1 29%14.2 14%15.9 15%130.5 60.0 46%20.6 16%39.4 30%24%99%45%148% Santee 11.1 3.5 31%1.7 15%1.8 16%13.4 6.9 51%2.3 17%4.5 34%21%99%38%159% Saratoga 5.9 0.7 12%0.5 9%0.2 3%7.2 1.9 26%0.8 11%1.1 15%21%155%46%467% Sausalito 6.3 2.4 38%0.8 13%1.5 24%7.5 4.1 55%1.1 15%3.0 40%19%73%34%95% Scotts Valley 4.9 1.4 28%0.6 13%0.8 15%5.4 2.8 51%0.8 16%1.9 36%10%99%33%155% Seal Beach 10.3 3.3 32%1.6 15%1.7 16%11.3 6.2 55%2.1 18%4.2 37%10%92%30%150% Seaside 13.2 3.6 28%1.8 14%1.8 14%15.8 7.4 46%2.6 16%4.8 30%20%102%41%164% Sebastopol 3.9 1.2 32%0.5 12%0.8 19%5.2 2.0 38%0.7 14%1.3 24%34%62%56%66% Selma 5.5 1.5 27%0.7 13%0.8 14%6.9 2.6 38%1.0 15%1.6 23%26%75%46%101% Shafter 10.5 1.1 10%1.0 10%0.1 1%13.6 2.2 16%1.5 11%0.7 5%29%105%49%989% Shasta Lake 3.8 0.8 20%0.5 12%0.3 8%4.4 1.5 34%0.6 14%0.9 21%16%95%33%182% Sierra Madre 4.9 1.5 31%0.7 14%0.9 18%5.3 2.2 41%0.8 15%1.4 26%10%45%21%63% Signal Hill 7.8 2.9 37%1.0 13%1.9 24%10.5 4.6 43%1.5 14%3.0 29%34%57%48%63% Simi Valley 46.4 12.4 27%5.2 11%7.2 16%53.2 23.2 44%7.1 13%16.1 30%15%87%37%122% Solana Beach 5.0 1.3 26%0.7 13%0.6 12%6.2 2.5 41%1.0 15%1.6 26%26%101%45%162% Soledad 3.8 0.6 16%0.4 10%0.2 6%5.0 1.2 23%0.6 12%0.6 12%32%94%50%177% Solvang 2.4 0.4 18%0.3 11%0.2 7%2.9 0.8 28%0.4 12%0.5 16%23%96%43%174% Sonoma 3.0 0.9 32%0.3 9%0.7 22%3.8 2.1 55%0.4 11%1.7 44%27%120%50%149% Sonora 2.6 1.2 45%0.4 16%0.7 29%3.4 1.7 49%0.6 18%1.1 31%30%42%45%41% South El Monte 2.6 0.6 23%0.2 10%0.4 14%3.3 1.2 37%0.4 11%0.9 26%30%108%52%148% South Gate 22.0 6.9 31%3.0 14%3.9 18%27.1 14.3 53%4.3 16%10.0 37%23%108%46%155% South Lake Tahoe 14.2 5.5 39%2.1 15%3.3 24%18.4 10.9 59%3.1 17%7.8 42%30%99%45%133% South Pasadena 11.8 3.2 27%1.5 13%1.7 15%14.7 6.2 42%2.1 15%4.1 28%25%94%45%136% South San Francisco 40.4 15.0 37%5.9 15%9.2 23%53.9 29.0 54%8.9 17%20.0 37%33%93%52%118% St. Helena 5.0 1.4 27%0.5 10%0.9 17%6.1 1.9 32%0.7 12%1.2 20%22%41%39%42% Stanton 2.2 0.9 39%0.2 8%0.7 31%2.8 1.5 56%0.3 9%1.3 46%24%76%43%85% Stockton 109.8 41.5 38%16.3 15%25.1 23%139.1 80.1 58%23.5 17%56.6 41%27%93%44%125% Suisun City 5.8 1.8 31%0.7 12%1.1 19%7.0 2.8 41%0.9 13%1.9 27%20%58%35%72% Sunnyvale 92.7 32.5 35%13.0 14%19.5 21%114.8 59.7 52%18.7 16%41.0 36%24%84%44%111% Susanville 3.6 1.0 27%0.5 14%0.5 13%4.2 2.0 48%0.7 16%1.3 32%15%102%29%181% Sutter Creek 0.8 0.3 40%0.1 13%0.2 27%1.0 0.5 54%0.2 15%0.4 39%25%68%48%77% Taft 6.8 1.0 14%0.6 8%0.4 6%8.3 2.0 24%0.8 10%1.2 14%22%100%40%184% Tehachapi 4.0 0.6 16%0.4 11%0.2 5%5.0 1.1 22%0.6 12%0.5 11%27%85%37%194% Temecula 13.9 3.7 27%1.5 11%2.2 16%16.8 6.6 39%2.2 13%4.3 26%20%77%43%100% Temple City 3.1 0.7 22%0.3 10%0.4 12%3.8 1.4 36%0.5 12%0.9 24%22%100%44%150% Thousand Oaks 30.8 6.5 21%2.4 8%4.1 13%37.1 12.3 33%3.6 10%8.8 24%21%90%49%115% Torrance 116.7 39.3 34%15.7 13%23.6 20%142.9 74.0 52%22.8 16%51.2 36%22%88%45%117% Tracy 35.8 9.1 25%4.9 14%4.2 12%45.3 17.2 38%7.3 16%9.9 22%27%89%50%134% Tulare 21.3 6.1 29%3.0 14%3.1 15%26.7 11.5 43%4.3 16%7.2 27%25%89%44%131% Tulelake 0.3 0.0 10%0.0 9%0.0 1%0.3 0.1 16%0.0 10%0.0 6%26%102%47%489% Turlock 24.2 7.3 30%3.3 13%4.0 17%30.7 14.1 46%4.9 16%9.2 30%27%94%49%131% Tustin 24.5 5.6 23%3.0 12%2.7 11%31.1 11.9 38%4.4 14%7.5 24%27%111%50%179% Twentynine Palms 2.1 0.3 16%0.2 10%0.1 6%2.5 0.7 27%0.3 11%0.4 15%20%99%41%187% Ukiah 12.1 4.7 39%1.8 15%2.9 24%14.9 7.5 51%2.5 17%5.0 34%24%62%42%74% Union City 24.8 7.0 28%3.3 13%3.7 15%32.1 15.0 47%5.0 16%10.0 31%29%115%53%170% Upland 21.2 9.0 42%3.1 14%5.9 28%25.7 16.6 65%4.4 17%12.2 47%22%86%45%107% Vacaville 47.8 16.9 35%6.3 13%10.6 22%59.6 30.5 51%9.4 16%21.0 35%25%80%49%98% Vallejo 45.6 22.7 50%6.9 15%15.8 35%57.3 40.6 71%10.3 18%30.3 53%26%79%48%92% Vernon 27.7 9.5 34%3.8 14%5.7 21%34.6 18.9 55%5.7 17%13.2 38%25%99%50%132% Victorville 21.4 4.9 23%2.0 9%2.9 14%26.9 9.7 36%3.0 11%6.6 25%25%95%50%127% Villa Park 0.5 0.1 17%0.0 9%0.0 8%0.6 0.2 31%0.1 11%0.1 20%22%123%47%205% Visalia 43.9 13.0 30%6.3 14%6.7 15%52.7 23.0 44%8.9 17%14.2 27%20%77%40%113% Vista 22.3 6.4 29%3.0 14%3.4 15%27.2 11.6 43%4.3 16%7.3 27%22%81%42%116% Walnut 3.4 0.6 18%0.3 9%0.3 9%3.9 1.2 31%0.4 10%0.8 21%14%100%34%162% Walnut Creek 33.6 9.6 29%4.0 12%5.6 17%43.6 18.8 43%6.1 14%12.8 29%30%95%50%128% Wasco 3.1 1.0 34%0.3 11%0.7 23%3.8 1.2 33%0.5 13%0.8 20%23%20%42%10% Waterford 1.0 0.1 16%0.1 9%0.1 6%1.2 0.3 26%0.1 11%0.2 15%29%115%56%200% Watsonville 30.5 6.9 23%3.4 11%3.5 12%37.3 13.9 37%4.8 13%9.1 24%23%102%44%157% Weed 1.4 0.3 19%0.1 9%0.1 10%1.8 0.5 27%0.2 10%0.3 17%33%96%55%131% West Covina 28.3 13.1 46%4.3 15%8.8 31%34.8 25.0 72%6.1 18%18.8 54%23%91%42%114% West Hollywood 23.4 5.0 21%2.3 10%2.7 11%28.6 9.1 32%3.4 12%5.7 20%22%82%46%114% West Sacramento 31.1 7.8 25%4.0 13%3.8 12%37.8 14.7 39%5.7 15%9.0 24%21%90%42%140% Westlake Village 1.2 0.2 19%0.1 12%0.1 8%1.5 0.5 31%0.2 14%0.3 17%26%103%51%183% Westminster 20.6 8.3 40%3.0 14%5.3 26%24.2 16.7 69%4.1 17%12.6 52%18%102%37%139% Whittier 30.7 9.9 32%3.9 13%6.1 20%37.9 19.3 51%5.7 15%13.6 36%24%95%49%124% Wildomar 1.0 0.1 11%0.1 11%0.0 1%1.2 0.2 15%0.1 12%0.0 2%18%56%37%441% Williams 2.0 0.3 16%0.2 11%0.1 5%2.4 0.6 26%0.3 14%0.3 12%18%93%44%217% Willits 2.7 0.9 35%0.3 12%0.6 23%3.0 1.3 42%0.4 14%0.9 29%11%34%24%40% Willows 1.6 0.7 46%0.2 15%0.5 31%2.0 1.2 59%0.3 17%0.8 42%21%56%39%64% Winters 2.8 0.6 22%0.3 11%0.3 11%3.8 1.0 27%0.5 13%0.5 14%36%67%55%78% Woodlake 1.5 0.3 21%0.1 9%0.2 12%1.8 0.5 27%0.2 11%0.3 16%17%46%31%59% Woodland 22.1 8.2 37%3.0 14%5.1 23%27.2 14.5 53%4.4 16%10.2 37%23%78%44%97% Yorba Linda 8.8 2.0 22%0.8 9%1.1 13%10.8 3.6 34%1.2 11%2.5 23%22%86%42%118% Yreka 2.8 0.6 23%0.3 11%0.3 12%3.6 1.4 40%0.5 13%1.0 27%27%121%50%183% Yuba City 20.9 7.0 34%3.4 16%3.7 17%25.1 13.0 52%4.6 18%8.5 34%20%86%36%132% Yucaipa 3.4 0.5 15%0.3 9%0.2 6%4.3 1.1 24%0.5 11%0.6 13%28%111%51%211% Total Cities 9,809 3,130 32%1,301 13%1,828 19%12,120 5,841 48%1,884 16%3,957 33% NOTES Payroll Payroll percentage increases 2018 to 2025 C O U N T Y Total % Normal % Catch-Up % Total % Normal % Catch-Up %payroll tot c norm c unfun c Alpine 5.2 1.3 25%0.6 11%0.7 14%6.5 2.1 33%0.8 13%1.3 20%25%65%46%80% Amador 25.6 6.8 26%3.1 12%3.7 14%31.7 12.0 38%4.3 14%7.7 24%24%78%41%108% Butte 126.2 22.0 17%11.9 9%10.1 8%155.0 44.8 29%17.3 11%27.4 18%23%103%46%171% Calaveras 29.9 6.3 21%3.4 11%3.0 10%36.6 12.2 33%4.7 13%7.5 20%22%94%41%153% Colusa 21.6 6.0 28%2.7 13%3.3 15%26.5 11.6 44%3.9 15%7.7 29%23%92%43%133% Del Norte 21.7 4.2 19%1.9 9%2.3 11%27.4 8.1 29%2.7 10%5.3 19%27%92%47%128% El Dorado 126.9 30.5 24%13.4 11%17.1 13%159.7 57.8 36%19.9 12%37.9 24%26%89%48%121% Glenn 23.1 5.7 25%2.0 9%3.7 16%29.0 10.9 38%3.0 10%8.0 28%26%92%50%115% Humboldt 104.9 29.2 28%12.3 12%16.8 16%128.2 51.6 40%17.4 14%34.2 27%22%77%41%103% Inyo 27.0 6.1 23%2.8 10%3.3 12%33.9 12.3 36%4.1 12%8.2 24%26%101%47%145% Kings 77.5 14.0 18%7.5 10%6.5 8%99.8 30.4 30%11.4 11%18.9 19%29%117%52%193% Lake 44.7 8.0 18%4.4 10%3.6 8%57.7 17.2 30%6.6 12%10.6 18%29%116%51%197% Lassen 20.6 4.2 21%2.0 10%2.3 11%25.1 7.8 31%2.7 11%5.1 20%22%85%39%124% Madera 71.2 18.7 26%7.9 11%10.8 15%90.7 34.0 37%11.9 13%22.1 24%27%82%50%105% Mariposa 21.7 5.7 26%2.7 13%3.0 14%27.6 10.0 36%4.0 14%6.0 22%28%75%46%102% Modoc 10.0 2.3 23%0.9 9%1.4 14%12.7 4.2 33%1.3 11%2.9 23%27%82%50%103% Mono 19.5 5.5 28%2.6 13%2.9 15%22.4 9.7 43%3.4 15%6.3 28%15%78%33%118% Monterey 377.1 63.3 17%34.4 9%28.8 8%480.7 126.9 26%51.3 11%75.6 16%27%101%49%162% Napa 119.7 25.3 21%11.7 10%13.6 11%149.0 44.9 30%17.1 12%27.8 19%25%77%47%104% Nevada 53.3 18.5 35%6.7 13%11.9 22%67.2 31.5 47%9.7 14%21.8 32%26%70%46%83% Placer 198.6 54.2 27%21.7 11%32.5 16%245.7 93.4 38%31.6 13%61.8 25%24%72%46%90% Plumas 19.9 4.6 23%1.9 9%2.8 14%24.0 8.6 36%2.6 11%6.0 25%21%86%43%114% Riverside 1,442.1 283.3 20%173.9 12%109.4 8%1,864.7 624.8 34%265.4 14%359.3 19%29%121%53%229% San Benito 27.0 6.4 24%2.7 10%3.7 14%34.2 10.9 32%4.1 12%6.9 20%27%70%51%84% Santa Clara 1,619.4 358.3 22%160.8 10%197.6 12%2,060.4 710.4 34%245.8 12%464.6 23%27%98%53%135% Santa Cruz 189.0 41.6 22%17.9 9%23.7 13%240.4 82.8 34%26.9 11%55.9 23%27%99%50%136% Shasta 101.1 22.7 22%10.2 10%12.5 12%127.0 42.7 34%15.1 12%27.6 22%26%88%48%121% Sierra 5.8 1.6 28%0.7 12%0.9 16%7.9 3.4 43%1.1 13%2.4 30%36%110%53%152% Siskiyou 33.5 7.9 24%3.5 11%4.4 13%39.2 15.3 39%4.9 12%10.5 27%17%93%37%138% Solano 227.1 50.8 22%25.6 11%25.3 11%286.0 100.7 35%37.3 13%63.4 22%26%98%46%151% Sutter 59.6 16.1 27%6.9 12%9.2 15%73.5 28.6 39%9.7 13%18.9 26%23%78%41%105% Tehama 41.9 8.7 21%4.1 10%4.7 11%51.5 16.8 33%5.9 11%10.9 21%23%92%45%133% Trinity 14.0 5.0 36%1.6 11%3.4 25%17.9 8.7 49%2.3 13%6.4 36%28%74%46%87% Tuolumne 39.4 8.8 22%4.1 10%4.8 12%48.8 18.1 37%5.9 12%12.2 25%24%105%45%157% Yolo 106.2 26.9 25%10.7 10%16.3 15%134.0 51.0 38%16.2 12%34.8 26%26%89%52%114% Yuba 55.4 12.0 22%5.0 9%6.9 12%66.8 23.2 35%7.3 11%15.9 24%21%94%44%130% Total Counties 5,507 1,193 22%586 11%607 11%6,989 2,379 34%880 13%1,500 21% P A Y M E N T S T O C A L P E R S P A Y M E N T S T O C A L P E R S 2017-18 2024-25 CalPERS Actuarial Report Data - Counties ($=M) 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, November 4, 2018 2:05 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; huidentalsanmateo; terry; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; leager; Jason Tarvin; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; hennessy; bballpod; popoff; Doug Vagim; robert.andersen; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; steve.hogg; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Raymond Rivas; Steve Wayte Subject:Fwd: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:44 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:42 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 12:58 PM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:52 AM  Subject: Fwd: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>          ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM  2 Subject: Fwd: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:38 AM  Subject: CHSRA and Shafter settle litigation. Viscious ads by Nunes against HSR  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Sunday, Nov. 4, 2018                 Dan‐  I just saw the announcement on Oct. 30, 2018 that "The U.S. High Speed Rail Association has announced  that Dan Richard has been selected as the new Chair of the USHSR Board".  Congratulations, and thank you for taking on  this important role.                    This is a further recommendation for you to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States in  2020.                    L. William Harding                Fresno, Ca.                Thurs. Oct. 25, 2018              Dan‐ Here is info re settlement with Shafter:    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzLNWRlngvjPpvFSQHRrFBtdNw               Devin Nunes is running against Janz, and Nunes is running really obnoxious ads about how Janz wants to raise  federal taxes to get a federal "bailout" for Jerry Brown's high speed rail "boondoggle".  The Republicans are just  terrified of what HSR would do for the Central Valley.                I think Nunes is on the ropes. It has come out that he has never held a real job. He became a politician at age 23  or something. He does have a straight nose, good teeth, no acne, and a nicely shaped head. Those things count hugely  in the Central Valley and that has kept him in Congress for years‐ that and millions from rich Republicans whose bidding  he does in Congress. Janz ads show big private jets taking Nunes to exotic locales, exotic vacations all over Europe, how  he claims to be a farmer but moved his farm to Iowa years ago, even this:  He owns part of a winery in Napa or  someplace and this winery owns a yacht. Some group rented the yacht and, out on SF Bay, the party allegedly included  women who were paid to participate. Whether Nunes' constituent taxpayers paid for any protection or for any  lubricants was never proven. This story seems to have faded, but voters no doubt remember it still. Nunes denied any  involvement.                   Nunes is the archetype of the guy with no acne and a straight nose, and little else to recommend him, who rich  Republicans back to do their dirty work. He, along with Kevin McCarthy, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham have done all  they can in Congress to kill California HSR, as you know. Apparently, the rich Republicans who hire these guys fear  having the exploited residents of the Central Valley see the Bay Area. And they must have a massive fear of having  highly paid, well‐educated Silicon Valley types taking HSR into the Central Valley of California and buying homes here.  That would expose people here to high tech workers, many of whom see through the Republicans. I find adults in  Fresno who have never heard of Silicon Valley. The Republicans want to keep Fresno like a little town in Alabama in  1920, when most people went to high school, if that, had no pensions, no health care, no hope, no knowledge of birth  control and eight children. The doctor, the lawyer and the banker in town sent their sons off to the State university,  3 and they then came home and continued the exploitation. Everybody else went to work for the gas company, or the  grain elevator, when they "left school". HSR will start to modify that scenario in the Central Valley, and the Republicans  do all in their power to prevent it.               If the people of the Central Valley have any sense at all, they will fire Devin Nunes, David Valadao, Jeff Denham,  and, especially, Kevin McCarthy on November 6. They will be better off if they just engage in an "incumbent removal"  process wrt these guys. Just elect anybody else, and if the anybody else does a lousy job, fire them two years from  now.                As you know, Trump's new defense budget is $716 billion. With that gargantuan military, we provide a free  defense for all of Europe, Japan, Korea, and a lot more. Those people then spend their defense money on high speed  rail, affordable universities, magnificent universal health care, and a lot more. They view the American people as the  biggest suckers on the face of the earth, but they are careful never to say that. If a war has to be fought in their neck of  the woods, they just call the White House and young Americans are soon being slaughtered to defend some corner of  Europe, or some hell‐hole on the rim of Asia. That needs to change, and the American people should change it at the  ballot box. They deserve something better than an army of grey‐suited grafters in Washington, working with thousands  of lobbyists from special interests, some of them foreign, doing all they can to enrich those interests and to ruin the  lives of the American people.             POV on PBS recently did a two hour program on "Dark Money", showing how the system works. I highly  recommend it. The rotten system of campaign finance shown there was enabled hugely by the "Citizens United"  decision of the Supreme Court.                   Here is a trailer for "Dark Money". The program itself is not on YouTube, for some strange reason. It is worth  seeing, and it will provoke change in our campaign financing system, I believe. Too bad it is not available to see for free  on‐line.                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4OGlW1JJpc&list=PL3ODbKmHhkJ8abbJpVveL_qD00g_mFoM5                           Everybody wins under our current political system, except for the average American. They get a complete  screwing, and it will only get worse unless we change the system. If the Republicans can damage or end Social Security  and Medicare, they will do so. Defund Planned Parenthood, reverse Roe, outlaw abortion and contraception, destroy  Obamacare, put university education out of reach for all but their own, stop high speed rail, maintain the current lousy  public school system available to most Americans, destroy what private pension systems still exist, repeal  environmental laws, encourage coal production and burning, bleed the people white to maintain a gargantuan military  to defend the whole world, destroy what unions still exist, gut worker safety and other worker protection laws, enable  the sale of dangerous drugs, such as opioids, to enrich Big Pharma, gut financial protection laws, gut consumer  protection laws, including food safety laws, rig the system from top to bottom to enrich a handful of rich Republican  scum and to ruin the lives of the average American.                  The people of California's Central Valley can do their part to improve our country by firing Devin Nunes, David  Valadao, Jeff Denham and Kevin McCarthy convincingly on Nov. 6. Every Republican in this country should feel the heat  as well, as the wrath of the American people is expressed at the ballot box.                  L. William Harding                Fresno, Ca.                    1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Sunday, November 4, 2018 4:50 PM To:chuck jagoda; Court Skinner; Ruth Chippendale; Cherrill M. Spencer; Council, City; joe simitian; Iqbal Serang Cc:stephanie Subject:Lack of Housing Stephanie Munoz, WILPF Peninsula Branch 650 248-1842 101 Alma, apt 701, PaloAlto Fresh Out of Housing In advocating for low income housing, we have to keep in mind that when the Thirteen Colonies successfully revolted against Great Britain, they did not abrogate the preeminent right of the ruler to dictate the use of land, they merely reallocated it to themselves. When the US conquered California, and made California a State, they delegated that power to the State, which delegated it to the counties and cities they created, which, in effect, removed the resident cattle herders by demanding tax they were unable to pay, so the land could be sold to farmers, traders and service providers, capable of sustaining a money economy , and they kept on with this practice after the Californio owners were evicted. Money is of interest to WILPF because when you have a lot of it, and don't spend it on making a better life for the people, you can buy munitions and feed and transport soldiers. What WILPF is fighting is the tendency of a nation with a fixation on being "the greatest" is to make land decisions that will add to its money at the expense of basic human rights. It's axiomatic that inflation results in loss of low income housing, but Palo Alto is a special case because of some special historical circumstances. Back in the 19th Century, the only son of an extremely wealthy and politically powerful father, died of typhoid fever, and his mother determined that the memorial to him would be a university dedicated to higher education for the poor youth of California, but the two towns nearest the farm where they intended to install this university objected to being asked not to sell alcohol to the future students, so the family friends 2 all bought up nearby land and subdivided it to create the town of Palo Alto. Less than a hundred years later, during the Cold War between the US and the USSR, the USSR launched the first satellite, "Sputnik" and scientists at the university perceived the possibility of combining their land and expertise with the political power of the city and proximity to a US airfield and research facility, NASA, to create a technical research park, which the city obligingly rezoned from "residential", but without replacing housing for the prospective workers elsewhere in the city--an egregiously stupid planning error, which vitiated Mrs. Stanford's dream of college for the poor youth of California, because public education in California is funded by the property tax, and if you put the money making entity here, and housing for the workers in a different town or even a different county, the workers' children won't receive a good enough education to qualify for Stanford. We now have PAUSD with enough AP classes to constitute a fifth year of high school, while across the