Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181203plCC 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: 12/03/2018 Document dates: 11/14/2018 – 11/20/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:Bob Wenzlau <bob@wenzlau.net> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 2:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Nov 19 - Item 2 - Recycled Water Study Session Honorable Council members,    I wish to applaud the foresight to consider opportunities associated with recycled water.    My own choice would be the Non Potable Reuse option, and consideration of the Indirect Potable Reuse.  The  "consideration" of the Indirect Potable would only be toward management of an saltwater intrusion by injecting at the  interface of the fresh water wedge as it encounters the bay. I am not yet comfortable with treatment and removal of  medical residues and other synthetic chemicals.    In making policy choices, it would have been helpful to see a chart with relative flow between residential, business and  public ‐ with the outdoor / indoor proportion.  The strategy presentations appears to skip our residential sector ‐ yet the  lack of service to the residential sector "skips" the citizens of Palo Alto.      I look forward to more information as to how to develop Non Potable Reuse.  In my own crystal ball, I could foresee  autonomous water vehicles in 5 years capable at night time of filling neighborhood cisterns where from irrigation water  could then be pumped.  Can we look for alternative other than piping for transport of reclaimed water.      I am not a supporter of the Regional approach.  I am a proponent of localism whereby our infrastructure is not always  bound into a regional grid, and therefore vulnerable to natural disaster and a greater carbon footprint.  (Our waste  management is regionalized, and forms a large carbon footprint as organic and inorganic residues are transported across  the state/globe.)  I agree with Staff that the Regional approach limits our options in local Non Potable Reuse,  and as  such would not want to steer the strategy that direction.    I appreciate that one of the great indirect benefits is the chance to use less of the Hetch Hetchy allocation and as such  allow our natural river system to benefit from greater flow.      Thank you for the chance to offer some input.    Bob      ‐‐     Bob Wenzlau  bob@wenzlau.net  650‐248‐4467  1 Carnahan, David From:Claire Elliott <clairee44@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 4:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on the Recycled Water Study Session Attachments:Claire Elliott Comments 11-19-18.pdf Please find an attached letter with comments on tonight's study session. Thanks! Claire Elliott November 19, 2018 Palo Alto City Council, via email attachment Dear City Council members, Thank you for your attention to the important goal of reducing demand for Tuolumne River water through recycled water reuse. I am a strong supporter of water conservation and reuse and believe we should develop it a variety of scales and using low-energy requiring technologies where possible. I am unable to attend tonight’s study session, but hope to share some issues I cannot find addressed in the staff report. 1. Several acres of valuable and increasingly rare saltmarsh habitat have been converted to freshwater marsh where the effluent from the RWQCP enters the bay. The study does not mention that reducing the amount of discharge to the bay from the plant would help to expand saltmarsh habitat in Palo Alto. 2. Pumping water requires significant energy use. Therefore, the study should consider additional alternatives that require significantly less use of pumps, such as reuse on the scale of individual properties or neighborhoods with their own small treatment plant to provide water for reuse. 3. Use of groundwater and recharging seems a good way to help treat the water and make it more “palatable” to the public. However, it is important that groundwater is not drawn down locally to the extent it damages drains creek habitat or lowers the water table damaging trees and other vegetation that depend on it. Thanks for allowing me to comment on the study. I hope to see water reuse expand in Palo Alto! Claire Elliott Senior Ecologist, Grassroots Ecology 271 Chestnut Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 claire@grassrootsecology.org 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Martinson <rsmsmartinson@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 12:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Agenda action item #4     Dear City council members,     I’m writing to you in support of Item #4 on tonight’s city council agenda. The proposed roof deck, which  doesn’t increase employee #’s or traffic is a key feature for employees and would benefit everyone’s  health and well being. I don’t believe the noise would be a factor during the day but the benefit would  be significant. I do hope this is considered!     Stephanie Martinson  Park blvd.   1 Carnahan, David From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:More Parking, More Housing 111918o Today’s Daily Post carried the sub‐headline: “Less Parking, More Housing.”  This is a clear gift to  developers without real concern for Palo Alto citizens.     Yes, we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto, but YES we need more parking spaces required for  buildings, especially those which have affordable housing.  Why?  Because it is especially true that  those families who can least afford housing require that both spouses work to make ends meet.  This  frequently means two cars.  When their kids grow up and learn to drive, a third car appears.    Ground floor retail space is another important need.  We have seen much retail space converted to  businesses in the past few years.  We need new space that is zoned for “retail only” and priced to  encourage the re‐introduction of small retail shops.    If this discourages developers from building in Palo Alto, so be it.  That would open the way for the  city to develop affordable housing that really meets the community needs.  City government is  supposed to serve ALL the citizens, not just those who want to make a quick profit.    Rich Stiebel  840 Talisman Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303‐4435  1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Almond <rjalmond@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:New measure Please vote against this new addition to our parking and traffic problems.  You are ruining the quality of life  here, and everyone will suffer.    Richard Almond, MD  1520 University Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Opinion pieces and other recommendations may not always be responded to quickly, due to time constraints, but they are appreciated. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jan Holliday <luvlivlaf@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed ordinance on housing...... PLEASE do not approve this hastily drawn proposal.  I implore you to STOP giving concessions to developers and eroding  the very quality of life we all have made great sacrifices to maintain.    Traffic, fewer off street parking places, more demands on City services, and on and on.  