creek in San Mateo county, Ravenswood School district doesn't even graduate all its students. So the first mitigation for the jobs /housing imbalance would be to require large companies to create rental housing in proportion to their number of workers. If they don't think it up themselves, they won't want to do it, but it should be becoming clear that they are already missing out on some workers who balk at the high cost of housing, and that they can stabilize their work force and contain its cost better if they provide a safe haven where their recruits can rest their overtaxed heads without having to drive to for hours to an exurban county. Society at large-- taxpayers, if you will-- should be the first to realize that this equation of job desirability with home opportunity, as soon as the present wave of teachers retires, will become an urgent priority. We absolutely have to have teachers; we're now paying them an average of $100,000 a year, and it's not enough to buy, or even rent a home. Since, as everyone knows, it's the cost of the land, which is in short supply, continually driving the cost of housing upward, it would be insane for school districts or cities to let go of land or convert it to any purpose other than teacher housing until there is enough housing for all the teachers in 3 the district. At first there will be too many places, but the surplus can be very easily rented to other employees such as janitors or administrators, or teachers from other districts, pending the maximum need. The next question is "Doesn't this apply to other city and county workers, also?" Yes, of course, but it doesn't impact the lives of everyone as much as a lack of housing for teachers, and the city managers will probably figure out that it is in their interest to provide worker housing. Veterans A special population numbered among the inadequately housed are veterans. The obligation of our entire nation to furnish acceptable housing should be paid by our nation as a whole, on no longer used military bases both as standard housing with rentals gauged by ability to pay, and free housing and positive care and tutelage for those whose military service has impacted their ability to function productively in society at large. It is really not a fair benefits-to-burden state /federal relationship that after the states drag little savages kicking and screaming through twelve years of education and indoctrination, the Army uses them for national world dominance and then gives them back to the states unable to fend for themselves. It's a national disgrace that we have homeless veterans. Elderly Another very large group which can fairly easily be converted from part of the housing problem to part of the solution; are the minimum income Social Security and SSI recipients. Although their pension income ($900.) is small, so they could afford, at most, $600 in rent, it is nonetheless gilt- edged, backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. No matter how much a given plot of land can yield in income from a two or three bedroom apartment complex, it can be made to yield the same amount by multiplying the number of bedroom/bathroom suites and stacking them one on top of another, if cities will permit it, which they have not heretofore done' This arrangement is quite acceptable to the city fathers when it can be referred to as a "hotel", taxed as a "hotel tax" on rooms renting for 4 hundreds of dollars a night, but not permitted when it is housing for city residents. The fly in the ointment seems to be the automobile. The true motivation of so-called "Nimbys" is that they don't want to share their free use of the public street for parking, and, with all the pages and pages of civic agonizing over the impact of the personal automobile on air quality and traffic congestion, it has not occurred to anybody in transport management that people might be rewarded for not having cars, or at least not using them on a daily basis, by receiving prioritization for their housing needs and sharing an in-house van that would have several set departures to libraries, doctors, buses, trains, shopping centers, and other common destinations, and be on-call, at a small fee, for individual needs. The cost of the van would be negligible when shared by several hundred residents as would the cost of the building, when spread over many small investors. If the units were all with full gardened balconies, they would be more acceptable to city fathers looking for beauty and also for empty nesters who could rent their homes to larger families. Elected officials usually claim that developers do not want to build this type of housing, but they have no grounds for that claim because they have never permitted it. We should begin by city sponsorship of this investment; city ownership of the land on long term lease and initial organization of holding companies to accept investment funds by pension funds and private individuals, or to solicit investment by public banks. A further incentive would be that after the lowest income retirees were taken care of, the individual private investors would have the right to rent one of these units. When large tracts of land become available, cities should be given right of first refusal on them. Since the creation of economy of scale housing is by special dispensation, there should be no objection to their being rent controlled, in the case of the elderly, increases would be limited to a basic rental of no more than 2/3 of the social security pension. ("basic" meaning not including extras like on-site storage space to accommodate former homeowners downsizing from large homes, which might double the basic rent). 5 Once the first "working class hotel" is filled, and the anticipated demand proven, we might consider the basic room and bath a module which might be adapted to the needs of people who do not live alone or need a car for some inescapable reason. They could be built so that two modules could be joined for a family, or some tenants might rent space in a public garage, so as to add to the low income family housing supplied by the excellent organizations such as PAHC and Eden which are dependent on public subsidy and thus limited to some degree by public policy at the state and federal level. We have to learn from their expertise at conforming to public policy formed by neighborhood expectations of attractive appearance and convenience; for example, when Terman junior high was closed, the objections of the neighbors were assuaged by the freed space for both low income housing, discreetly placed at the back, and community facilities. Housing could (and should) be added to public buildings because it's acceptable that public buildings be higher and larger than private homes;city/county officials should at least consider addition of some housing when planning new construction or renovation, and give the public reasons why they decide against it. The law should require new or remodelled police stations to furnish some little sleeping place to put homeless men who cause trouble in the regular shelter, not as a punishment, because they may not understand that their behavior is wrong, simply as a mandatory alternative to their being in the shelter. At present, it is public policy to make room in the shelters for people who might be a danger to the public--it is the reason many women prefer to avoid shelters. Of course there are anti-social women also, but there are very few of them and they can usually be controlled just by avoiding them. We should be careful not to interfere with the light planes adjacent to private homes, and have the same amount of landscaping and garden as the surrounding neighborhood, either on their own site or borrowing from 6 adjacent public open space and parks. Gardened balconies on the upper stories might serve the need of accommodation to the prevailing FAR Garages All garage structures should have toilets and showers on every floor, with hot water, to be partly paid for by night parking fees and partly by tax funding for emergency shelter in case of earthquake, fire or flood; the hot water may be coin operated. Mini homes: house trailers, RVs and automobiles It should be understood that cities' preference for value enhancement of the land equates to discrimination against mobile homes in both subdivision regulation and building permits, because they carry the stigma of poverty. Many--perhaps most--of the mobile home owners so cavalierly expelled from the land beneath their homes were, at one time, both willing and able to pay the price to be owners of that little piece of land, but the early owner was not allowed to sell off small pieces, nor were the subsequent owners of the subdivided land allowed to set mobile homes on it as principal residences, and often restrictive covenants and "gentleman's agreements" forbade the sale of properties in certain places to people of some races or religions, all in the name of property values. Cities should not allow mobile home parks to be dismantled unless and until there is some place for the trailer owner to put his home. Cities also have the power to require upgrades costing many times the original price of the home, and they should be required to allow you to import a trailer onto your land if your home is damaged, or live in the undamaged portion, instead of being allowed to raze it to the ground. Owners should be allowed to use mobile homes as ADUs. In case the city might not be repressive enough, the state has a law that if there is a change in occupancy use, the building must be brought up to current seismic standards. That law should be abrogated; it exists only to prevent preservation of large, solid old buildings for use as low income housing. 7 RVs should be allowed to park overnight on streets that are not strictly single family residential, but they should pay a fee which would include a pass for human waste disposal, and display a sticker showing they have used this service within a certain period of time, or explain why not. All but small companies should allow workers to live in RVs in their parking lots. There is a movement toward permitting tiny houses to exist; however, if a structure without a bathroom can be considered a house, then a car can be considered a house; not only is ownership widespread, but the State itself has purchased hundreds of still usable cars to keep them from being driven, Law should require that cities designate publicly owned property that can be used for stationing some of these cars next to bathrooms like the ones in state parks, and homeless people should be allowed to rent these cars for sleeping for a small sum. The law should require that large tracts of land be offered to the city or county for this purpose if they come up for sale, the city to have right of first refusal at every price point. Shelters There aren't enough of them; they're always oversubscribed, you have to get there early to have a place, and if there is none, you've spent a lot of energy getting to someplace you now have to get back from. You can't go to meetings, like city council, and speak your mind because you have to check in by 7:00pm. And they're not cheap to run, they provide paid staff, food, and linens. We need some bare bones back up shelters, some places near people, like the transit centers (for safety) and with toilets nearby.but a little bit out of the way, with some kind of backup wall. Or it could be an unused room, like the basement of the post office, and someone could be hired to monitor it. Coordination. There are many housing committees, attached to various churches and other goodwill organizations. We need a way of calling each other on short notice to apply political pressure when needed. ps 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 3:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Lack of Notice for Veteran’s Day Observance Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Lack of Notice for Veteran’s Day Observance Elected Council Members: I was disappointed to read in a local blog that the City had held some sort of remembrance for veterans at City Hall without providing reasonable notice to the public about the event. I looked at the City’s web-site, and there didn’t seem to be anything that looked like an announcement, or an after-event press release. There are notices for events only of interest to foreign nationals, however. Certainly, the City should be able to obtain a list of veterans who might be interested in attending these sorts of events. A simple e-mail would do the trick of alerting them to when and where such events would be held. There probably aren’t that many veterans living here in Palo Alto, although certainly those hospitalized in the VA Health Care Center would increase that number considerably, should those numbers be included. One can only wonder if the City is not willing to advertise this event in a meaningful way—what have it at all? Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 11:22 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Keith, Claudia; Shikada, Ed; ParkRec Commission; Historic Resources Board; Architectural Review Board Subject:Live Coverage Tonight featuring Liz, Pat and Jay on Comcast 27 plus up the minute election results scrolling on Comcast 26 plus streaming on the web Special Notice    Midpen Media Center is co-producing live election night coverage with KMVT in Mountain View and CreaTV in San Jose. The three public access TV stations are making history by uniting the three cable stations to produce a live show from three different studios and pushing the same content out to all cable viewers and the online community. 8 pm to 10 pm Comcast Channel 27 AT&T U-verse Channel 99 Streaming from Midpenmedia.org/watch select Channel 27 Segments of particular interest to Palo Alto environs: 8:40-9:00 - Join Former Editor of Palo Alto Weekly Jay Thorwaldson, Palo Alto Mayor Liz Kniss and former Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt for a discussion of Santa Clara County and Palo Alto election issues. 9:40-10:00 - Join EPA Today Publisher Henrietta Burroughts and her guest East Palo Alto Council Member Carlos Romero for a discussion of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and San Mateo County election issues. Midpen will also be presenting non-stop election results for Santa Clara County and San Mateo Counties on Channel 26 between 8 pm until start of business Wednesday. Also streaming at midpenmedia.org/watch, choose 26.    Please forward to your political community, if you would be so kind.    Thank you for your attention.        1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 7:26 PM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Yang, Albert; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Timothy Kassouni; Morse, Rosemary; Peter Ko; Laura Roberts; Council, City; Andrew Wong; Jaime Wong Subject:Meeting of November 5, 2018 Hello Mr. Lait,    The purpose of this email is to summarize our meeting this afternoon.    Architect Peter Ko was incredulous that in your Determination Letter of October 16, 2018, you rejected the material,  color and craftsmanship detail as it relates to the concrete walls specially in view of the fact that there was no indication  of such objection in all previous meetings with Planning.  Since the walls are structural and an integral part of the  construction drawings, changes to the walls would result in a major overhaul of the construction drawings that Ko  Architects have been working on since September 1, 2017.  The construction drawings were submitted for Plan Checking  in March 2018 and had been reviewed, scrutinized and approved by numerous departments in the City.  Any changes  would have to be recirculated to these departments, some of which take months and several iterations for  approval.  The cost of such would be in the hundreds of thousand of dollars.    This rejection is specially egregious considering that Ms. Gerhardt would not consider scheduling the ARB hearings until  August of 2018.  We had been requesting the ARB hearings formally and in writing since February 1, 2018.  Previously  we requested for the ARB process to begin many times verbally since September 2017 when Mr. Ko took over the  construction document phase of the project.     Regarding the Council Hearing date, my attorney, Mr. Kassouni, will take your offer of having the item pulled and heard  by Council on the same day.  His commute is several hours each way.  Further, I would find it impossible to ask my  speakers to Council to appear more than one time.  As stated at the meeting, December 10, 2018, would be preferred,  or November 26, 2018.  We can also appear December 3, 2018, with a substitute attorney.  Please call me to finalize this  date.    At the meeting I objected to your purporting the disapproval of the materials, colors, and craftsmanship details based on  my "refusal" to implement structural and design changes.  This is gross overstatement as we made continuous and  repeated changes to get all departmental approvals including Planning's unending requests to satisfy and get the full  support of Ms. Gerhardt, Mr. Petersen and yours.  Your approvals are clearly stated in all three staff reports for ARB  Minor Level which reviewed the color, materials and craftsmanship details.    Further, the fact that you were proposing to yet again take the project to the ARB is a waste of valuable time and  resources as its recommendation is not required for your approval.  You mistakenly stated that ARB's recommendation  is needed before you would approve color, material and craftsmanship detail which you classified as “minor” and  submitted to 3 ARB Minor Level Reviews.     I also want to remind you that ARB has never recommended approval since the project was appealed by Michael  Harbour.  The project was meticulously presented and rejected at least 16 times at Major ARB hearings before it was  approved by Council.  ARB failed to recommend the project an additional 3 times after Council approved this project.  At  all these hearings Mr. Harbour tanked the project from every angle including mass and compatibility both of which were  previously approved by Council and not subject to the  3 ARB Minor Level review hearings on August 16, 2018,  September 20, 2018, and October 4, 2018.  2   For the record, I requested that Ms. Gerhardt be removed from this project for many reasons including her deference to  Michael Harbour's opinions and her untimely response to our repeated requests for ARB hearings.    Please call me to finalize the Council hearing date for my appeal.    Thank you.    Elizabeth Wong  1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:46 AM To:Sam Liccardo Subject:5 New Studies Condemn Fluoridation Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com FIVE MORE FLUORIDE-CONDEMNING STUDIES ARE PUBLISHED – WHEN IS IT ENOUGH? Links to *Thyroid disease *ADHD * Fluoride tap water in baby formula *Government Bias * Lower IQs when moms drink in pregnancy Source: Press Release: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF) October 15th, 2018 Location: United States, National USA NEW YORK, Oct. 15, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Five new published studies support previous research linking fluoride to thyroid disease; ADHD; overdosing formula-fed infants and bias in government reports. Another reveals pregnant Canadians have higher urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas which previous studies linked to offspring’s lower IQ, reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF). 