I respectfully request you to  consider approving more housing, and less commercial development NOW, before you destroy what quality of life we  have left.    46 year Palo Alto resident , Jan Holliday    Sent from my iPad  2 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:36 AM To:Bill Fitch Cc:Wolfgang Dueregger; Council, City; evergreen-park-discuss@yahoogroups.com; Paul & Karen Machado; Neilson Buchanan; Arthur Keller; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; aileeny07@me.com; Irene Au Subject:Re: [evergreen-park-discuss] proposed housing ordinance Hi, everyone,    In the dogma of density we see reflected continuing growth mania. Two generations ago predecessors of today's  "planners" sold suburbia as part of an "American Dream." Today's planners tout "density" as key to "sustainable" cities.  Both "solutions" ruinous, ill‐informed, and fly in the face of well‐established principles of ecology. In an era of declining  net energy per capita—a result of rising population and falling energy return on energy invested (ERoEI)—we will  increasingly recognize this; however, the investment in buildings, paving, and other urban infrastructure that we put in  place before we do will be an enduring liability, and evidence of a missed opportunity to adapt more successfully to a  changing environment.    Cities are physical entities that we build and operate with energy and work (in the force x distance sense, as well as the  labor sense). Like force and distance, one of which is an intensive factor, and the other of which is an extensive factor,  density and extensiveness are both important. To speak of density without addressing extensiveness is like talking about  work as force without mentioning distance. Were such conversations less insistently maintained by those who buy  "newsprint by the trainload and ink by the barrel," we might more easily discontinue them.    Any spot on Earth's surface can be inhabited by humans, given sufficient energy to access resource and dispose of  waste. Even locations richly endowed with energy and other resources have an optimal level of population, beyond  which marginal real costs of each added inhabitant are greater than those of the prior. Unless incremental people are  condemned to lesser life quality, those already present work harder or live less well once that threshold is reached.    Before acceding to greater density in any part of the Bay Area, one of the nation's and the world's most extensively  dense human settlements, we might better ask, "What and where will we build if our goal is to provide decent life  quality for all people within bounds of Earth's human carrying capacity (the number of us who can inhabit the planet  without degrading environmental qualities on which we rely)?" In terms of life quality "bang" for ecological footprint  "buck" building dense housing in Palo Alto is a miserable investment.    The pejorative "NIMBY" is, like many slogans, a tool for dividing us against each other, that others may exploit us. Each  of us has responsibility for stewarding that part of the Earth where we live, and for doing so in a manner consistent with  well‐being of other people and places. Those decrying NIMBYism too often abdicate both these responsibilities, either in  pursuit of narrow personal gain, or for want of understanding the impossibility of growing our way out of a difficulty  we've created by growth.    Humans have been beyond carrying capacity in some locales for millennia and globally for at least centuries. If we are to  arrest the plunge into collective impoverishment entailed in environmental degradation, and be viewed by those who  follow as something other than fools and knaves, we'll address the question of how to transition in an orderly way to a  smaller population of humans and a reduced stock of artifact, with correspondingly reduced and qualitatively altered  flows of matter and energy. To press forward with growth is folly.     3 What exists in Palo Alto today is "overshoot," population and artifact beyond carrying capacity. To move towards  sustainability we'll characterize our situation as a jobs "longage" rather than a housing shortage. By converting other  uses to residential, we can achieve balance without growth.    Thank you for reading. If you want to continue to explore questions of land use, ecological footprint, sustainability, etc.,  I'll be glad for your partnership.    Loving you,    David              ********** Magic, 1979-2018: thirty-nine years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 **************************************************************************************     On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:45 AM Facehiker <facehiker@gmail.com> wrote:  Wolfgang: I strongly disagree. Time for Palo Altans to stop being NIMBYs. Drop the height limit, encourage housing for  the workers of Stanford and tech companies. build transit.  Bill     On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Wolfgang Dueregger wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu [evergreen‐park‐discuss]  <evergreen‐park‐discuss‐noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:    Dear City Council,    We residents in Evergreen Park strongly oppose any housing ordinance that decreases quality of life  through increased parking inundating already saturated neighborhood streets, higher density, more air  pollution through eve increasing traffic congestion.    You approved already high density projects along El Camino Real. The intersection of El Camino Real  and Page Mill is one of the worst intersections in the whole county.    We told you many times before and I repeat: if you are really serious to provide low income housing,  then provide LOW income housing. LOW income housing is not high density housing where developers  strike it rich at the expense of whole neighborhoods for decades to come.    4 Identify high‐employee‐count employers such as Palantir that swallow lots of space in prime downtown  areas where there would be ENOUGH space to convert those premises for low income housing.   ‐ Again, the question is: how serious are you?    ‐ Were you finally able to produce a list of all employers across Palo Alto which have a headcount of  50+ people? (or whatever that threshold might be)    ‐ What is your definition of a startup company (in terms of # of employees)?    ‐ Did you explore ways to re"settle" those  companies that are above that threshold (in terms of  employees) to some more "industrial" areas like Stanford research park and East of Hwy 101?  The Theranos building has been sitting empty for a while...    Resettling hi‐headcount corporations will free up the necessary space for low income housing.    That way you actually would help those people who are completely priced out of this housing market.    We strongly oppose to jump on the bandwagon dictated by Sacramento politicians to build, build,  build. NOT in our still nice town of Palo Alto.     We urge you to tell the builders to go somewhere else. We have enough air pollution and traffic, both  of which need to be REDUCED ‐ not further increased.    Your consultant's analysis that denser housing gets away will less parking is naive. There is just no way  to enforce such a "theory". When you build a structure with n units and either sell them or rent them  out, you just cannot tell the people who are renting or buying that they are not allowed to have a car  (or 2 or more). Or if you could do that (theoretically), then you would need to apply that same law to  everybody. Will you do that?    We look forward to answers to my questions above ‐ which we already asked times before and never  got answered!    thank you    Wolfgang Dueregger                __._,_.___    Posted by: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>         Join Nextdoor to connect and communicate with neighbors in Evergreen Park and Palo Alto. https://evergreenparkpaloalto.nextdoor.com   6 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Riper <tobin8@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:New City Housing Ordinance Please reject this latest, misleadingly named proposal.   At best it is premature, but more importantly it exacerbates parking problems we already endure and accomplishes little  for housing except reward developers yet again.  1 Carnahan, David From:William Butler <butlerwd@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 7:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool and Masters Team Dear Council:  I am writing as a concerned citizen.     It is deeply disturbing what Tim Sheeper is doing to the Rinconada Masters Team and Program.     As you know, the Rinconada Masters, founded by beloved coach Carol Macpherson, is a long time community that has  used the pool for decades.     With a vague claim in the name of safety, something about not enough life guards on duty during workouts, Mr  Sheepers is making a naked power grab to run his own Masters swim program, so he can make more money from his  management of the pool.     He did not have the decency to speak with Carol about his concerns or provide constructive feedback or work with her  on a solution if the current setup is/was in adequate.     Several of us swimmers are CPR certified, and the pool lies within earshot of the fire station, and while it is under  construction, it normally houses trained paramedics. Furthermore, Mr Sheepers employs plenty of people that are  trained life guards. There has to be a solution that allows the current setup to work.     It all seems like a really bad plot from a movie.     The reality is that we like the Team and  Program as it is. If there is legitimate safety concern, then there should be a  dialogue to solve it, not a unilateral termination of an agreement that has been in place for decades.     Bottom line, I am not happy with the way the pool has been run, Mr Sheeper is not Customer or community oriented  enough.     This is not his pool, it belongs to us citizens and property taxpayers.  He needs to serve us, or stop managing the pool.     Tell him to work out a solution with the Rinconada Masters Team and Program as it is now, and not destroy a  community resource for his own enrichment using his vague concern about safety as a dodge. This is very unbecoming.    Thank you,  William Butler        Sent from my iPhone  2 Carnahan, David From:kemp650@aol.com Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 5:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:LeBlanc, Jazmin; Douglas, Stephanie Subject:Rinconada Pool Contract - I am a Lap Swimmer with Multiple Concerns about the proposed 5-Year Contract with Team Sheeper Dear City Council Members, I am a longtime lap swimmer at Rinconada Pool and a longtime Palo Alto resident. I have been following the City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department transfer of pool management and operations to the Team Sheeper organization and have multiple concerns about the Rec Department’s recommendation to enter into a 5-year contract with Team Sheeper beginning in January 2019. Team Sheeper's current contract with the City will be ending at the end of next month. Team Sheeper was the one and only bidder on the 5-year contract the Parks and Rec Department put out to bid earlier this year. We swimmers were told the contract would be for 3 to 5 years; I'm not sure why it's all-of-a-sudden a 5-year contract. My observation is that Team Sheeper has cultivated a cozy and self-serving relationship with Parks and Rec to the exclusion of other stakeholders (namely, the swimmers) and it is no surprise that Parks and Rec wholeheartedly recommends this 5-year contract renewal with the one and only bidder. Meanwhile, lap swimmers I have talked to and other swimmer groups (masters especially) have little to no trust in Team Sheeper; communications with Team Sheeper management over the past year have been sketchy to non-existent. The pool was closed or late opening multiple times with little to no warning. Other communications about partial pool closings were so confusing that many of us didn't go to the pool, assuming the pool was closed when it wasn't. When the City of Palo Alto ran the pool, one could phone the pool during lap swimming hours and speak to pool staff on-site to confirm whether or not the pool was open; when I tried phoning the pool under Team Sheeper management, no one answered the phone. When I asked a Team Sheeper employee in person whether or not the Team Sheeper front desk personnel at the pool answered the phone during lap swim hours, I was told they didn't because it was ‘usually someone asking about lessons’. That leaves me with option of either skipping my swim or going to the pool in person to see whether or not it was open. In addition, we've heard stories about thefts of personal property (car keys taken out of swimmers' pockets/bags in the locker rooms while they were in the pool swimming and those keys used to get into the swimmer's car and steal personal belongings), but have never heard any words of caution or alerts from Team Sheeper about how to keep belongings safe during our swim (the locker rooms are not monitored because of privacy, making them prime targets for anyone bold enough to walk in and pilfer through people's belongings). The front desk under the Team Sheeper management is not always monitored, so someone can walk in without being noticed while front desk personnel are switching out roles with the life guard on the pool deck, taking a rest room break, etc. Under the old management, access to the pool was through a different gate and access through to the locker rooms was past many swimmers, life guard personnel, etc., so thefts were rarer. Team Sheeper has told the masters swim organizer that their contract will not be renewed as of January 2019; they gave very little notice and handled the contract cancellation very poorly. Masters swimmers who spoke at the October 23 Parks and Recreation meeting praised the program and said it was for 'everyman'. I am not a masters swimmer, but I sympathize with swimmers who want to approach the sport from any age, condition, etc. My impression of Team Sheeper is that they are targeting a more demanding, high performance and probably younger crowd than the current users, and they were happy to find a safety issue that they could exploit in order to eliminate the program and take it over themselves. In the process, trust in both Team Sheeper and Parks and Rec has been downgraded even more than before. As for lap swimming concerns, they are as follows: 1. That Team Sheeper will want to mix and match lap swim and masters swimmers during the same times of the day. When the original contract with Team Sheeper was negotiated, both lap swimmers and masters swimmers attended Parks and Recreation meetings in great numbers and voiced their concerns loudly and clearly, and both groups agreed 3 that they did not want to mix and match: they each want exclusive use at specified times as we've had at the pool for decades. The sample schedule that Team Sheeper included in the presentation to Parks and Rec on October 23 already shows mixing and matching lap and masters swimmers on some of the current masters only days during the week while adding masters swim time slots into the previously lap swim only morning hours on the weekend. The time slots are as short as ½ hour, which is impractical and unlikely to satisfy anyone. Who does that serve except Team Sheeper - more bodies in the water means more money for