1) Fluoride exposure coupled with iodine deficiency is linked to thyroid disease, report researchers in Environment International (December 2018). They report that this is the first human population-based examination of chronic low-level fluoride exposure on thyroid function that considers residents’ iodine status. “I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure,” said lead author Ashley Malin, “And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years,” (quoted from Bienkowski). 2) “Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention [in offspring],” researchers report in Environment International (December 2018). This is consistent with a growing body of evidence linking neurotoxicity to early-life fluoride exposure, they report. 3) “Significantly more infants, particularly those under six months old, will exceed the UL [Upper Limit] when consuming formula reconstituted with 0.7 ppm [fluoride] water, increasing their risk of developing dental fluorosis.” (Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2018). “The primary adverse effects associated with chronic, excess fluoride intake are enamel and skeletal fluorosis.” (NAS 1997). The CDC encourages the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies to reach 0.7 ppm without adequately informing parents about the consequences of fluoride overexposure. 4) Organizational bias compromised the integrity of fluoride research from the beginning and persists today (Medical Hypotheses, December 2018) The authors identify ten major flaws in a recent US National Toxicology Program (NTP) fluoride experiment as an example of how institutional bias can skew science. 5) Canadian pregnant women have double urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non- fluoridated areas (Environmental Health Perspectives, October 10, 2018). Previous Mexican research links urine fluoride levels in pregnancy to offspring’s lower IQ. The Canadian and Mexican women’s fluoride levels are similar which causes concern. Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, 2 “Fluoridation must be stopped. Politics, not science, keeps it afloat. Let’s sink it.” Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com, 516-433-8882 http://FluorideAction.Net *Original press release online at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/five-more-fluoride- condemning-studies-are-published–when-is-it-enough-300730954.html 1 Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 9:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Worse and Worse Hi all,    I thought we had gotten some recognition from the FAA and some agreement to reduce noise over Palo Alto.  Instead  they have come up with a new plan called PIRAT which may be great for Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties but even  worse for Palo Alto.  I agree with the letter below.      Subject: PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas In addition, I urge you to work with Anna Eshoo of (most likely) Diane Feinstein to have them also exert their influence  on the FAA to remedy their new and worse impacts to Palo Alto.    Best regards.    Kathleen Goldfein  Palo Alto Resident and Voter since 1989  1 Carnahan, David From:Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 7:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:FAA Noise...PIRAT Procedure Dear Palo Alto City Council: Subject: PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise over homes in Palo Alto: Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including: 1) Take appropriate legal options, if any. 2) Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions. 3) Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas. Thank you, Ron Wilensky Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Rubinstein <pcrubinstein@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 8:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Flight noise Dear Gentlemen and ladies,  Please do everything you can to minimize flight noise. I view this as a major problem because of the almost incessant  noise and impairment of my quality of life. Please, please, please…act on this!!  Thanks you for your consideration and help.  Sincerely,  Paul Rubinstein  Tennyson Avenue  1 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 3:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT (airplane noise)   Dear Council Members,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are  taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the  strongest possible way, including:   Take appropriate legal options, if any    Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the  actions    Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   I care about this ‐ I teach music in a sound‐proofed studio, and I can hear the planes and they make it difficult  for my students (and myself) to really hear the low sounds they need to hear (it's a physics thing, if you're  interested I'll give you details) for really accurate tuning.    Sincerely,  Virginia Smedberg  441 Washington Ave    1 Carnahan, David From:Kathleen M Eisenhardt <kme@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 8:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT   Council     I very much appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are  taking to address airplane noise.    Based on the very intrusive noise, Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions ‐ I ask the City to challenge  the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:            Take appropriate legal options, if any          Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions          Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas     Thanks for your consideration.    Kathleen Eisenhardt  4184 Donald Drive  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Ruth <carolruth1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council Members,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to citizens and receive input prior to making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.  Thank you,  Carol Ruth  661 Cabrillo Ave.  Stanford, CA 94305        2 Carnahan, David From:danielt3@aol.com Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:    Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Provide updates to and receive Council’s input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options Daniel Tuerk MD 817 E. Greenwich Place Palo Alto 3 Carnahan, David From:Ronda Rosner <rondarosner@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City Council members, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Thanks for your attention to this ongoing issue of significantly increased aircraft noise over our city that has negatively affected our quality of life for the past five years.  Regards,  Ronda Rosner  College Avenue, PA        4 Carnahan, David From:Bill Gargiulo <bill_gargiulo@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council Members,      Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that  limit future options.     Bill Gargiulo         5 Carnahan, David From:Catherine <catherine_ballantyne@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Subject: PIRAT -- in the time it has taken me to write this.... I have been subjected to the noise of 6 airplanes, headed toward SFO. And I am inside. Behind insulated walls and triple paned, closed windows. It's 11:06 a.m. on a Monday. Fairly innocuous timing. But 6 airplanes in ~ 3 minutes? How long must Palo Alto residents suffer this? While I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise, I think enough is enough and it's been a long long long time w/ no measurable changes. I would prefer quiet skies. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take any and all appropriate legal options,  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas If we can spend 9 M blowing up south Palo Alto's streets with ridiculous roundabouts and road furniture all in a misguided bid for increased bike "safety" that ends up DIRECTLY endangering my four bicycle riding kids, how is it we cannot manage to dredge up whatever funds are needed to make Palo Alto a quieter place for ALL residents? Please. Be my favorite city council yet. Do something = efficacious. Cheers, ccb Ref: PIRAT As many are aware, in addition to impacts from other airports SJC, SQL and PAO, Palo Alto and MidPeninsula cities are impacted by three SFO published procedures. Procedures are the FAA directives that document waypoints and altitudes for pilots and planes to follow. The SERFR procedure is used for Southerly arrivals, BDEGA is for flights from the North, and the Oceanic procedure is for flights from the West. We noticed the new procedure PIRAT on the FAA procedures implementation website on October 23, and immediately alerted the City. PIRAT is being published to replace the Oceanic procedure. Aside from the concern that FAA has not yet returned to continue working with communities (as they committed to) on their Initiative to address SFO noise, FAA is publishing PIRAT with a Catex, which is the lowest level of screening for impacts on the ground. To qualify for a Catex, 2012 Nextgen legislation requires demonstrable noise reduction; however, the changes with PIRAT contain significant changes from Oceanic which do not appear to decrease noise. For example Oceanic is currently available for use by certain operators but PIRAT will permit all SFO operators to use the procedure. Also, after a waypoint called “ARGGG” in Woodside, PIRAT thereafter opens Mid Peninsula cities for Air Traffic Control vectoring of PIRAT flights. We have heard from an expert (who does analysis of vectoring for projects around the country) that vectoring ends up happening over the same areas (as opposed to random dispersion), so the communities who will be vectored over, by Pirat, need to know what are the likely repetitive paths; at what altitudes, and what volume of planes to expect. The Catex was unfortunately not disclosed to the public when originally signed in July, which is yet another problem. Given the serious and unresolved noise concerns since 2014, we don’t think it’s appropriate for FAA and SFO develop or publish new procedures and plans which claim “no harm” and in such a non-transparent manner - without data analysis for the public, projections, or without any public involvement. The Phoenix CATEX was challenged successfully for many of the same problems exhibited by PIRAT. 6 PACC voted in May for staff to come back with a “fast track” process to ensure that petitions for review are filed on time. As staff and PACC prepares the fast track process for PIRAT, we expect the City to use the "comments" opportunity due November 13 to already challenge FAA and thoroughly express community concerns. Local officials and SFO have a MAJOR role in helping us get FAA attention. We need the City and elected officials to urge FAA to take PIRAT to a higher level of review, or a more robust process with community input. With EXTRA attention to the night and 4:30 AM flights on this procedure which urgently need ALTERNATIVES OVER THE BAY!! 7 Carnahan, David From:Jonathan Heiliger <jh@theheiligers.org> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.    Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas      ‐jh‐  8 Carnahan, David From:Devi Ramanan <ramanan.devi@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: PIRAT - ACTION NEEDED  Dear Sir/Madam,      Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:   Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.   Thanks      From: Sky Posse Palo Alto <skypossepost@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:50 AM  Subject: PIRAT ‐ ACTION NEEDED  To: <ramanan.devi@gmail.com>        Sky Posse Palo Alto   Dear Friends,    We are forwarding here an IMPORTANT email alert and call to action from Council member Lydia Kou  about a new SFO arrival procedure PIRAT. Please note our highlights.     9 PIRAT   Message from Council member Lydia Kou:    Many people find airplane noise to be a huge nuisance, especially if the airplanes are flying  over your home almost every two minutes. Recently, changes were introduced to a flight  procedure named PIRAT which essentially directs a flight path over a number of cities,  including Palo Alto.    Below is a screen shot of live air traffic showing the PIRAT ground path used recently. It moved arrivals further south and positions the turns back to SFO over Stanford, Palo Alto, Mountain View and East Palo Alto. Suffice it to say, this puts the track and the noisy turn directly over us.     Residents alerted City Staff and at the 10/29 City Council meeting, Acting City Manager Ed Shikada provided an update on a planned FAA procedure called PIRAT.    https://youtu.be/nqAXYvg1UIU?t=313    I am pleased to hear Staff is moving toward addressing this by the fast approaching 11/13 “Comments period” deadline.    Because details matter, I’m asking you to send an email to the City Council ASAP with the following points:    city.council@cityofpaloalto.org    Subject: PIRAT    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:    10  Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas        Lydia Kou  http://www.lydiakou.com/      SKY POSSE REQUEST: PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING BULLET in above message to City Council      provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.       PIRAT background, more INFO   As many are aware, in addition to impacts from other airports SJC, SQL and PAO, Palo Alto  and MidPeninsula cities are impacted by three SFO published procedures. Procedures are  the FAA directives that document waypoints and altitudes for pilots and planes to follow.  The SERFR procedure is used for Southerly arrivals, BDEGA is for flights from the North, and  the Oceanic procedure is for flights from the West. We noticed the new procedure PIRAT on  the FAA procedures implementation website on October 23, and immediately alerted the  City. PIRAT is being published to replace the Oceanic procedure.     Aside from the concern that FAA has not yet returned to continue working with communities (as they committed to) on their Initiative to address SFO noise, FAA is publishing PIRAT with a Catex, which is the lowest level of screening for impacts on the ground. To qualify for a Catex, 2012 Nextgen legislation requires demonstrable noise reduction; however, the changes with PIRAT contain significant changes from Oceanic which do not appear to decrease noise. For example Oceanic is currently available for use by certain operators but PIRAT will permit all SFO operators to use the procedure. Also, after a waypoint called “ARGGG” in Woodside,  PIRAT thereafter opens Mid Peninsula cities for Air Traffic Control vectoring of PIRAT flights.  We have heard from an expert (who does analysis of vectoring for projects around the  country) that vectoring ends up happening over the same areas (as opposed to random  dispersion), so the communities who will be vectored over, by Pirat, need to know what  are the likely repetitive paths; at what altitudes, and what volume of planes to expect. The  Catex was unfortunately not disclosed to the public when originally signed in July, which is  yet another problem.   11   Given the serious and unresolved noise concerns since 2014, we don’t think it’s appropriate for FAA and SFO develop or publish new procedures and plans which claim “no harm” and in such a non-transparent manner - without data analysis for the public, projections, or without any public involvement. The Phoenix CATEX was challenged successfully for many of the same problems exhibited by PIRAT.    PACC voted in May for staff to come back with a “fast track” process to ensure that petitions for review are filed on time. As staff and PACC prepares the fast track  process for PIRAT, we expect the City to use the "comments" opportunity due November 13  to already challenge FAA and thoroughly express community concerns.     Local officials and SFO have a MAJOR role in helping us get FAA attention. We need the City and elected officials to urge FAA to take PIRAT to a higher level of review, or a more robust process with community input. With EXTRA attention to the night and 4:30 AM flights on this procedure which urgently need ALTERNATIVES OVER THE BAY!!     Stay tuned, we will update as soon as we see follow up from the City and expect a  call to action to submit comments to FAA before the Nov 13 deadline as well.       MOST IMPORTANT:  Report intrusive jet noise!    Use any of these methods:     The APP stop.jetnoise.net   EMAIL sfo.noise@flysfo.com   SFO PHONE 650.821.4736/Toll free 877.206.8290.   ONLINE:  SFO traffic: click here for the link   SJC traffic: click her for the link   Other airports: click here for more info     Complaint Option with IFTTT App ‐ You can make your own noise complaint button with  smart phone app see instructions here. The app sends  the complaints to sfo.noise@flysfo.com (or the noise office email address of the airport of your choice) with the message body including name, address, time and noise  type. You may also want to try programmable button with it.           12 Spread the word with Sky Posse Updates!    Send neighbors the QR Code   Or this LINK to sign up.                Thank you!    Sky Posse Palo Alto               Sky Posse Palo Alto | Suite 200, 2225 East Bayshore Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Unsubscribe ramanan.devi@gmail.com Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by skypossepost@gmail.com in collaboration with Try it free today   13 Carnahan, David From:Briggs Nisbet <briggs@godetia.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT   I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences, and to avoid omissions, I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.     Sincerely,    Briggs Nisbet  864 Rorke Way, Palo Alto 94303  14 Carnahan, David From:Tim Flagg <timflagg@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Thank you,    Tim Flagg  Palo Alto  15 Carnahan, David From:Milana Trounce <mpbouk@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Hello,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Thank you,  Milana and David Trounce  955 Addison ave  PA    16 Carnahan, David From:Geri Mc Gilvray <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:38 AM To:Lydia Kou Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Airplane Noise Update - Your Help is Needed Hi Lydia,    though I support anyone who suffers,  i have only heard the   the airplanes a couple of times.  i live across from the loving hands nursery school in Midtown   at Marion and middlefield.    how many people have the airplanes hit ?  as cars go, we have a thousand ++ car accidents here a  each year with over one third resulting in INJURIES.   yet, only two council members care very much.  33 of my friends wrote you folks.  we deserve speed enforcement and safety and PEACE from the speeding noise.  in our case, it wasn’t just one person   writing 90+++% of the complaints.    it is so scary to exit our driveways also.    can you please consider,  advocating for traffic calming on our residential arterials,    like you might for other citizens who pay these high taxes for our homes.?    as for who to vote for, i can sure use some suggestions. i do support mr. filtheth.  thank you,    geri mc gilvray  650‐328‐2416  On Nov 5, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com> wrote:  Letters from Lydia 17 Geri -- Please read this update on airplane noise and send an email to the City Council Many people find airplane noise to be a huge nuisance, especially if the airplanes are flying over your home almost minutes. Recently, changes were introduced to a flight procedure named PIRAT which essentially directs a flight p number of cities, including Palo Alto. Below is a screen shot of live air traffic showing the PIRAT ground path used recently. It moved arrivals further sou positions the turns back to SFO over Stanford, Palo Alto, Mountain View and East Palo Alto. Suffice it to say, this p and the noisy turn directly over us. 18 Residents alerted City Staff and at the 10/29 City Council meeting, Acting City Manager Ed Shikada provided an up planned FAA procedure called PIRAT. 19 I am pleased to hear Staff is moving toward addressing this by the fast approaching 11/13 “Comments period” deadline Because details matter, I’m asking you to send an email to the City Council ASAP with the following points: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are t to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any 20  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Lydia Kou http://www.lydiakou.com/ Vote for Lydia Kou · 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States This email was sent to geri@thegrid.net. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.   21 Carnahan, David From:Kerry Yarkin <kyarkin895@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Mayor and Council Members:    I am writing to you so that you have time to file an appeal against the FAA in their new PIRAT procedure.  You have  about 1 week left to do something about the deteriorating state of my home and City due to all the Foreign carriers  flying into SFO.  As you probably know, SFO is increasing throughput from Asia which is only making the noise worse!  I  see the markings of the underbelly of planes from Hawaii, Tel Aviv,  Singapore, China, Japan, Australia and  others.  Please stand up and file an appeal to any categorical exclusions that the FAA maintains to deny any type of  environmental laws supported by your constituents.      Fast Track process should mean you have enough time to file appeals.    Sincerely,  Kerry Yarkin  1 Carnahan, David From:Lissy Bland <lissybland@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT!!! Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members:    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge area.    Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.  Sincerely, Lissy Bland 235 Wilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306   2 Carnahan, David From:Carol Ruth <carolruth1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council Members,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to citizens and receive input prior to making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.  Thank you, Emer. Prof. Ronald Ruth 661 Cabrillo Ave. Stanford, CA 94305 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT and our SLEEP Dear Council, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to use the comments due November 13 to challenge the FAA on the use of a categorical exclusion for PIRAT in the strongest possible way, and  File for a petition for review if FAA offers no answers to various concerns about NEPA process and FAA following own rules  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Provide updates to concerned citizens and ensure that all communications to FAA receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options. A proper resolution for PIRAT would be to ask for the new roundtable to review it in the new yearn in the context of follow up to the Select Committee recommendations. This procedure has SERIOUS night and early morning impacts which should please not get a "pass" or an unchallenged "no impact" record of decision. Thank you, Jennifer Landesmann PS: the Catex was not made public when it was first published. Procedure was due to have a publish date of November 8, suddenly we find out it has a record of decision signed since July? That alone should be grounds to petition for review.   2 Carnahan, David From:GP Jones <senojpg@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Subject: PIRAT    I appreciate Ed Shikada's update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto's previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest  possible way, including:    *  Take appropriate legal options, if any  *  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  *  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Will it be a decade before any action is taken?  Is the FAA just waiting for P.A. to get tired and to away?  Or until everyone who lived here when NextGen was implemented has died or moved away?    Do NOT stop working on this issue.    ‐carl jones    3 Carnahan, David From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: PIRAT - ACTION NEEDED Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: Please review the following and do whatever possible to prevent the PIRAT flight path from making things worse than they already are. The email below is in error because I am seeing air traffic from all four directions, and from all three major airports, flying over my house in Midtown, per the stop.jetnoise app. In other words the FAA is not sticking to specific flight paths for specific destinations and airports, it is routing air traffic over Palo Alto from any source to any source. Since 2015, the jet noise at my home is terrible and I'm extremely frustrated and angry about it. The response from the city has been underwhelming. Sincerely yours, Anne Gregory ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Sky Posse Palo Alto <skypossepost@gmail.com> To: "xagregoryx@yahoo.com" <xagregoryx@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018, 10:50:30 AM PST Subject: PIRAT - ACTION NEEDED   4   Sky Posse Palo Alto   Dear Friends,    We are forwarding here an IMPORTANT email alert and call to action from Council member Lydia Kou about a new SFO arrival proc PIRAT. Please note our highlights.     PIRAT   Message from Council member Lydia Kou:    Many people find airplane noise to be a huge nuisance, especially if the airplanes are flying over your home almost ever minutes. Recently, changes were introduced to a flight procedure named PIRAT which essentially directs a flight path ov number of cities, including Palo Alto.    Below is a screen shot of live air traffic showing the PIRAT ground path used recently. It moved arrivals furthe and positions the turns back to SFO over Stanford, Palo Alto, Mountain View and East Palo Alto. Suffice it to s puts the track and the noisy turn directly over us.   5   Residents alerted City Staff and at the 10/29 City Council meeting, Acting City Manager Ed Shikada provided a on a planned FAA procedure called PIRAT.    https://youtu.be/nqAXYvg1UIU?t=313    I am pleased to hear Staff is moving toward addressing this by the fast approaching 11/13 “Comments period”   Because details matter, I’m asking you to send an email to the City Council ASAP with the following po   city.council@cityofpaloalto.org    Subject: PIRAT    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are ta address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the s possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actio 6  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas       Lydia Kou  http://www.lydiakou.com/      SKY POSSE REQUEST: PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING BULLET in above message to City Council      provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future o     PIRAT background, more INFO   As many are aware, in addition to impacts from other airports SJC, SQL and PAO, Palo Alto and MidPeninsula cities are i by three SFO published procedures. Procedures are the FAA directives that document waypoints and altitudes for pilots planes to follow. The SERFR procedure is used for Southerly arrivals, BDEGA is for flights from the North, and the Ocean procedure is for flights from the West. We noticed the new procedure PIRAT on the FAA procedures implementation w October 23, and immediately alerted the City. PIRAT is being published to replace the Oceanic procedure.     Aside from the concern that FAA has not yet returned to continue working with communities (as they committe their Initiative to address SFO noise, FAA is publishing PIRAT with a Catex, which is the lowest level of screen impacts on the ground. To qualify for a Catex, 2012 Nextgen legislation requires demonstrable noise reduction however, the changes with PIRAT contain significant changes from Oceanic which do not appear to de noise. For example Oceanic is currently available for use by certain operators but PIRAT will permit all SFO o to use the procedure. Also, after a waypoint called “ARGGG” in Woodside, PIRAT thereafter opens Mid Peninsula  Air Traffic Control vectoring of PIRAT flights. We have heard from an expert (who does analysis of vectoring for projects  the country) that vectoring ends up happening over the same areas (as opposed to random dispersion), so the commun will be vectored over, by Pirat, need to know what are the likely repetitive paths; at what altitudes, and what volume to expect. The Catex was unfortunately not disclosed to the public when originally signed in July, which is yet another p   Given the serious and unresolved noise concerns since 2014, we don’t think it’s appropriate for FAA and SFO or publish new procedures and plans which claim “no harm” and in such a non-transparent manner - without d analysis for the public, projections, or without any public involvement. The Phoenix CATEX was challenged su for many of the same problems exhibited by PIRAT.    PACC voted in May for staff to come back with a “fast track” process to ensure that petitions for review filed on time. As staff and PACC prepares the fast track process for PIRAT, we expect the City to use the "comments" o due November 13 to already challenge FAA and thoroughly express community concerns.     Local officials and SFO have a MAJOR role in helping us get FAA attention. We need the City and elected officials FAA to take PIRAT to a higher level of review, or a more robust process with community input. With EX attention to the night and 4:30 AM flights on this procedure which urgently need ALTERNATIVES OVER THE 7   Stay tuned, we will update as soon as we see follow up from the City and expect a call to action to submit comm FAA before the Nov 13 deadline as well.       MOST  IMPORTANT:  Report intrusive jet noise!    Use any of these methods:     The APP stop.jetnoise.net   EMAIL sfo.noise@flysfo.com   SFO PHONE 650.821.4736/Toll free 877.206.8290.       8 ONLINE:  SFO traffic: click here for the link   SJC traffic: click her for the link   Other airports: click here for more info     Complaint Option with IFTTT App ‐ You can make your own noise complaint button with smart phone app see inst here. The app sends the complaints to sfo.noise@flysfo.com (or the noise office email address of the airport choice) with the message body including name, address, time and noise type. You may also want to try programm button with it.       9 Spread the word with Sky Posse Updates!    Send neighbors the QR Code   Or this LINK to sign up.  10               Thank you!    Sky Posse Palo Alto         Sky Posse Palo Alto | Suite 200, 2225 East Bayshore Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 12 Carnahan, David From:Janet St. Peter <stpitlick@aol.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City Council,      I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking  to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the  strongest possible way, including:       Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit  future options.     Sincerely,  Janet St.Peter  2139 High St.         13 Carnahan, David From:Yvonne Wolters <gbheron@mac.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.     Thank you,  Yvonne Wolters  14 Carnahan, David From:Gary Hammer <garylhammer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT procedure and SFO Thank you to Ed Shikada for his update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and for the actions city staff are  taking to address airplane noise.    But based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions, I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest  possible way, including:  1. Take appropriate legal options, if any  2. Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  3. Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas, AND  4. PROVIDE UPDATES to Council and receive Council's input BEFORE making binding and irrevocable decisions that  limit future options.   Thank you,    Gary Hammer  Sharon Court, Palo Alto  15 Carnahan, David From:Brian Dinsmore <bdinsmore@seiler.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:kou.pacc@gmail.com Subject:Pirat/GBAS Landing System/Lydia Kou The City of Palo Alto has a serious problem with PIRAT and the GBAS landing system. I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council’s input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options  Please remember that the City of Palo Alto did not take a strong enough lead on the original NEXTGEN changes and look at what happened. We do not even have a seat on the SFO Roundtable and can’t vote. Yet, we are the primary peninsula city that has to bear the burden of incessant flights and toxins. Now the other cities have taken a NIMBY approach. It is imperative that the City take an active and aggressive approach to remedy a terrible situation that has the potential to get even worse with PIRAT. Please make an impact on SFO’s future GBAS landing system. Please be PROACTIVE and truly represent the people of Palo Alto in this critical matter. I wish we had more people on the council like Lydia Kou who has taken an active interest in a problem that has definitely compromised the quality of life in Palo Alto. Give her all the support she and others need to influence the future of the GBAS landing system. Do not take another passive approach and let history repeat itself.         Brian J. Dinsmore, CPA  Partner | SEILER LLP | Direct: 650.701.2202| bdinsmore@seiler.com  Main: 888.454.4646 | Locations and Contact: Redwood City, CA | San Francisco, CA | San Jose, CA    16 Carnahan, David From:Joerg Rathenberg <jrathenberg@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 12:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council members,    Airplane traffic has been an issue in the Crescent Park neighborhood for year now and I have not seen any real action  from our city to solve this enormous issue that was created by the FAA.    Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Regards,  Joerg Rathenberg  17 Carnahan, David From:lena Dochez <lenadochez@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Hello,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas      thank you,  lena dochez  18 Carnahan, David From:Pamela Harter <pharter123@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council members:     I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.    Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Please provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.   We are counting on you to stand up for our quality of life here. The jet noise is unbearable and wakes many of us up during the night. Noise pollution is affecting our sanity, peace and tranquility. Please fight for this.     thank you,   Pamela Harter  Greenhouse ll Board Vice President  765 San Antonio Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303      1 Carnahan, David From:Weiming Xu <wmxu2000@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 1:52 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lisa Zhaoxia Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Thanks,     Weiming & Lisa Xu  Palo Alto  2 Carnahan, David From:Manu Kumar <sneaker@sneaker.org> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Hello,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options. Thank you. Manu Kumar Palo Alto Resident 3 Carnahan, David From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 1:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council,    I understand that the the FAA has recently altered the ground path for incoming flights, moving the arrivals farther  south with the turnback occurring over our area.  As you know, this is likely to once again increase our exposure to  aircraft noise.     Based on Palo Alto’s long-standing concern about this problem I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:   Taking appropriate legal options, if any  Working with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlisting specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas When I moved to Palo Alto 30+ years ago, the sound of a jet doing the “turnback” over our home was so unusual that I once ran outside to see where the plane was going to crash! Now, of course, it’s a rarity when we have a few minutes of quiet!       I am pleased to hear that Staff is working on this.  Please continue to press ahead on this important quality of life issue.    Regards,    Pria Graves  2130 Yale      1 Carnahan, David From:Kim Raftery <rafterykim@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT  Dear Palo Alto City Council members.    Regarding the planned PIRAT procedure, as a Palo Alto homeowner whose home is already directly under a busy flight path to SFO, I appreciate the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.    Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.     My quality of life in my College Terrace home where I have lived for the last 28 years has been severely and negatively impacted by NEXT GEN. I seriously hope something can be done to mitigate the almost constant air traffic that occurs day and night over my home and my Palo Alto neighbor' homes.     Thank you,  Kim Raftery     2290 Harvard Street  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-776-1885  2 Carnahan, David From:Holly Rubinstein <hmrubinstein@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane noise Dear Council Members:    Subject: PIRAT    I cannot understand how the FAA can change a flight plan without any notice yet when asked by concerned constituents to change an existing problem, stonewalls all of us.     I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Sincerely,  Holly Rubinstein  458 Tennyson Avenue      3 Carnahan, David From:Clive Rodgers <clive.rodgers@me.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pirat Hello  I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking  to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the  strongest possible way, including:       Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas            provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit  future options.       Regards    Clive Rodgers    Sent from my iPhone  4 Carnahan, David From:Maryam Haq <haqmaryam@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City Council,   As an impacted resident I am concerned about the airplane noise in PA. And based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.     Respectfully  Maryam Haq   5 Carnahan, David From:Brown Jonathan <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:Rebecca Sanders Subject:PIRAT and Our Quest to Mitigate Debilitating Airplane Noise Dear City Council,  I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest  possible way, including:   Pursuing the most appropriate legal options;   Working with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  our City takes;   Enlisting specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identifying all viable challenge areas; and   Ensuring that the FAA provides updates to Council and receives input from Council before making binding and  irrevocable decisions that limit future options.   Thank you.    