them. 2. Speaking of more money for Team Sheeper, the materials shared at the October 23 meeting with Parks and Rec also showed a 6.7% increase in fees. At the Snacks with Staff’ meetings that the Parks and Rec held with swimmers on October 16th and October 18th, Jazmin mentioned a price increase that would become effective later on and quoted something like 2%. At the October 23 meeting she mentioned a price increase attributable to operating expenses going up, but did not elaborate. We already pay more now than we did when the City of Palo Alto ran the program. If I am going to be hit with a 6.7% increase, what am I getting for it except a lower quality experience should Team Sheeper execute on the mix and match lap and masters swim hours increase? The increased number of bodies in the pool also means more use of the locker rooms and showers and probably waits for showers during popular morning hours when most swimmers are trying to get showered and off to work. 3. The 5-year contract is extraordinary. There should be as many safeguards as possible to avoid Team Sheeper totally taking over the program and implementing all the profit-maximizing tools they have. Shouldn't there be something like 1-year renewals with certain benchmarks and opportunities for feedback before implementing the next one-year renewal? My understanding is that other City of Palo Alto departments grant 1-year contracts, not blanket 5-year contracts. Also, what happened to the 3-year contract option that was mentioned at the March 6 community meeting? Again, the easier path for Parks and Rec is to recommend the 5-year contract which makes less work for them and helps to further solidify the Team Sheeper hold on the operation since who else would want to bid after 5 years? 4. More on the issue of the positive relationship that Parks and Rec has with Team Sheeper: Jazmin characterized the public feedback at the community outreach forum on March 6th 2018 was positive about Team Sheeper's management of the pool. I attended the meeting and would not characterize it as such. In addition, Parks and Rec stated that future meetings would be held with the community, but those meetings never materialized. The lack of transparency and communication between Team Sheeper, the City and the lap swimmers may be due to Parks and Rec's loss of the lap swimmers email list. I find that suspicious and convenient for them. This explains why many/all of us are in the dark about Team Sheeper's proposal and the steps Parks and Rec have been taking to approve it. Even at the Snacks with Staff meeting that I attended on October 16, I provided my email address yet again and haven't heard a peep despite Jazmin saying that they would follow up with me about my concerns (thefts at the pool and poor/unclear/non-existent communications about pool closures). I am disappointed with the choice our city faces with regard to this 5-year contract with Team Sheeper. They were the only bidder, we not only do not trust Team Sheeper but also now do not trust the Park and Recs Department to accurately represent our issues and concerns. Ultimately, we are worried that our city gem of a community pool will be transformed into a pool more like Burgess pool in Menlo Park, that Team Sheeper also manages - one that is overcrowded and a chaotic and unpleasant experience for lap swimmers – a commercial venue, not a city pool. Thank you for considering my concerns in making your decision on Monday night, November 19th. Sincerely, Susan Kemp 4 Carnahan, David From:alemmenes@juno.com Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 4:01 PM To:Council, City Cc:ParkRec Commission Subject:Rinconada pool Dear City Council and Parks and Rec Commission,     I am a Palo Alto home owner who has been meaning to write this follow up email since the meeting at City Hall on  October 23, 2018.  Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak and to hear your questions concerning the possible  program changes at Rinconada pool. Life has been busy, but we swimmers still feel just as strongly about the usage of  Rinconada pool.     I am a lap swimmer who uses Rinconada pool as one of my only available ways to stay in shape.  I have medical issues  that keep me from some of my former forms of working out, and swimming is fortunately an ideal and effective route  for me.  I am currently still working and I am able to swim at Rinconada before heading off to my work day.  When I get  to the pool, at about 6:20, all 14 lanes are filled, almost always with two swimmers per lane.  I swim for about 30 min.  and during this time the lanes continue to be filled.      When I retire I hope to continue my lap swimming as a way to maintain my health, fitness and sanity.  I am also  considering joining the Masters program run by Carol Macpherson of the Rinconada Masters Swim Club.  We lead very  busy and stressful lives and it is important to have the type of program that fits your needs.  Rinconada Masters, as  currently exists, is providing just what its members want in a Masters program.  This should not be taken away from  them.  Those who want an extrememly competitive program can easily find a group to join in the surrounding area  (Stanford, Burgess, Foothill...) that will suit those desires.     Team Sheeper's refusal to allow Rinconada Masters to continue as it is seems to serve some other purpose than to  satisfy the people who currently use Rinconada for their Masters swimming.  Does Mr. Sheeper have a large, new group  of Masters swimmers clamoring to change the program at Rinconada?  Couldn't these swimmers join the group at  Burgess on a reciprocal basis and leave Rinconada's program alone?     Our lap swim group was alarmed by the fact that Mr. Sheeper is being granted a 5 year contract without making clear  what his plans are for the long term usage of Rinconada Pool.  We have seen a tentative schedule for January 2019.  Is  the city comfortable signing a contract that so limits our vision of the future for this valuable public resource?  Already it  looks as though the Sheeper plan is to crowd out the current Masters program.  Is a severely reduced lap swim program  next?      Crowding PASA or Master swim times into the lap swim times will defeat the purposes of all.  Please maintain Rinconada  pool as a community pool that honors the wishes of those who use it.     Thank you for seriously considering the needs and wants of the community of swimmers at Rinconada pool.  Best regards,  Ann Lemmenes            ____________________________________________________________  1 Carnahan, David From:Judith Schwartz <judith@tothept.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 11:25 AM To:Council, City Cc:acribbs@basoc.org Subject:Masters Program at Rinconada Pool Dear City Council,    I’ve swum with Rinconada Masters since the mid 1980s.  I’ve also swum for several years at a time with Menlo  Masters so I know Carol Macpherson and Tim Sheeper personally and well. I’ve competed for both teams.  I  was the 2011 Menlo Masters Swimmer of the Year and I’ve been Carol’s lane mate for many years. I have  strong loyalty and affection for both teams.     I am currently swimming with Rinc as that team’s more low key approach is serving me better right now. MM  is also a great team with a different, more competitive character and wonderful people (many of whom live in  Palo Alto).     I have tremendous respect for Tim who has been unfairly demonized by people who don’t even know him.  He  is a solid, ethical guy who encourages his swimmers to give back to the community.  