Sincerely,  Jonathan Brown  Impacted Resident, Fernando Ave.  6 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Lilienstein <dlilienstein@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:05 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lydia Kou Subject:Airplane noise I'm writing to you (again) to express concern over the air traffic over my neighborhood. Many of us have been  significantly affected by increased air traffic and noise ever since the changes implemented in 2014 by the FAA. I hope  you will take all appropriate legal (and other) action to protect the citizenry from arbitrary and detrimental decisions by  the FAA. I don't know enough about PIRAT to understand its likely impact, but given the FAA's history, I have little trust  in them.    Our quality of life has suffered enough‐ if you can't fix the problem, at least don't allow them to make it worse!     Spread the traffic around, put more of it over the bay, require the planes to fly higher when over the populated areas‐  all these would help alleviate the problem.    Thanks for reading    Daniel Lilienstein  7 Carnahan, David From:Bob Iannucci <bob@rail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 1:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:Susan Iannucci Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    — Bob  __________________________________________________ Bob Iannucci, Ph.D. +1 650 714 1200 mobile +1 650 488 4650 skype in (or skype to "iannucci") W6EI   1 Carnahan, David From:Renu Virdi <rkvirdi@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 3:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:skypossepost@gmail.com Subject:PIRAT Dear Palo Alto City Council members, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.   Best Regards Renu Virdi  650-388-8424     2 Carnahan, David From:Osborne Hardison <hardisun@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise.      Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest  possible way, including:       Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas     Please help to represent our community against the apathy of the FAA and to finally solve the CONSTANT DEAFENING jet  flights over our city!!        Osborne Hardison  456 Ferne Ave  Palo Alto CA 94306  3 Carnahan, David From:Finfrock Shirley <samfinf@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Obnoxious noise from Airplane flight path City Council Members.     Please, please do everything you can to get the flight path adjusted or at a higher elevation of South Palo Alto, Barron  Park in particular.    It is really, really bad over our neighborhood.  It is not possible to have a conversation outdoors and some homes  interior.      Shirley Finfrock  Barron Park Resident   Palo Alto Resident since 1969  4 Carnahan, David From:Mark Fan <mfan888@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Susy Fan Subject:PIRAT To: City Council We're Palo Alto homeowners living at 2181 Louis Road. We appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address the likely significant increase in airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions, we ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Thanks for acting in the best interest of your citizens!  -- Regards, Mark 5 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Sater <bsater@stephenz.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 2:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise Now after suffering for several years with no action being taken to protect Palo Alto and Stanford from loud, low flying  aircraft, here comes another procedure that affects Palo Alto and again the city council and its employees didn’t seem to  know anything about it until a private citizen brought it to their attention.  And the deadline for comments is right upon us. Let us not let this pass like you did the last time.    Thank god we elected Lydia Kuo. At least she cares about what concerns her constituents unlike several of the other  council members.    So I and many others are writing to the city council for the umpteenth time asking for help in challenging these changes.   •  Take appropriate legal options, if any •  Work with other potentially impacted cities (when interests are aligned) in  order to strengthen the actions •  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable  challenge areas •  Provide updates to and receive Council’s input before making any binding and irrevocable decisions  that limits future options.    Please help Palo Alto citizens live a more peaceful and healthy life.  Thank You.      Barbara Sater  828 Ilima Court  Palo Alto, CA  bsater@stephenz.com  1 Carnahan, David From:Carl Thomsen <carl@thomsenhome.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:FAA Procedures revision - PIRAT Dear City of Palo Alto Council Members.    Ed Shikada’s to update to Council on the latest proposed FAA regulation proposals related to the planned PIRAT flight procedure and its potential/likely impact on the citizens of Palo Alto was very timely. I appreciate the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise problem. As he pointed out, the response and questions to the FAA on the new proposal is time sensitive with input required by November 13th to have any benefit.   It is important that the Council receive updates on progress over the next 9 days to avoid missing the deadline and so the Council has time to provide guidance to the city staff on their response to the FAA. I have spoken several times at the City Council meetings on this topic and I strongly urge the City of Palo Alto to:    Take appropriate legal action to make sure the FAA focuses on the noise and pollution impact of the current and proposed flight patterns,   Work with nearby potentially impacted cities in order to strengthen input to the FAA on the PIRAT proposal   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable options for challenging the minimal environmental impact review    Thank you for you continued attention to this matter.      Carl Thomsen  1701 Edgewood Drive                  2 Carnahan, David From:Don Williams <dwilliams@sheppardmullin.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 3:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Masters and TeamSheeper - message from a concerned Palo Altan Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    My name is Don Williams, and I am writing in support of the Rinconada Masters.  I am a Palo Alto resident and graduate  of Paly (’84) with a long history of using Rinconada pool.  In fact I learned to swim at Rinconada Pool in the early 1970s,  swam there with Palo Alto Swim Club through the mid‐1980s, and joined Rinconada Masters there in 1989.  As such, I  am both part of the taxpayer base that pays for the upkeep of Rinconada Pool and more important, one of the large  community of pool users that pre‐dates TeamSheeper.    I am concerned that TeamSheeper is not respecting this existing community of users, and Rinconada Masters in  particular.  In a contract dispute over who needed to cover Rinconada pool after the 7‐8:30 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday  time slot, TeamSheeper took a position clearly inconsistent with the language of the contract, and was ultimately forced  to back down.  However, their behavior became less friendly and more aggressive after that disagreement.  Their  objective now seems to be force Rinconada Masters out of the pool we have called home for decades.    Rinconada Masters has a long and storied history as a Palo Alto community team.  It was one of the first masters’  programs on the Peninsula, hosts a well‐regarded annual swim meet as well as other team events, and is unique among  local masters’ programs in its broad array of swimming levels, from very beginning to advanced.  Moreover, Carol  Macpherson, its Founder and head coach, is a superb stroke coach who has helped many swimmers greatly improve  their strokes and thereby achieve their full potential.      The reasons I understand TeamSheeper identified for recently choosing not to select Rinconada Masters as the masters  team subcontractor are suspect.  They claim there is a “safety” issue in that Rinconada Masters does not always have  two certified lifeguards on deck.  However, Rinconada Masters has run practices having one lifeguard for decades  without safety issues, and moreover I have been at lap swimming sessions run by TeamSheeper within the last six  months when they only had one lifeguard on deck.  They state Rinconada Masters does not communicate well, and are  not team players.  However, communication is a two‐way street, and there has been little if any from TeamSheeper,  particularly since the above‐mentioned contract dispute.  And Rinconada Masters as a team has a strong collaborative  and community spirit, which suggests the issue with being a “team player” does not rest with us.  We are ready and  willing to collaborate with TeamSheeper, but their conduct suggests they may not be interested in doing so.      Rather than helping balance competing interests in this difficult situation, and putting the needs of the community of  Rinconada Pool users first and foremost, unfortunately it appears that some members of the City Staff may be more  focused on assisting TeamSheeper to achieve its commercial objectives.   In particular, it is extremely surprising that the  City’s RFP process resulted in only one bid, from TeamSheeper, and frankly calls into question the integrity of the  contract award process.  It is also surprising the extent to which some members of the City Staff have acted as  TeamSheeper’s mouthpiece and advocate in this process, characterizing pool users’ responses as far more favorable  than has actually been the case—and enabling TeamSheeper itself to avoid having to answer questions regarding its  motivations and conduct.  Moreover, at the Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting of October 23, Jazmin LeBlanc  flatly stated that the City could not require TeamSheeper to select Rinconada Masters as the masters  subcontractor.  This is incorrect as a legal matter, since the City could clearly condition award of the contract to  TeamSheeper on selection of Rinconada Masters, as it did so one year ago.  Finally, it strikes me that Ms. LeBlanc’s  “doomsday scenario” of TeamSheeper walking if they are required to work with Rinconada Masters and the City shutting  down aquatic programs as a result is highly unlikely. First, it is not in TeamSheeper’s economic interest to walk.  They are  3 trying to use this threat to force Rinconada Masters out, but if they are an economically rational actor then presumably  they will stay. Second, even if TeamSheeper does walk, the City can almost certainly find a replacement (despite City  Staff’s protestations), or take back running the programs itself, as the City did for many years. In short, to quote from  one of the Palo Alto online comments to a recent article on Rinconada Masters, “[t]he proper role of City Staff should be  to represent the concerns of the community to Mr. Sheeper‐‐ to be community advocates‐‐ and to make sure he irons  out issues/ creates win/ win solutions. Their role should not be to represent Mr. Sheeper to the public.”    My understanding is that TeamSheeper intends to replace Rinconada Masters with its own masters team, which, if true,  would represent a clear conflict of interest.  And yet the history of TeamSheeper’s operation of the Burgess pool and  interaction with the SOLO Aquatics program there, which Tim Sheeper purportedly attempted to eliminate in favor of  programs under his direct management, gives indication that exactly this type of behavior may be taking place here.    The appropriate way forward in this situation is not to give TeamSheeper everything it wants, as some members of the  City Staff appear to favor, but rather to balance the interests of the existing Palo Alto community of Rinconada pool  users—including Rinconada Masters—with those of TeamSheeper.  Collaboration will be key to finding such a balanced,  middle of the road way forward.  Clearly it will take some effort for Rinconada Masters and TeamSheeper to clear the air  and figure out a way to work together.  From everything I’ve seen, Rinconada Masters stands ready to make this effort.  I  hope that TeamSheeper is as well—but regardless, I implore the City Council, as the body representing us Palo Altans, to  ensure that they do so.     Sincerely,    Don Williams          Please note that we are a foreign law firm registered with the Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China.  Under current Chinese regulations, we are allowed to provide information concerning the effects of the Chinese legal  environment, but we are not authorized to practice Chinese law or to render legal opinions in respect of Chinese law.  We work in cooperation with a number of Chinese law firms and would be happy to assist you in working with them  should you require a legal opinion in respect of any Chinese law matter or other assistance from a Chinese firm.  Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you  received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail and delete the message and any  attachments.   1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Smith <wesmith1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 6:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Thank you for the update on the flight procedure PIRAT.    I strongly urge the Council to confront the FAA in all possible ways, including  legal action, on this issue. And work with neighboring cities to strengthen  our hand, whenever it makes sense. Consider hiring specialized aviation legal   counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas.    Airplane noise is a big deal for my family and we must tackle this issue head‐on.      Sincerely,    Wayne Smith  3323 Bryant St.  Palo Alto, CA 94306    2 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 5:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I am glad Ed Shikada has updated the Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions being taken by the city staff. Since the FAA has not previously listened to our noise issues and taken actions to mitigate them, it is very important to challenge the FAA in the strongest and focused way possible. Take legal options Work with other impacted cities, when our interests are aligned, to strengthen our actions. Enlist specialized aviation legal council to review PIRAT, and identify challenge areas. Many nights I have planes over my home every 10 minutes, sometimes seems like 5. They are so low, that it sounds like they could land on my roof. I live in Baron Park on Orem St. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 3 Carnahan, David From:Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 5:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT / Airplane Noise All, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise. I ask the City of Palo Alto to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including legal  options and to work closely with neighboring cities in order to strengthen our  stance. We lost the battle over  the insanely loud music we hear from Shoreline Amphitheater because previous council members let it drag on for years  (now decades) don’t let this happen again. Don’t wait or spend time and money using consultants, step up to the plate  and take action before its too late.    ‐gary  4 Carnahan, David From:Marie-Jo Fremont <mariejofremont1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 4:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT --planned FAA procedure for western (a.k.a. Oceanic) arrivals for SFO and OAK airports Dear City Council Members,    I very much appreciate your support and the efforts of City management and staff to address the major  airplane noise problem that Palo Alto residents continue to endure since the first official implementation of  NextGen over 3.5 years ago.  It was great in particular to hear Ed Shikada provide an update to Council on the  planned PIRAT procedure.      Regarding PIRAT, I urge the City to challenge the FAA proposal.  The FAA has not done a proper environmental  review even though the procedure will definitely shift more traffic over mid‐Peninsula cities, and in particular  Palo Alto:     today western arrivals to OAK typically fly across the peninsula at the level of the San Mateo bridge.  PIRAT will bring these arrivals to the level of the Dumbarton bridge. PIRAT shifts ground paths.   western arrivals are particularly disturbing to residents because several occur between 4 and 5 AM  while residents try to sleep.   PIRAT is an OPD (Optimized Profile Descent) that will concentrate traffic over a very narrow  corridor.  We all very well know what OPDs do regarding noise on the ground. Look at SERFR.  Furthermore, the proposed procedure is in complete contradiction with the FAA repeated statement that they  do not shift noise. Shifting ground paths will shift noise.    Specifically, I would like to request that the City   engage specialized aviation legal counsel to identify all viable arguments for the PIRAT procedure that could be  used to challenge the FAA in court.   pursue legal action against the FAA if reasonable legal grounds exist ‐‐cities who have pursued litigation against  the FAA seem to be getting more results than we do.   collaborate with other potentially impacted Cities ‐‐there is strength in numbers.   update and seek Council's input before making strategic or irreversible decisions that may limit the City future  options  Thank you again for your support and efforts on this very important matter that affects many residents, every day and  night, all year long.     Best regards,    marie‐jo fremont    5 Carnahan, David From:Stepheny McGraw <smstepheny@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support Sky Posse & Lydia Kou Members of the City Council,  As a resident of Palo Alto for almost 40 years, I am concerned about the multitudes of low flying planes which have flight  paths over our city.  San Jose’s Minetta Airport has a moratorium on very early morning and very late night flights.  San  Francisco International does not.      Please support the recommendations from Sky Posse and Council Member Lydia Kou:    Subject: PIRAT    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas        Lydia Kou  http://www.lydiakou.com/      SKY POSSE REQUEST: PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING BULLET in above message to City Council     provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.       Thank you.  Stepheny McGraw  3303 Thomas Drive  Palo Alto 94303          7 Carnahan, David From:Darlene E. Yaplee <darlene.yaplee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Council,    Thank you for your sustained support to address the airplane noise problem experienced by your residents.     I appreciate Ed Shikada's update on the planned PIRAT procedure and the actions staff and Council are taking to address this.    PIRAT may have significant consequences including the “shifting of noise" of OCEANIC arrivals to OAK over Palo Alto. The new  procedure is an OPD (Optimized Profile Decent) which means higher concentration of flights and increased noise. The net is  more airplane noise moved to Palo Alto.     To avoid miscues and to ensure the City challenges the FAA in the strongest way possible, please provide the original  consultant’s analysis to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.  If applicable, all or some of these materials may need to be confidential versus publicly available. Take appropriate legal  options if it is determined there is a strong position based on the specialized legal aviation counsel’s review and inclusion of all  viable challenge areas to PIRAT. This procedure will likely impact several cities and Palo Alto should proactively work with  them where our interests are aligned and to strengthen the overall position. A regional or multi‐city approach may be what is  needed to address the regional NextGen problem.     It is reassuring that technical and legal consultants are engaged and that the City is working towards the 11/13 comment  period deadline. This also prepares the City to address the 60 day deadline for actions if so determined as part of its Fast Track  process.    Thank you,  Darlene Yaplee          8 Carnahan, David From:Lindsey North <lnorth_home@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 4:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council Members, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including: -- Take appropriate legal options, if any -- Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions -- Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas -- Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options. Please stay vigilant about this very important issue! Thank you, Lindsey North Jackson Drive 9 Carnahan, David From:Chris Kanazawa <ckanazawa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 4:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Masters Swimming   Greetings Council Members,    My name is Chris Kanazawa and I grew up in Palo Alto, moved away for college, and returned in 1991 at  which point I started swimming with the Rinconada Masters program.  I have swum with the program  continuously since that time.      I urge you to reconsider the aquatics contract that is currently under review, which would award Team  Sheeper complete control of the Rinconada Pool.  The contract would allow Sheeper to bring in his own  Masters team (which of course means more money for him) instead of renewing Rinconada Masters  subcontract (which he has already stated he will not do).  The Rinconada Masters team has a rich history  and is one of the original masters swim programs on the peninsula.  Our team consists of young and old,  ex olympians and novices, national champions and non‐competitive swimmers.  We have two excellent  coaches, Carol MacPherson and Terri Baxter, who encourage and help us with all aspects of our  swimming lives.  They keep us motivated and engaged.  The only reason Sheeper could possibly have to  get rid of our team, is to bring in his own team and increase his profits.  This would be a shame since  Rinconada is a community pool and the city of Palo Alto (and hence us taxpayers) pays for its heating  and maintenance.  We do not need another Team Sheeper Masters program, there is already one in  Menlo Park.      I am also including, below, one of the comments from the the Palo Alto online story regarding this issue.  If history is any indication, we should be worried about this takeover. It appears to be written by a  Menlo Park resident who has witnessed first hand the way it all played out for them. It should be noted  that Sheeper was already running the Menlo Masters program so had no need to eliminate that, just the  SOLO youth swim team.  ———————————————  It might be helpful to provide Palo Alto residents with a few lessons learned from Tim Sheeper taking  over the operation of Burgess Pool in Menlo Park.    First, City Staff should not be the mouthpiece of Mr. Sheeper and the media should insist on speaking to  him directly about his decisions. In Menlo Park, Mr. Sheeper was successful in not directly defending his  decisions and ascribing that role to Cherise Brandell/ City Staff. The proper role of City Staff should be to  represent the concerns of the community to Mr. Sheeper‐‐ to be community advocates‐‐ and to make  sure he irons out issues/ creates win/ win solutions. Their role should not be to represent Mr. Sheeper  to the public.    Second, Palo Alto is in a difficult situation in that they put out an RFP and had only Mr. Sheeper  responding. Once the third party Rinc Masters program is eliminated / taken over by Mr. Sheeper, the  city will be even more dependent on him for his services. Palo Alto could be more creative in looking for  a service provider; recall that Menlo Park never initially put out an RFP for Burgess Pool‐‐ the city simply  asked Mr. Sheeper if he would like to run it. (Which to his credit, he successfully created a model for. He  did not have an example to look to.) Palo Alto could create a new Tim Sheeper‐‐ find a private  10 coordinator who manages the different service providers (e.g. the lesson program could be offered to  Kings Academy and Masters and Swim Team already exist). The city could approach Stanford for ideas  on how their SCRA facility was run with the help of PASA for programming. Tim Sheeper does a good job  at providing services; the problems come when he has the monopoly and uses that to eliminate beloved  community programs and create problems between user groups.    To that previous point, a third lesson from Burgess is that it is important that community user groups  are brought together to cooperate. Unfortunately, in Menlo Park, there are examples of Mr. Sheeper  pitting user groups against one another to help facilitate the elimination process. For example, during  his attempt to eliminate SOLO Aquatics from Burgess, he posted fliers on all of the doors alerting lap  swimmers that SOLO was attempting to eliminate their lap swimming time and urging lap swimmers to  protest that. The result included on‐deck issues of lap swimmers yelling at swim team families (I  witnessed one first hand.) If lap swimmers in Palo Alto are feeling they need lanes during Master swim  times, then the Masters need to cooperate to provide some lanes. Mr. Sheeper’s role should be to  facilitate that process. If he cannot, then the City should reconsider if he is the best service provider for  Palo Alto.      Given that safety concerns seem like they could be easily addressed by requiring Rinconada Masters to  hire an extra lifeguard, the taking over of the Rinconada Masters program seems to be most likely about  money. In Menlo Park, Menlo Masters participation costs between $85 ‐ $185 a month depending on  the membership level. Multiply an average cost by twelve and by hundreds of swimmers and it is clear;  Mr. Sheeper makes a great deal more money by running the program himself with only the hourly cost  of lifeguards and coaches. His supporters routinely point out that he is a businessman and this is simply  good business. This would be a fair point if Mr. Sheeper had built the pools. However, the pools are built  and maintained by the city residents, and this is a public / private partnership, not a private business  opportunity in which he took the risk of building a sports facility like SportsHouse. Priority should  therefore be given to the community groups who are historically based and beloved by the city.    What to do?      Concerned Palo Alto residents need to get individual city council members to understand what is going  on. Only through vocal outpouring in Menlo Park was the City Council able to incorporate some level of  protection for SOLO Aquatics in Mr. Sheepers contract. The City Council directs City Staff, and therefore  concerned residents need to make their voices heard to the council.  ———————————————————  Full article and all comments available here:  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/10/24/rinconada‐masters‐may‐be‐forced‐out‐of‐the‐pool       Thank you for your time,  Chris Kanazawa  1 Carnahan, David From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 6:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT   Dear Palo Alto City Council:    I was glad to read Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options    Thank you for your efforts to reduce airplane noise in Palo Alto.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee  410 Sheridan Avenue           2 Carnahan, David From:Byron Bland <bland@law.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 7:31 PM To:Council, City Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members:    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge area.    Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.      Sincerely,  Byron Bland  ‐‐   Sent from Gmail Mobile  1 Carnahan, David From:Srdjan Petrovic <spetrovic@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT It has been an absolute horror to live with the increased plane noise over Palo Alto in the past few years     I understand that FAA plans to put even *more* traffic over Palo Alto.    I'm sorry but this is insane.  I'd like the city to mount a legal challenge to this and other changes FAA has been making  at  the expense of Palo Alto residents.    Thanks,  ‐Srdjan Petrovic  4014 Ben Lomond Dr.  2 Carnahan, David From:alexis hamilton <alexishgpr@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Air traffic noise already now PIRAT too?! Dear City Council;    Low and loud air traffic already interrupts our sleep.  We have lost the peace in our yards and homes; even with the  doors and windows closed during the day the roar of jets rattle windows and hijacks the quiet, sometimes one roars  through every 5 minutes for long stretches.  Now I hear the FAA is planning to send long distance air traffic over us with  the new PIRAT procedure.  Please help us!  We were here before the jet noise.  Please help us understand the legal  action the city can take and ensure that needs of Palo Alto are represented in this.      Alexis Hamilton   3364 St. Michael Drive  94206    3 Carnahan, David From:Carol Cleary-Schultz <caclearys@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Subject: PIRAT  I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest  possible way, including:   Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Thank you for taking my concern into consideration.    Sincerely,    Carol Cleary‐Schultz  Palo Alto Resident  Greenmeadow community    4 Carnahan, David From:Susan Thomsen <susan@thomsenhome.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 11:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City of Palo Alto Council Members:    I was so happy to hear Ed Shikada’s update to the Council on 10/29/18 regarding the City staff addressing the FAA’s  planned PIRAT procedure. I was so happy that he was aware that it is a time sensitive item with a deadline of November  13, 2018, and that he stated that staff is following up with technical consultants and legal counsel. Given the possible  negative impact of PIRAT on the citizens of Palo Alto, I urge the Council members to make sure the City of Palo Alto  challenges the FAA to take PIRAT to a higher level of review. The City of Palo must:   Take appropriate legal action to ensure the FAA focuses on the noise and pollution impact of the current and  proposed flight patterns and includes an environmental review process in proposed changes like the PIRAT  procedure   Work with nearby potentially impacted cities to strengthen input to the FAA regarding the PIRAT proposed   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Require that the FAA provide updates to the Council and receive the Council’s input before making binding and  irrevocable decisions that limit future options.    Thank you so much for your continued attention to addressing the unconscionable airplane noise problem in our city.    Sincerely,    Susan Thomsen  1701 Edgewood Drive  Palo Alto  5 Carnahan, David From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Members of the City Council,    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to the Council about the FAA’s planned PIRAT procedure and the  actions of city staff to address airplane noise in Palo Alto.  I urge the City to challenge the FAA in the  strongest possible way, including pursuing appropriate legal action, working with other impacted cities  in the region if our interest are aligned with theirs, and engaging attorneys who specialize in aviation to  review PIRAT and identify ways it can be challenged.    Thank you for your attention to this letter and to the serious problem posed by the radical increase of  airplane noise in our City.    Sincerely,    Laura Seitel      city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: PIRAT  I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff  are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in  the strongest possible way, including:   Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen  the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas     6 Carnahan, David From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane  noise. I heard these new large flights yesterday evening, every few minutes, and was not excited about it :(  (Just as I'm writing this, there is one at 3800 feet overhead, but it's from Portland into SFO.)  I'm probably one of the few people who paid attention to airplane noise before I bought a house here about nine years ago, and I  am pretty upset about what has happened to our skies. We cannot enjoy open windows much of the time now.  Please put some teeth into our complaints. I am all for legal actions ‐‐ I'm not sure what else can really get their attention. And do  collaborate with other cities who are also impacted, and rely on experts who can identify options for us.  Thank you,  ‐‐ Sherry Listgarten.  7 Carnahan, David From:Yolanda Scheffold <yscheffold@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 10:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Councilmembers:    It was with great dismay that I learned about the changes to shift the PIRAT flight path south, over Palo Alto.  We are  already inundated with airplane noise over our Green Acres neighborhood.  Something must be done to stop the  intrusive noise caused by these flight paths.    The FAA must be challenged:   with any available legal options the city may have   with help from other cities that share our concerns   with the help of legal experts who specialize in aviation   with transparency to the public.   For the FAA to implement changes to flight paths while completely ignoring the communities that are impacted by them  is just wrong.  We can't let these changes go unchallenged.     I understand there is a "comment period" deadline of November 13th.  Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.    Thank you,  Yolanda Scheffold  642 Maybell Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306      8 Carnahan, David From:Ben C DeBolle <bdebolle@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 8:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest  possible way, including:    * Take appropriate legal options, if any  * Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are  aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  * Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  * Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future  options.    This insane loud jet noise needs to stop!    Thank you,  Ben DeBolle  9 Carnahan, David From:Maryanne Welton <maryanne@kwelton.com> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 8:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise and PIRAT Please make sure that city staff is taking action to address airplane noise.  Because of the city’s previous experience,  please pay attention to your residents and challenge the FAA as strongly as possible.  It seems appropriate that you:      Sue the FAA ‐ follow examples of Phoenix and other cities who have had success using legal actions to change  NextGen airplane noise impacts   Contract with expert aviation legal counsel to review FAA process and the new PIRAT route ‐ challenge them in  every way you can to protect the city’s and region’s residents from aircraft noise pollution   Collaborate with other cities who are also suffering from the changed aircraft routes   Don’t make any decisions that impact future options for City Council actions      I am so tired and worn down by the constant airplane noise directly over my house, day and night, destroying my sleep and ruining my quality of life.    Thanks,    Maryanne Welton       10 Carnahan, David From:smadar@shiffmans.net Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 7:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT    Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,     I am aware of Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and I am very appreciative of the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. To ensure the best possible response from the FAA going forward, I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:      Take appropriate legal options, if there are any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.      Sincerely,  Smadar Shiffman,  557 Hilbar Lane,  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise Over Palo Alto In case you somehow hadn’t noticed or been bothered by the airplane noise yourself... I appreciate the recent update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any can be found  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Which last avenue seems most promising…given that the arrogant FAA has shown itself completely obdurate one this issue. Sincerely, Michael Maurier Fairmede Avenue 2 Carnahan, David From:Shantha Mohan <shantha.rm@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 9:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Kind regards,  Shantha  261 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto  Shantha Mohan, Ph.D.  (650) 799 3162  Shantha.rm@gmail.com  Twitter  LinkedIn Roots and Wings      3 Carnahan, David From:Sally Flinchbaugh <sallykflinch@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 9:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas I really don't want planes flying over our house or our neighbors in this way. Thank you, Sally Flinchbaugh, 244 Greenmeadow Way 4 Carnahan, David From:Hong-Ha Vuong <hvuong2018@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City Council,    Thank you to Ed Shikada for the update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking  to address airplane noise.    I urge you strongly to make this a high priority to work with other impacted cities and challenge this proposed change  that would damage our quality of life, since the comment period deadline is 11/13.    Please don't let the FAA PIRATe the relative tranquility of our homes!    Best regards,    Hong‐Ha Vuong  236 Scripps Court  Palo Alto, CA 94306  5 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Karp <nkarp1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT We don't need more noise! I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas 6 Carnahan, David From:Sonic <jz@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 12:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane noise Dear Council, Thanks so much to Ed Shikada for initiating timely and meaningful action related to the FAA’s new PIRAT route proposal. We have been left taking the lion’s share of the aircraft noise so many times in the past that it is wonderful to see Council approaching this aggressively. I respectfully request that Council: - Take all appropriate legal action related to PIRAT. We need to know in detail how it will affect us. - Work with other nearby cities who understand the importance of sharing the noise burden. - Continue to work with specialized legal counsel. - Continue to monitor FAA proposed actions and be prepared to react promptly to changes. Thank you again for helping with this. Jon Zweig 7 Carnahan, David From:Reine Flexer <reine13@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 12:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT route for airplanes over Palo Alto city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: PIRAT  I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff  are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in  the strongest possible way, including:   Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen  the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Thank you for your attention.  