Among the initiatives  supported by Menlo Masters under his leadership are a reading literacy program, food drives in Feb., new  shoe drives in the fall,  donated gifts for kids at Christmas, and a foundation, Beyond Barriers, that offers swim  lessons to disadvantaged kids.  He took on the management of Belle Haven pool in Ravenswood even though  it operates at a loss.    Team Sheeper has demonstrated it can do a good job managing an aquatics program with staff with varied  skills who will work part‐time and seasonally.  They have earned the trust of City staff and the Parks and Rec  Commission over several years. I support renewing Team Sheeper’s contract to operate the Rinconada pool  facility.    I also support keeping Rinconada Masters at the pool and would hope a compromise can still be achieved  with the help of a good independent mediator.  As you’ve seen, Rinc swimmers are enthusiastic supporters of  our community group and have loyalty to our coaches. For Carol to lose the Master’s team she co‐founded  would be a huge personal and professional loss.  Former Olympian Terri Baxter Smith is the daughter of the  other co‐founder and provides skillful stroke coaching that I haven’t found at any other team.  Rinconada is a  team with a deep legacy in Palo Alto that continues to provide valuable services, including the Swim for  Fitness programs that prepares people to join a masters team.      An excellent program that retains what’s unique about Rinconada Masters and judiciously adds selected  elements of the Team Sheeper formula and administrative organization, would be a wonderful evolution for  the former, complement to Menlo Masters (and the other area teams) and provide a solution that everyone  could cheer.  The transition could be made seamless for the swimmers and demonstrate local communities  can find common ground when we keep the shared goals in mind.     Thank you.     1 Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 8:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:What’s up at Rinconada Pool?         Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 10:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Extend existing Team Sheeper proposal for one year   Dear City Council Members,    Thank you for hearing all of us who spoke and/or showed up in support of Carol's Master Swim program.      I believe the best solution proposed tonight was:      Please request a one year extension of Team Sheeper's currently existing contact.         Please vote to NOT accept the new RFP bid (next Monday).      ‐ This bid removes Carol as the Master's Coach.      ‐ This bid eliminates the Swim for Fitness program.    The widespread perception among the swimmers is of a lack of transparency.  I attended the Park and Recreation  Commission meeting when the city (Jazmine LeBlanc) presented the proposal.   Each and every commissioner had  something negative to say to her ‐ about the process, the timing, the lack of transparency, and/or the lack of trust.      It's up to the City Council to reject the proposal by Team Sheeper.   Instead, please offer to extend his existing contract  (and subcontracts) for one year.  This allows everyone time to address all concerns and issues.  And keeps the Rinconada  Masters and Swim for Fitness programs intact ‐‐ and the swimmers happy.       Thank you,  Ann Protter    /? 'v z To: Date: Palo Alto City Council November 19, 2018 ICOllN<;IL ~ING 11-19-1 [ ] Plac Before Meeting [ eceived at Meeting Subject: Proposed contract with Team Sheeper for Rinconada Pool management Dear Esteemed Council Members: WHEREAS: the proposed contract with Team Sheeper is flawed in several important respects as follows: The Request for Proposals (RfP) was crafted such that only one potential contractor could respond, namely Team Sheeper. Not all stakeholders were consulted. A public forum was held on March 6, 2018 to hear and discuss views of the community. The Rinconada Masters, a significant stakeholder, were not informed of the forum beforehand, and therefore could not attend. We were informed on October 16, 2018 that the subcontract between Team Sheeper and the Rinconada Masters would not be renewed. As of January 1, 2019 the Rinconada Masters as an organization would no longer have access to the Rinconada Pool facility, which has been our home continuously since 1973. It was recommended at a Parks and Recreation meeting on October 23, 2018 that the proposed contract with Team Sheeper be signed, adopted, and ratified by the City, and that the process had progressed too far to turn back. In fact the process was conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, with very little transparency. The process was highly unsatisfactory, as is the proposed contract. THEREFORE: We the Rinconada Masters respectfully recommend that the proposed contract with Team Sheeper NOT be ratified by the Council. FURTHERMORE: We recommend and request that the existing contract, together with all subcontracts, be extended one year through December 31, 2019. During this period the Rinconada Pool facility would continue to operate as it does today. 1 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 10:28 AM To:Info, Plandiv Cc:Council, City Subject:2105 Birch St. A house adjacent to mine is being torn down and a new house built in it’s place.  I received a notice saying I had two  weeks to review the plans.  When I tried to do so, plans were not on website.  When I called I was told, “Oh. That so and  so is no longer working here.”  What i understand from my neighbor is the plans call for a full basement, as in a  basement that extends for the entire foot print of the house and that will essentially be made into rooms for living in.   There is an underground, seasonal river that runs under 301 Oxford and 263 Oxford. 2105 Birch, as a corner property, is  in a direct line between these two properties.  If I am not mistaken, basements being built where there are underground  rivers makes for all sorts of problems?    Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St., 94306, 321‐7375  1 Carnahan, David From:susan downs <susanrdowns@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 12:13 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:A plea to consider residents in your 5 G actions Dear Sirs:    I am horrified that the Palo Alto government puts its own self interests ahead of the health of its citizens.   This  was evident by the city council allowing Verizon to come in to Palo Alto to endanger the health of its  citizens.  The recent exposure of your Chief Technical Officer and Chief Information Officer's corruption  collaborates Palo Alto's complicity in this crime.    I ask that you     1) to reverse its approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers and   2) to halt the cell tower application review process until there has been a full investigation of Jonathan  Reichental’s actions.  We, the residents of Palo Alto, were not given a level playing field on which to make our  case about neighborhood cell towers.  City Council needs to level the playing field and rehear the case.    We also intend to make each member involved in this decision financially liable for the ensuing damage and  health conditions as it is reprehensible that you aim to make Palo Alto residents ill.  Your actions are no  different from the actions of the tobacco industry decades ago.    To learn more about this, you might want to check out my interview below.   I have many more interviews if  you would like additional information    Disturbed by your actions,    Susan Downs, MD       TROUBLE VIEWING? Click Here to view the Promo card on the web SIGN-UP NOW! SIGN-UP NOW! Click to become a Member for Free!        2 Occupy Health Friday at 11 AM Pacific November 16th 2018:5G Wireless: Depopulation of the Planet Research shows that wireless radiation such as from cell phone can result in brain cancer (Hardell), brain changed in the brain (hippocampus) of the offspring (Kaplan Suleyman). Wi fi disrupts inter-cellular communication, opens the blood brain barrier and the intestinal lining) leading to every disease imaginable. It affects human ovaries and sperm so some predict that human reproduction will stop within a few generations. 5 G and the internet of things takes this one step further with very low frequencies that disrupts many bodily functions. The US military has been researching thi Read more   SHARE       DOWNLOAD PDF     GET CODE   Tune in Friday at 11 AM Pacific Time on VoiceAmerica Health and Wellness Channel LISTEN LIVE   EPISODE ON DEMAND   VIEW HOST PAGE   Questions? Comments? Call In Live! Toll Free: 1-866-472-5792 Intl: 001-480-553-5759     Featured Guest 3 Lena Pu The mother of two teenage children, her past work involved restoring sensitive environmental habitat for the US Army Corps of Engineers. As project manager she worked with all the alphabet agencies for several years and took that experience and training as well as knowledge of environmental toxicology into her new line of work and passion - promoting the health of all life by preserving our natural electromagnetic earth through the use of safe technologies, WIRED tech. She is currently the Environmental Health Consultant for the 'National Association for Children and Safe Technologies' (NACST.org). She is spearheading her own website starting the new year called, FabulousFrequencies.com Read more Share This Episode   Share On Facebook     Share On Twitter Share On LinkedIn Connect with VoiceAmerica Download our mobile apps                   1 Carnahan, David From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Alma street train crossing Dear Council Members, I believe the best train crossing for Alma would be tracks under the road and creek. Alma is one of the main entrances to Palo Alto and we want it to be beautiful and representative of our high class city! This is certainly possible from an engineering standpoint and the additional cost would not be that great considering the overall cost of the train route thru Palo Alto. Thanks, Larry Alton 1 Carnahan, David From:annetteisaacson@comcast.net Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 11:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:an article I hope you will read Dear Member of the City Council, I just read an article about the housing crisis that I hope you will read: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/millennials-home-buying-generation-priced- out/574840/?fbclid=IwAR10-IhZdUQn5saV2ETpy1ln_yO98EGsoRrgMHfaIO7vt4FUU3GiAVAc0uA I live in Midtown on Webster St. When my neighbors first moved in after WWII, these affordable 1200- 1600 square foot, 2 and 3 bedroom homes were perfect for the teachers, firefighters, secretaries, mechanics, and city workers who made Palo Alto such a great place to raise a family. You only needed a single income to buy one of these great houses. When I moved in in 1991, two income families could buy in this lovely neighborhood. My partner was an engineer and I was a public school teacher. We thought the houses were "huge" and so well designed. Now our "huge" houses are being torn down and replaced by truly HUGE, two storey houses that sell for 4-5 million dollars. The latest tear down is going to have a 2400 square foot basement, 2400 square foot first floor and 2000 square foot second floor....all for one family! Who needs this much space? Who will be able to afford this? Who will be able to afford the yearly taxes of over $50,000?...not teachers, plumbers, firefighters, engineers, city workers... If I could have my wish, the city would no longer allow these giant homes to be built in Palo Alto. If someone wants to tear down a perfectly good starter house that could be purchased by a young family and remodeled, they would have to build something that would accommodate more than one family: a duplex or four-plex so people who work in Palo Alto may actually have a chance to live here. We have to get smart about land use and building more affordable housing. We DO NOT NEED more 4 or 5 million dollar mansions, especially when they become "GHOST" Houses and contribute absolutely nothing to the neighborhood besides taxes to the city government. Sincerely, 1 Carnahan, David From:Amie Neff <amie.neff@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 2:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Boulware Park Homeless/Car Dwellers Good Afternoon Council,   I've been working with homeless populations in shelters for over 2 decades, so easily noticed a couple of car dwellers  near Bouleware park. I'm not fearful of the homeless, and so being friendly isn't hard. They aren't at the park regularly,  but, when i'm passing by, and they're around I'm likely to say hi. I've left blankets on cold nights, and brought food on  other occasions. These are pretty nice guys, and I've never felt anything hostile from them. They keep the space tidy,  and stay out of the park proper.   A few years ago I noticed they had started growing some vegetables in the unoccupied lot adjacent to the AT&T  building. Being a Master Gardener, I was excited. I brought them seeds, and fertilizer, and some tools I had duplicates of.  There is a long history in the USA of community gardening being a panacea to poverty, starting with the Potato Patches  in the 1890's to Victory Gardens established during both WWI and WWII. There is an enormous urban garden movement  in cities like Detroit and and Milwaukee that have made important inroads in not only addressing hunger, but also, self‐ sufficiency, community pride, and care. California's own Insight Garden Program introduces incarcerated inmates to the  mental health benefits of gardening and have seen demonstrable reductions in recidivism for men who have  participated in their program. I see no downsides to gardening on an unused lot.     I saw the guys last week, and noticed there was no longer a garden. I brought them a big bag of my own vegetables and  asked them what was up with the garden. They told me they had stopped planting when AT&T started spraying Round‐ Up on their crops. What a heartbreak. I don't think there is a magic bullet to homelessness, but we could try, as a  community, to not make it worse.     I'd love to see that lot be allocated as a community garden for the homeless and car dwellers. I'm pretty sure I could  make a case for the Master Gardener's of Santa Clara county to provide education. I know a few other community  members like me, would also donate time and materials to seeing that happen.      At the very least, let the guys do this for themselves; it is an empowerment we deny our most needy citizens, and yet,  we also hate handouts.      Thanks for your time.       ‐‐   Amie Neff  M.Arch, LEED® AP  ‐‐  cell: 650/ 396/ 9146  amie.neff@gmail.com  www.capabledesign.com  Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Friday, November 16, 2018 12:21 PM Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Council, City Bus traffic and parking in DTN This guy just moves half a block when asked to return to commercial parking area. Not isolated circumstance for DTN. Please find a remedy 12:19pm today. Corner PA Ave and Emerson now 2       3       Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:41 PM To:De Geus, Robert Cc:Council, City; 'Chris Logan'; Carrasco, Tony; 'Dave Shen'; 'Greg Brail'; 'Inyoung Cho'; 'Megan Kanne'; 'Kari Hodgson'; 'Mandar Borkar'; 'Parag Patkar'; 'Patricia Lau'; 'Nadia Naik' Subject:Concern and frustration about lack of effective communications Rob,    At the most recent City Council Rail Committee meeting, the third of three handouts was a June 28, 2017 letter from  then mayor Scharff to Francisco Castillo, Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad.  