Regards,  Reine Flexer  8 Carnahan, David From:Hayyah Muller <hayyah@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:airplane arrival noise Hi,  I live in Palo Alto in Barron Park. We have a low flying, deafeningly loud jet passing over our home every 2 minutes on  average. They fly so low that being in the backyard is traumatizing so I don't go outside in the back anymore.     When the planes pass over my home I can identify the airline and see the windows and other small airplane parts which  one should not be able to see from the ground when not on a runway. I have developed tinnitus from the jet noise. The  jets are supposed to stop during the night but they wake me from sleep in the night, wake me in the morning, and I can't  go to sleep without earplugs. I can't leave the window open on warm nights and don't generally open them during the  day anymore due to the plane noise. When my husband I go for a walk in the neighborhood a plane passes over  deafeningly loud and easy to see up close and personal every two minutes. We have to hold our ears.     The quality of life in Palo Alto has plummeted due to the jet noise that suddenly showed up in this way from one day to  the next several years ago. Before that I don't think I ever gave airplane noise a thought at all. I'm not a general  complainer. I don't care about traffic, parking, construction in Palo Alto. This is a nice place to live. For me, the  predominant and overarching issue has become unrelenting jet noise which shatters my life and shatters the peace for  my family and neighbors every single day.     I'd like to know what action you plan to take to protect the health and well being of our community. I work a few miles  south in Los Altos and it is nowhere near as low and deafeningly loud there. It feels like my neighborhood or South Palo  Alto has been sacrificed.     Waiting to hear back,    Hayyah Muller, M.D.  1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Finn <bckp@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:airplane noise and pollution Subject: PIRAT    I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas     provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.       I do not understand why our council representatives (aside from Lydia Kou) have not taken more initiative in our  interests, in this and in other related matters.      Cordially,         Robert Finn  2 Carnahan, David From:Bryna Chang <brynachang@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 2:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City Council, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. It is a real problem; I have friends who built an outdoor patio before the planes changed routes, and now that the planes are flying over Palo Alto, they find that instead of using the patio, they have their windows closed all the time and are using the air conditioning (instead of natural cooling) to avoid the airplane noise every 2 minutes. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Sincerely,  Bryna Chang  3338 Waverley St.  Palo Alto 94306  1 Carnahan, David From:Stephen Pond <spond@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:kou.pacc@gmail.com Subject:PIRAT Dear Council Members, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to the Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise, which is a vexing problem that is un- relenting each and every day and night in our neighborhood in Crescent Park. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options As noted, the continuous, un-relenting rumble of commercial aircraft over our home, neighborhood and schools is not tolerable; we are not an airport and the flight routing of the past 5 years is different than the entire history of commercial aviation in the bay area since conception, we need to revert to alternative flight paths that are not low and loud over residential areas. Thank you, Stephen Pond 1157 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto 3 Carnahan, David From:Susan Iannucci <susan@rail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear City Council, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:   1. Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas. 2. Take appropriate legal options, if any. 3. Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions. Sincerely,  Susan Iannucci  3540 South Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94306  ‐‐   Susan Iannucci – Voiceovers (650) 391-7041   susan@voicetoremember.com  http://www.voicetoremember.com      4 Carnahan, David From:Eileen Stolee <estolee@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas As a longtime voting resident of Palo Alto I hope you will work with the citizens on this important issue! Sincerely, Eileen Stolee   1 Carnahan, David From:jstepak@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 11:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I'm writing to say that I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including: - Take appropriate legal options, if any - Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions - Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas - Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options. We are yearning for a wonderful environment in Palo Alto, one in which we are not faced with the noise and pollution from so many airplanes overhead. Thanks in advance for listening to our voices and representing us so faithfully. Sincerely, Jane Stepak Palo Alto, CA 94306 2 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Millin <barbaramillin@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 8:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Subject: PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas *Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options. With the increase in noise including air traffic, these measures are necessary to help keep Palo Alto livable and desirable place to live. Thank You, Barbara Millin   3 Carnahan, David From:Ian Mallace <ianmallace@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT for SFO anf Jet Noise over Palo Alto I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas      Thanks for your efforts to reduce jet noise over Palo Alto    Ian Mallace    4 Carnahan, David From:Michal Sadoff <michalsadoff@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT - FAA plans to redirect large oceanic flights over south Palo Alto Hello City Council. I am writing about a new route, PIRAT, that is apparently being established over south Palo Alto. I understand that the large oceanic flights used to go into the bay on a route farther north, but now the FAA is planning to direct these farther south over Palo Alto. Here is the info I received about it, via my Greenmeadow neighborhood group, see below. I ask that you to take action against this change There is an 11/13 comments deadline. Thank you. I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Sincerely Michal Ruth Sadoff 431 Adobe Place Palo Alto 5 Carnahan, David From:Karen Schreiber <kpsphoto@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 5:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding PIRAT   I would like Palo Alto  to challenge the FAA in the strongest ways possible regarding PIRAT.   That would include working with other potentially impacted cities, getting specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and to determine all possible and viable areas to challenge, and finally to take appropriate legal actions.    Sincerely,  Karen Schreiber, Palo Alto Resident    1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Staehnke <rs1fish@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 9:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Jet Noise Palo Alto city council members, The following is a copy of a previous letter to the city council sent a couple of years ago. I feel that the problems have only worsened since and I have not seen anything to make me believe that the city is taking an aggressive approach to this issue. I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any      Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions      Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas      provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options.  My family has lived and worked in Palo Alto since 1954. To say the changes have been dramatic would be an understatement. Some of these changes were inevitable, some were beneficial, others not so much. We were the owners of the Village Cheese House from 1959 until 2008 and have had the wonderful experience of knowing many generations of thousands of families as the years passed by. I attended Fairmeadow, Wilbur and Cubberly, our three kids El Carmelo, Jane Lathrop, and Paly. So I think we have a fairly good perspective of the the issues that effect life here in Palo Alto. It may sound like an exaggeration but I feel that the jet noise issue is one the most important and urgent problems to have affected the city in all our years of living here. The incessant cacophony of roaring, screeching, whining, whooshing sounds that are assaulting us all day and all night are ruining our sleep, health, and general enjoyment of life. One, two, sometimes three jets at a time are crossing directly over our heads at all times. Most of the people that live here do not have central air conditioning and depend on leaving doors and windows open to take advantage of the beautiful weather we are blessed with. As I laid in bed last night between 11:00 - 12:30 pm no less than 35 planes not only prevented me from going to sleep but I’m sure raised my already fragile blood pressure to 2 levels that were not conducive to my well being. This happens almost EVERY NIGHT since next gen has been put into effect !! I belong to sky posse and have attended almost all the meetings and the FAA completely ignores the fact that Palo Alto is the most affected city and offers absolutely no relief. In fact we are being informed that current proposed changes WILL MAKE IT WORSE. Even if the noise doesn’t ruin our lives here in Palo Alto the health effects on all of us and especially our children who remain in the city all day long is in jeopardy. These planes are spewing unburnt jet fuel all over our city much like the days of old when we had to stay indoors while helicopters flew back and forth a few feet above the rooftops, like a scene from Apocalypse Now, spraying insecticides for the Mediterranean fruit fly. I told you I go way back.The pollution falling directly on to us is probably greater than any other source. The fact that no one from Palo Alto is on the select committee is not only a slap in the face to us all but should be investigated to the fullest. I BEG YOU TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STOP THIS ! I AM AT WITS END ! There must be a legal remedy that the city could pursue, Please. Thank You. Richard, Claudine, Bernetta, Cynthia, Jeff, Anne, Staehnke 1 Carnahan, David From:Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, November 2, 2018 2:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Plastic blight at the top of Arastradero Open Space Preserve To the Palo Alto City Council, Re the private estate being constructed above Arastradero Open Space Preserve, that the City Council under Mayor Greg Scharff unanimously voted to approve in 2017 : There is a vast slope of plastic sheeting, fencing and other equipment highly visible from Meadowlark Trail, from the top of Acorn Trail, from the panoramic viewpoint area, and also from the picnic table by the horse hitching post up there. => See photos below, taken yesterday November 1. This plastic sheeting has been in place for many months now. Whether or not the plastic is temporary and is to promote seeding or landscaping (possibly to hold the slope soil in place ?), it is, and has been, an enormous eyesore to hikers. That slope has probably held itself up for centuries with the help of native grasses and oak trees. Does this plastic-covered slope conform to city codes, with respect to visual impact on an open space park and its popular trails ? Please, is this visual blight on our park squared with the city's laws ? Thank you, Kim Atkinson 1753 Middlefield Road and lifelong resident AS SEEN HIKING UP MEADOWLARK TRAIL 2 3 AS SEEN FROM THE TOP OF ACORN TRAIL 4 AS SEEN FROM THE PICNIC TABLE NEAR THE PANORAMIC VIEWPOINT and HORSE HITCHING POST ( => picnic table shown at bottom of photo) 5 1 Carnahan, David From:Charles Barrett <cbarrm@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 2, 2018 9:24 AM To:Loran Harding Cc:Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; boardmembers; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; info@superide1.com; Council, City; Mayor; Mark Standriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Joel Stiner; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; nick yovino; robert.andersen; Steve Wayte; Doug Vagim; terry; steve.hogg; leager; hennessy; midge@thebarretts.com; huidentalsanmateo; jerry ruopoli; Mark Kreutzer; Cathy Lewis; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com Subject:Re: Fresno Station District for HSR. Info meeting Thurs Nov. 1, 2018 Agree!  Sent from my iPad    On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:             Thursday, Nov. 1, 2018              Dan‐ I sent the email below to three TV stations here yesterday and I watched the news at 11 here  today to see if they reported the HSR Station District meeting to their viewers. I watched Ch. 30 ABC  until 11:50 AM and not one word was spoken about it.              I swung over to Ch. 24, the NBC affiliate in Fresno. At 11:15 AM, they reported the meeting, gave  the time and location, but then the male anchor yelled this:  He may have a high school diploma, and so,  to make the rich Republican station owners, his scumbag employers, happy, he yelled "They've been  working on this project for years, so it'll be interesting to see what they do there". The equally qualified  female anchor sitting next to him then smiled in total agreement with this slur, like she knows how  corrupt and wrong the high speed rail authority really is. What he said there was not in the copy he was  reading, but the station owners are fine with him slandering high speed rail with this editorializing.  Ch.  24 should lose its broadcast license for this crap. They encourage the morons they hire to read the news  to slander HSR at every opportunity, and this fuels the opposition to HSR among the ignorant here.            So there you have it. The rich Republican scum who own the TV stations in corrupt little Fresno do  all in their power to stop high speed rail in California. I guess Fresno has been famous for corruption for  a very long time, and you see it in their fight to stop HSR. This is a corrupt little burg, but then somebody  with your long experience in California politics would know that. I moved here in 2000, and it took me a  while to catch on.            Keep 'em broke, barefoot and pregnant. Do all in your power to keep them exploited. High speed  rail coming through Fresno will start to threaten that, and they don't want it.           L. William Harding        Fresno    On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:57 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:02 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fresno Station District for HSR. Info meeting Thurs Nov. 1, 2018  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:30 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fresno Station District for HSR. Info meeting Thurs Nov. 1, 2018  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:11 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fresno Station District for HSR. Info meeting Thurs Nov. 1, 2018  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>          ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:07 PM  Subject: Fresno Station District for HSR. Info meeting Thurs Nov. 1, 2018  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Wed. Oct. 31, 2018              Mr. Dan Richard            Chairman of the Board of Directors            California High Speed Rail Authority             Dan‐ Here is information from "Morning Roundup" today in Fresno. I may attend this re the  Fresno HSR Station District. City people and HSR people will be there, Thursday, Nov. 1, 2018, with two  presentations.                                             http://fresnostationdistrict.org/About%20the%20Project.html                        I'm all for this, and I think HSR will be a huge boost for Fresno. Fresno is of two minds on  HSR though. The "word on the street" (among people here who have barely heard of Silicon Valley) is  that HSR is a boondoggle, a huge waste of money, and will never get built. That mind set is provoked  and maintained by the rich Republicans who own the local TV stations here. Fresno, 165 miles from  Palo Alto, might just as well be in west Texas. Actually, HSR is Fresno's only hope of entering the 20th  century.    3         So is that not odd? Local politicians see some minor potential for Fresno in being 45 minutes  from Palo Alto and 1 hour 20 minutes from San Francisco (!), but the rich Republican TV station owners,  who must be their pals, do all they can, abusing their broadcast license, to subvert the project.            Despite all of that, everyone in Fresno seems to want the HMF here. That is the one thing about  HSR that many here feel would be transformative for Fresno. It would indeed be, but they are missing  the bigger picture.              I hope that the new Fresno station will be easy for self driving vans and buses to get to, probably  via Hwy. 41, from thousands of new homes west of 99 for the highly educated, high income SV types  who will commute in here on HSR. HSR and City officials should work to make that possible. The Fresno  station will need loading areas or even ramps to accommodate this traffic in the morning and evening.  A LOT of Uber and Lyft traffic and lots of these buses and vans will frequent your new Fresno station,  and you probably won't need a lot of long‐term parking space, if any. With ride hailing, why would  anyone local drive to the station and pay to park his car all day? I'm sure the station planners at HSR  are on to that.            As you have heard, Waymo by Google has now been granted permission to operate self driving  vehicles on public streets in California without a driver on board. For sure, when HSR starts running in  Fresno, such vehicles will transport HSR riders around Fresno to and from the station. That, BTW, will  be a huge boon for HSR. Not having to pay to park a car all day, and having to put it at risk, will  stimulate ridership on HSR. Again, you won't need loads of parking at your HSR stations. That was a  fear of Palo Alto officials re having a HSR station at the current Caltrain station at Alma Street, and I  think they vetoed such a station because of that. There is not much space for parking at that station  and they cited that in declining a HSR stop. Perhaps they can reconsider since they won't need parking  there. The Alma St. station is the station for Stanford University, and to have HSR skip that just seems  wrong‐headed. "Sorry, you can't get to the Stanford campus directly via HSR. You have to get off in  Redwood City or something".               