I was surprised to read the  following:    “The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a two percent  grade.” [my italics] The maximum grade has been a central point of both Rail Committee and CAP meeting discussions,  because of the impact on construction costs as well as feasibility of certain alternatives.  To the best of my knowledge,  no one on staff ever stated that the elected officials or staff already understood this point.  When several speakers,  including me, made this point at various meetings, there was no staff response in the spirit of, “We already understand  this point, and are prepared to raise it with Caltrain and/or UPRR.”    I find it surprising and a bit frustrating that CAP members and members of the general public (speaking at Rail  Committee meetings) aren’t aware of the full history of this key issue.  With full awareness of the history, CAP members  can be more effective as intermediaries between project staff and residents of our respective neighborhoods.    The online search “Union Pacific RR shortline RFP process” yields a link  http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/pdf/UP+Agreement+FAQs.pdf, a March 1, 2017 Caltrain / UP  Agreement.  The FAQ contains this question and answer:    However, the link in the answer is no longer valid.    Thus we have no way to know if and how the UP responded to Mayor Scharff’s letter, yet an understanding of their  response, if any, might have a vital bearing on current discussions of this issue.  Is there any way for staff to provide CAP  members, or the general public, with copies of the relevant documents?    The other key issue involving UP is vertical clearance above top of rail.  Has there been any correspondence with UP on  this issue?    I would like to point out that electric multiple‐unit trains can easily climb a grade of well over 2%.  I am personally  familiar with grades on the New York City Transit System, which also uses electric MU trains.  You can read here that  there are several locations on this system with grades over 4%.  https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/39935‐what‐ is‐the‐steepest‐grade‐that‐subway‐cars‐can‐handle/    Respectfully,    Phil Burton  1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 3:43 PM To:Council, City Cc:Bobel, Phil Subject:Conditions ripe for wildfire in Palo Alto Hills Please read this interesting article on the danger of wildfires in our hills.... thank you "Even more concerning, the vegetation or "fuel" moisture in the past week was only 5-7 percent — exceedingly dry — according to NOAA." In today's PA Online: Conditions in Palo Alto area hills are ripe for wildfire Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 1 Carnahan, David From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 2:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Council Rail Committee Meeting Hello,  The Wednesday Rail Committee was cut short because  of an emergency and everyone exited the building. Will this  meeting be continued at a later date.  Thank you,  Gary Lindgren                      Gary Lindgren  585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 10:14 AM To:Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez Subject:Experts Call to End Fluoridation Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Fluoridealert.org <info@fluoridealert.org> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018, 6:14:57 AM PST Subject: Experts in Science and Health Join Call to End Fluoridation IN BRIEF  * New Professionals Statement asks health professionals to Sign this statement  to end water fluoridation worldwide (See signers below)  * OR ask your doctor, dentist, nurse, health/environmental educator to sign  * Latest studies detail fluoride damage in the womb lowers IQs  * See fluoridealert.org for accurate articles about fluoride which is  a neurotoxin, never tested by FDA and now in Federal Court for safety.    A few days ago the Fluoride Action Network* sent out a request to professionals in any medical, scientific, legal, educational, environmental or other field, to sign a "New Professionals' Statement" calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide--see the list of signers to the new statement.   This "New Professionals' Statement" has been triggered by the publication of very important and disturbing U.S. Government-funded studies (Bashash et al, 2017 and 2018). These studies have added very strong additional evidence to the large number of existing studies that show that fluoride is 2 neurotoxic. They underline that the critical period of exposure to fluoride is in the womb and that at levels of fluoride exposure currently experienced by pregnant women in fluoridated communities there is a strong correlation with the lowering of IQ and ADHD symptoms in their offspring.  Sadly, and possibly because the imposed dental practice of water fluoridation is so entrenched in the psyche of the medical, dental and public health establishments in fluoridated countries, neither governments not the mainstream media are warning the public about this large - and growing - body of scientific research.   Thus, we are appealing to professionals to sign this statement. We hope by circulating this it will help us get this information out to more professionals, the public (especially pregnant women), the media and decision-makers in fluoridated countries, and eventually halt this unnecessary and reckless practice being imposed on our children.  Please note, we are inviting all professionals to sign this new statement regardless of whether they signed the original 2007 statement or not. For the moment we will be treating this as a standalone statement, but so that we don’t lose the weight of nearly 5000 signers to the previous statement we will find some way of combining the totals of unique signers in the future.  If you are a professional and wish to add your name you can do it online HERE. Please provide your name, highest degrees, occupation town/state/country and email address. If you feel inclined please add a short statement of your own.   If you are not a professional this effort gives you an excellent opportunity to approach your doctor, dentist and other professionals in medical and environmental fields with this shocking new information that fluoridation maybe damaging the brains of future generations. If you have a university in your town you may wish to approach professors teaching in any scientific field. All the key information you and they need for this can be obtained from our revolving mastheads on our home page FluorideALERT.org .  SIGN & SHARE THE STATEMENT TODAY  Thank you for all you are doing to end this reckless and unnecessary practice.  Paul Connett, PhD,   3 Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network  and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)  *FAN (www.FluorideAlert.org ), is a not-for-profit organization formed in 2000 by public health advocates and scientists from approximately 20 countries in an effort to educate citizens and decision-makers about the dangers of ingesting fluoride with the mission to end the practice of water fluoridation and other unnecessary exposure to this toxic substance.  