I will be most interested in what they say and show tomorrow at the meeting in Fresno. I hope  your people there talk a LOT about thousands of high income Silicon Valley employees commuting to  Fresno in 45 minutes on HSR, and Fresnans commuting up there for good jobs. It will double home  values here and then double them again. Avg. price for a house in San Jose is now $1 million. In 1955,  we bought a big, new house in Willow Glen, 3 bed, two baths, big living room with a fireplace, and a big  family room with another fireplace, for $17,000. I watched them build it. That is when California's  schools were #1 in the U.S.          So again, I hope your people tomorrow don't just focus on the station and the quarter mile  around it. The bigger story by far is what HSR will mean for backward, poor little Fresno, the poorest  big city in California. Even beyond Fresno since HSR would enable SV to throw up big production  facilities in the Central Valley. It will bend out those blinders, help break the strangle‐hold the  Republicans have here, and give Fresnans access to the riches of Silicon Valley, through employment  there, and here. And easy access to San Francisco. And, when you build south of Bakersfield, the same  access to Los Angeles. All of that will be transformative. In past information meetings in the Central  Valley, and I attended ~7 of them, none of that was ever mentioned. Please send the word to your  people who will be on hand tomorrow, that that larger story is the one Fresnans need to know about. A  cohort of richer, far better educated, non‐violent, law abiding Silicon Valley people joining the Fresno  ecosystem. That gentrification will help drive out the scum who prey so freely on Fresno now. I saw  that happen in East Palo Alto in the late eighties.     Thank you for the presentation tomorrow in Fresno.  1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 4, 2018 11:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool - New Fee   Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council members,    Last week I spoke at the open session about Team Sheeper's bid to replace Carol McPherson's Master Swim program  with one of his own.   I noted my personal desire to keep Carol and her "Swim for Fitness" program (because of my  special needs son who is finally learning to swim).     To be clear, I am happy with how Team Sheeper runs the Rinconada pool in most regards.  The life guards are pleasant,  helpful and the facilities (maintained by the city) are as good as I've ever seen in my 40+ years of swimming at Rinc.       However, there is one issue which seems to be mostly overlooked.  Swimmer friends that I know are not aware of this...   Team Sheeper will increase the daily swim fees       AND     add an ANNUAL fee of $50.       I believe an annual fee would be prohibitive and exclusionary.  Many of us appreciated Mayor Kniss' remarks last week  following the Pittsburgh Synagogue massacre, highlighting Palo Alto's desire to be a welcoming and open city.   Team  Sheeper's plan to charge an annual fee flies in the face of those comments.   It would seriously impact or exclude many  of the people who use Rinconada pool for a limited time over the summer months.  An annual fee feels like an exclusive  club, with intention to keep out the riff‐raff.  Last I checked, Rinconada was a public pool.  Let's keep it that way,  please.   As other people have commented, Palo Alto is already paying for the maintenance of the facility.  I understand  Team Sheeper needs to make a living, but do we have to limit the pool to only people who happen to be wealthy  enough?   Doesn't seem fair, or feel like the Palo Alto Mayor Kniss described.      Could we please work with Tim Sheeper?  Could we ask him to keep on Carol and eliminate the annual fee?    Thanks for reading this,  Ann Protter    1 Carnahan, David From:Bill Lorton <lorton-4@att.net> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 8:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Masters Swimming Program - Untimely Demise Palo Alto City Council, While not a Palo Alto resident, I have been a Rinconada Masters Swimmer for at least 25 years. I started swimming there when I worked in Palo Alto, and over the years have developed many close friendships with other members of the team. Swimming has been an important part of my life for 60 years, starting with swimming and water polo when I was in high school, followed by the same activities while I was at Stanford, and picked up again later in life with Rinconada Masters. While I was young (I am currently 76), I focused on the competitive aspects of the water. Now, I look at swimming as the mainstay of my physical and mental health. It is fantastic for keeping the body and mind healthy, and is an excellent stress reliever. With that as background, I want to note that as a non-resident, I can choose to swim with any masters program in the peninsula. So, if some dire situation should arise that drove me away from Rinconada Masters, I will find other places to swim. I would be sorry to see that happen, because as I look around at other programs, I see that the Rinconada program, besides from being an historical legacy as being one of the founding masters programs on the peninsula, it has one of the best programs for people like me, who want to stay healthy in both mind and spirit. It has the best number of workouts that fit the needs of its diverse swimming community of working professionals, and retired citizens. It's workouts are also attuned to that same diverse community. Based on Team Sheeper's workout schedules at Burgess pool, I am sure this kind of scheduling will no longer exist. I share the concern of our members, and those of the Lap-Swimming community, as well, that should Team Sheeper be allowed to take over complete control of the Rinconada pool and its programs, this treasure of a program will eventually disappear. My concerns have been raised by how I have viewed the transition of the Burgess pool over the past few years. I was originally quite impressed with how Team Sheeper transformed Menlo Park's pool into a thriving enterprise filled with a variety of activities including a masters program and lap swimming. As time passed I have seen more profitable activities take over the pool while access to the pool for the masters program and lap swimming has diminished. I assume this is because the other programs are more profitable. While I have no problem with a private enterprise making a reasonable profit, I do have a concern about that being done at the cost of a public resource, such as the Rinconada Pool, whose mission should be to provide a service to the public, rather than simply be a revenue source for a private enterprise. I am also concerned that some of Team Sheeper's justifications for replacing the current Rinconada masters program with a different program, perhaps even his own, are quite flimsy. As I understand some of Team Sheeper's complaints: Rinconada has not communicated well with it; Rinconada has not provided adequate life guards; and Rinconada has not shown respect to Team Sheeper. While I am not personally involved with these issues, it seems unlikely to me that after working successfully with the City of Palo Alto for several decades 2 where these issues were non-existent, that they should suddenly appear when Team Sheeper came into the picture. I hope you and your staff have thoroughly investigated those issues, and determined their veracity/accuracy. Thank you for your time in reading my letter and investing your time on this issue. I hope the City Council will continue to look deeply into this issue and make sure, before taking any final action, that there is ample justification for ending its successful relationship with the Rinconada Masters Program. Regards, Bill Lorton 3 Carnahan, David From:David Levinson <David.Levinson@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 9:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Future of the Rinconada Masters To the Palo Alto City Council: As elected officials, you have been temporarily granted and entrusted with certain powers that the rest of us do not have. One of these is the sole right to determine the future of the Rinconada Masters -- whether you will allow us to continue as a venerable Palo Alto institution or whether you will consign us to oblivion. The decision is in your hands. In 1973, Palo Alto had the foresight to institute the Rinconada Masters, one of the first adult swimming training programs of its kind in the entire United States. We swimmers sincerely hope that the legacy of this city council will be to prevent the destruction of what your predecessors had the wisdom to create. David A. Levinson   4 Carnahan, David From:Karna <karnajean@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 11:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on the Riconada Pool Contract Dear City Counsel,  I feel compelled to write to you about the Rinconada pool after reading the article in the Palo Alto Weekly entitled “Rinconada Masters may be forced out of the pool.” (https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/10/24/rinconada-masters-may-be-forced-out-of-the-pool)   I was a bit disturbed by indication in this article that the point of view of a Rinconada Masters team was the main voice being heard by the City Counsel and want to make sure that other voices are also heard.   The article mentioned that Menlo Park-based Team Sheeper is negotiating a new five-year deal with the city to manage the Rinconada. I want to voice my support for Team Sheeper and the idea of them managing the pool for the next 5 years.   My view, when thinking about the Rinconada pool is that we need to consider 3 main values, Safety, Full Utilization, and Inclusion. I think that Team Sheeper is our best bet for making sure each of those values are held.   First, I think that safety is the most important thing and anyone utilizing the pool, with no exception, must always follow the recommendations of the independent aquatics expert who identified the need to have two lifeguards around the pool, with at least one on deck. There is no justification for shortchanging safety.   Second, I applaud what Team Sheeper has done to allow for better utilization of the pool. When I first moved here, it was impossible to find easy consistent times to lap swim, there were no swim lessons for kids on the weekends, and no swim summer camps. I am delighted by how much more the pool is being used and for how much more of the year it is being used. Frankly, we went to Menlo Park for many pool services, because Rinconada, a valuable local resource, was not easily accessible. I think we are on the right track in now having a full set of programs in place and I love that my daughter was able to go to a summer swim camp in Palo Alto, instead of the only option being Menlo Park.   Finally, we do need to consider inclusion. Everyone, from kids to masters, must have a place. The specifics do not need to stay the same, but everyone should have some accommodation. The article mentioned that a master’s program will continue. Times change, and it is sad when things change, but no one is entitled to everything remaining identically to how it was always done, particularly at a community resource. It appears Team Sheeper will include something for everyone, and something for more people, which is what I want to see.   As a homeowner and resident for the last 11 years, I want to applaud the Parks and Recreation staff for finally recognizing that they could not effectively utilize the Rinconada pool and that they needed help. I think the solution being reviewed, a long-term contract with Team Sheeper, is the right direction for our city.   Thank you for considering my option.   Karna Nisewaner      1 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Tax Bases Has the council ever considered way to extract revenue from remodeling/residential building projects? Compared to  when I was growing up, traffic law enforcement is almost nonexistent, permit parking enforcement is nonexistent ‐ I  know because I just tried and failed to get it enforced; pool, animal services and street sweeping have been contracted  out. Our city services are barely managing to survive, yet we live in possibly the wealthiest community in the country.   Where’s all the money going? Into houses. If someone has enough spare change to spend $5million on a “remodel,”  you’d think there’d be a way to slap a tax on that.    People swarm to Palo Alto for it’s “quality of life,” and then refuse to understand they have an obligation to support that  quality.  Any time council wants to step up and help them make that connection would be good with me.    Deb Goldeen  2130 Birch St., 94306    321‐7375  1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Sunday, November 4, 2018 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Text - H.R.1337 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th‐congress/house‐bill/1337/text      Best, John     (Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)  1 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <yankowsky284@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 3, 2018 4:47 PM To:info@svlg.org Cc:Council, City Subject:to Carl Guardinlo and Palo Alto politics According to the Daily Post (Nov 3‐4), your group and the CA Apartment Association have contributed $$ to Cormack’s  city council campaign.        What sleaze.     Keep your nose out of our politics.    Gloria Pyszka  East Charleston  Palo Alto       1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Humane Society <pahs@paloaltohumane.org> Sent:Monday, November 5, 2018 7:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Vote YES On Prop 12 ~ Be The Voice for Animals!       With Proposition 12, California voters face choices   on farm animal confinement.    Measures like Prop 12 are crucial,   since not a single federal law protects animals   during their lives at factory farms.     To understand what Proposition 12 means for farm animals, it  helps to understand a ballot measure California voters  approved 10 years ago.      2 That was Proposition 2, which banned the confinement of veal,  pigs, and egg‐laying hens in spaces too small to allow animals  to turn around, lie down, or stand up and extend their limbs. But that measure didn't set specific space requirements.  Prop. 12 would do just that.    This is your opportunity to "be the voice" for animals.  Vote YES on Proposition 12. Photo credits: PREVENT CRUELTY CALIFORNIA and WORLD ANIMAL PROTECTION   Palo Alto Humane Society | 650-424-1901 | E-mail | Website Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved.   Palo Alto Humane Society, PO Box 60715, Palo Alto, CA 94306 SafeUnsubscribe™ city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by pahs@paloaltohumane.org in collaboration with   .. ·-~~-::--'/' i T".. • I '1 I. .' _, v -a:·~::;:~~j1 I Awree•20 I J !I ; I 1 -!1lfou,WL -~~~ 1 \ -va.-2 ; gV-16~1U l ~~-=~;.Ve.-·_--~· _a(37A ---··_j l _F65~1UiF616A--i fi, \[ ) Plac~.4 Before '_eting 1 1 I lot!GOff ~ve ~ ~VB-7 I I I . . . ·---. -·----·--1 ;--------, , . --j ; I: .. lr~1ved at ung 1 . -·~ 0V-33A?D ! I I I I ~ \ I 1' I : 11 '"''.-::.::·. I ! I' I I ' ' ~ 13J3-9x-V-9 I I ! I " . \ i ' FORMERsr~~ [,~::·~~::~..._ iliil / 1 , , I , '· "'V8e4 . r· ··--·11· I V-11A1U I .. ··. I: F\JE.TIW<llfERrnfP 1· \,., .. ~1 ' I j 1 1- 1 va-22 va~:s . J . Q , ··~·· , 1 L 1 tr)· ~~;~1~·1 ~ L 0105A2 F1061 Al I L--· F38A~F1018 . . ---·-·---. ' ·-l! -··· . --.::----~ ·--__ "]_; oF!D7A2 _ _ __ ~--. F31A~F30A1U--=-. _GRANTAVE. __ • _ F46A1~SH2 -7 i/ / _:, ... ·:·1·---::=::,.~---1f Q104A1G 094-2~ 01008 I -F9B,.b\~F22~1U/ 1 I F35B~FJ4A I ~r I SH1 / 1./Ui't ' L ....... ,:~•-F5JA1U :=----- ' 084-1 W-4fr010BA1 F43A1U "-~-:-~-1--I 1• ! J g .,.-J·r.11)·'' e.u.~. &,,;.------<!'.JT--· : 0258. rE~w-s--o 10A1 0109A2 ~.f'23A~ CllF97A1 t F29AIU 1' .((;,,,···~1~8TATIONf'49A1 FSOA11 1 011aA1_ 5_1 @.-0111A2 ~45A1IP , 1 I r·-·--~ ·· SHJ",,··· ... , .. iJi _·, /",1J ' 0111A . •F26B' 086-2 EW:J.f--i= I : ' ,... .. :!~~~.., ...... ~a~£ .. ::~/;'~ 1' 1j~27AI 8C~:3l 1~ ... s~112A1 r-~_w:6 _ ~~r21AW __ __J L_ ____ F3JB•-=-·_i_. .. __ _) 1<::-;;,:,;;~·' .. : \ \ :F92A2-·.;:.·"· rilF1338 ;• to121A2-01ia 08s-2.gg~A~44A p0s-1 =+--:"-F1028919F40A. _____ --AVE. -F32A --··--·.:.·b~5';."'-t-·'P2~1 ,-.a.1-~1 .. " 'r~:i, 1i1 t h I 00114A2 1 i 1 ~F12aAn l \ ,,..,-"J r ~ ...... through i /1• 1 FS4Atu ~e ,-I 0120A2 , BP s -~BP-1x I ' \.... __ __..-.' l_;:·,.,. P2-~ · · '....... . .rs1At / , !i;2A2 0119A1® o52A2 'l,115,1 ' BP-4~ 1"1!1BP-1 F41A1 l I~-· ...::.:.. ...... ./ _ 1-:VB-t ::J j' { 1r~J2A~~-... ./ ( ; / 1 --· 067A2;o ~@028A1 J 21~ 1 o -1 r--.__ L 11 .~ • •. / r 1 vANCe- 1 . 11 I PJ-1. ..... ....... _ / / I -----_?68oA17-I. 087-2L/~-o24A1u ~'i.~P-2.:JH i_. __ _J L .J ___ .. ./J....--... / , ... ·.~ Ht AHOBON 1111 I through qq~':lj { / 8 J'· 7 070A1_, :~ -·-··--.-··" \ . L P3-6 ' ltt '-... I ' 001-1·---=-=--os9A2D BP-3 PAGl!MIUllCW> ew-1 r_~_w-2-~-~-....,__ -H2 -----·,. / I .: ,...,.......-----..._ ........... _,, ,,, -. --r-)_F7_a_A_1on2~Aj;M·-1-LI-· ...;:~'J ~:rj'·1 'fn0,w-ll4 ~ --1/"-'.:··-,0-~-Q-w-ToA1u 1"1··t11 / /'/F1:s4A1....._ 1 1r-':::..~ fl ! F,~3A1 ·~r-T = -u-',~ c....,.r ....., llWll.ER BW-3 il 1£Y4ETT.-:KARD > ' W-13A2 l 'I J! II {! = r . ____ 11_1' -11 137A~i c!J.ti~'fJ-~~~~8 II~ s ~;.Yjg! '! iL=p=AQADJ' \ > I r:.--=r; hi I i1 FSBA • 1· I ! :':I 1: 1 rh~6;2 .i..1. tosa-11'a\ 6 088 J87A2 •10 i1 u ,. ,..,., L ~ / I ~ / F57A1U Iii , 1! r-1-·-,' _-z' ]r-::··ooB-i~' J' -.,,_~y~'__,,_n_29A.cJ ~r_:::1 ___ w-1'l,"' 0W;'J~1u) · c.:::5 1~4 N I / . j I I. 1 J I rJ l.._. I I [I F] w-7AlUQ i:--J ,,. ~ oa.11-1 r , .. / F~9A1u 1 11 I L-..r-...,__ I I ·--==-'' .. I ~ I \ RW ' 811-41 I 11 I I• I r-:.. I i .. -,,.._ ·' \ EW-10 JCllTANllHEA:O ' 0811-I -Ii I I~ 1: r li I PALDALTO&aJNIE F86~2ci:>f"B5A1 I 1n=:oe10-t 11 r --·--•. --.7 E;-11R:" v:, -"1fA2 i I . oF91A1 lljj 11 ~ r~ _,.M-2. ---UJ C!,810-~o~'"1f1_30A1U IL, W-11A1U ,..;-,---,' 811-5, / 1 I F90A1Ulil l I~ I : LJ J '-!i..-.'l...JJ-1.l F~~~W-9 _Ll_] lt~---gy---Q_OB.Lf~-~:sili / 1'1 ; /;I J i 1 .. =--.---~·--:=-_.. F131 A1-;;-;;;rs07;A1 __ Fs:sA1u __ Fa4A1 __ WYEAVE.oau~~t~ liu -~]· 1 .11 f§/ ,, . • ~ I ,-----, F 518 [089-2 L W-12A11:17.'R / l I i --:,· L i l F64A1 F63A1U/A1 C.=:.J . F77~1U~76A2 1 I I 111 "F75A1U I I . -2-----"°"-... ~ UJ F74A I l.,· l -__,,=-~::::r.-:r::rmo.=--1· -p:.ro r=---E-J ~·_::: -oM-1 --=-:::::.:-:-::";;j_ 1r=i I I I I d . ~~_:l fe:\·J·--JSTII j Hwi 2-1 I I ~~--jAva -I f-r E-4 E-s--=---ta~:~J~12m~91A i ---.u_/ I -: I ~~ b ~ -;;w;\. 1 "" ~ L-..... L I I DUAA80NO i · c· tw , 1:e 1 , •• tP I J Hw-~ (~J\[ ~';.'";:, ' o I •w-1~ E-6 -~ o01J -iTio tw~l7-f1/~1lm.g::_H-,-; .~--{" ~J =i i CT-~~1-[~A :is4:1~ 1Hw-1=:=J I __ --of1[3:~F~!~-~~·njAVL ~--F140A~~o ~ \ vd//11 ) F142A ~·'! . I/..=:::: IAAlilHWAY ESlA1U~~2e-ffil~~1lJ'I-= ..!.. , [J vo-~ / 11 ) L_J :!~~:::>--n. r 1 ,: ---·--------·----·-------1 11· --J . 0814-1 ~~BAl"°F139Af.~" ----I \~':::·I I I : /I' .. ····'·..-:.·."," . ' ! iC-J 11 ;i 1Q';:>~~";j n.Q.n I ~ I//!! I 1· l!i 1 1 '' . I l ' . 0813-1'~ V0-1 I. LI u '--Ll I 11/,11 l /!/ I . I ~ ~l!UEW-1~~;~~1 ;1-=~-=-1 ;=, --~ !111/ j 1 1fiF148A1U 1.I , . : i~1J i 1L1 ~.>~~l< r'~) i_ /!i-40-2 !~11~1·~~~-J~~u I L.J OR12-2 [TADFIC 1/ 11 /! I -ri-~--? I ~·T I lDD'HON! li ! "' i I ' I I I I I - I , \I; -~1ell'llA!r--:1'.=" -Q , i: ! I I ,. r F14:sA1u · t , 1 ·-------·· • , 11 '.'-····-----j -~-~--~----''--'-~ I I \ I I \ \I I \ \ \ I I \ \ \ l \ \ \ \ \ i ·I _u.c;END.i o~~t4 A 1 ZONE MONITORING WELL ef40A A ZONE MONITORING WELL ~va-sx EXiRACTION WELL 13.99 GROUNDWATER ELEVAilON (FEET MSL) /10 GROUNOWA TER ELEVATION CONTOUR 20.43 NOT MEASURED WAiER LEVEL DATA APPEAR (0) ANOMALOUS AND WERE NOT USED IN CONTOURING. SCALE IN FEET E ;e ;e 800 0 400 RETURN ADDRESS: -PM3l m :z: 0 c:: I c.n ("")~ --i ~-< no r""" ~~ :;xr- J:lll u)O Office of the Clerk :X o l> -"Tlr"". Please distribute to all crt:iiitaurrott&mbers 250 Hamilton Aven~7ttm~r Palo Alto, CA, 9430P ·>