See all FAN bulletins online        1 Carnahan, David From:Tim Owens <tvowens@outlook.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 8:46 AM To:Council, City; Tim Owens Subject:Fw: Your e-mail to City Council was received   Hello,     I sent an email on October 25, 2018. Your reply (below) states specifically,     "If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or  else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification."    I am still waiting. Thank you.   From: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:18 AM  To: Tim Owens  Subject: Your e‐mail to City Council was received      Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council Members  and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call 329‐2571  to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or  else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.     We appreciate hearing from you.  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 1:35 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Doug Vagim; drliu@uscmc.com; robert.andersen; beachrides; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; paul.caprioglio; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Chris Field; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; info@superide1.com; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; kclark; newsdesk; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; leager; Mark Standriff; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor; nick yovino; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; scott.mozier; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; terry Subject:Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C-130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:16 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:53 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 3:02 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:27 AM  Subject: Re: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    2   On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:09 AM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:52 AM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:42 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:27 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:18 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:07 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Monday, Nov. 19, 2018                 To all‐  Now a few vids that I think are very informative. Short statement by me on each as to why I include  them:                  Here is a very good vid made on Tues. Nov. 13, 2018 showing how the DC‐10 tanker and the Global  Supertanker 747 are refilled at McClellan to fight the "Camp fire" that leveled Paradise, Ca.:  I am urging that we buy  and convert 50 747s as tankers. The DC‐10 can hold 9,000 gal. of retardant and the 747 can hold 19,000 gals.  This vid  was made on Nov. 13 and the Camp fire started at 6:30 AM on Thurs. Nov. 8, KCBS said:                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE  3              Now something really disturbing. The Dept. of HHS has issued a health warning re the danger of breathing all of  the smoke that Californians are forced to breath with these fires.  Notice that it says that "the smoke can present a  significant threat for people  with asthma and other lung conditions".   End of paragraph 3.  IMPORTANT:  THAT IS  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TALKING, AND IT SHOULD BE RIGHT.  IT IS NOT RIGHT. THE SMOKE CAN ALSO CAUSE  CARDIAC PROBLEMS, and the warning does not mention that! . SOME 21 YEAR OLD DIDN'T WRITE THIS. IT IS  SUPPOSED TO BE RIGHT. THIS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TALKING. PRESUMABLY THE SECRETARY WROTE IT  HIMSELF OR CAREFULLY REVIEWED IT AFTER CONSULTING WITH BIG GUN MEDICAL AUTHORITIES. I WILL PROVIDE  NEXT A DISCUSSION BY DR. JON LAPOOK ON THE CBS WEEKEND NEWS LAST NIGHT IN WHICH HE SAYS THE SMOKE  CAN ALSO CAUSE TROUBLE FOR PEOPLE PRE‐EXISTING CARDIAC AND LUNG CONDITIONS. PRES. TRUMP SHOULD  CHEW OUT THE SECT. OF HHS IN PUBLIC FOR ISSUING THIS MISLEADING WARNING WHICH DISCUSSES ONLY ASTHMA  AND OTHER LUNG CONDITIONS.  IT WOULD NOT BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE THE SECRETARY  FOR THIS.       https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/11/13/hhs‐secretary‐azar‐declares‐public‐health‐emergency‐in‐california‐ due‐to‐wildfires.html                Now Dr. Jon Lapook on the CBS Weekend News on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2018 discussing the health effects of  breathing wild fire smoke:   Note that he says that breathing wild fire smoke can cause trouble for those with pre‐ existing lung and CARDIAC conditions.                          https://www.cbsnews.com/video/californias‐air‐now‐the‐dirtiest‐in‐the‐world/                                         Here is a Bay Area pulmonologist discussing the dangers of breathing smoke. He mentions immune system,  heart, lung and  neurological problems:                           https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california‐wildfires‐health‐concerns‐over‐poor‐air‐quality/                                          Here is PBS  The Science behind California's surging wild fires:   The documentary on mega‐fires coming in  2019 will be interesting. This is excellent:                         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btrqWvaSZck                        Here is President Trump et. al. on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2018 discussing the Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise,  Ca. All Californians are grateful for his visit. We need federal help to deal with these fires.                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2SxrmiuN0U                      Here is Governor Brown on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Nov. 18, 2018 discussing the California fires: He says  that the economic impact of them will be in the tens of billions. I think it could be much worse than that if it continues. I  believe that the economy of the Central Valley and even that of California could collapse as the better‐educated flee out  of here to protect their health:                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFrRQQlV8ZA                        The aggressive suppression of wild fires started early in the 20 c. to support timber interests, this says.  The  solution now is to do thinning and to apply prescribed burns. Homeowners in the fire zones will oppose these because it  changes the view and they won't like the smoke from the prescribed burns. In the "surging wild fires" video above, one  person comments that to thin the trees and to clean up the dead wood on millions of acres of forested land in the  4 western U.S. will be an enormous job. It will be expensive, but it will have to be done. In the meantime, since it will take  a long time to do, we should procure those 50 747 tankers, I think.  For sure we start to discourage homes being built in  the wildland‐urban interface too, the WUI, it is called. More people living near the woods seems to provoke more fires  in the woods.                    So for President Trump to argue that these enormous, unrelenting wild fires every few weeks can be addressed  by just better forest management is ridiculous. It will be a start, but this problem of fuel build‐up took a century to  develop. The Sierra has 129 million dead trees, easy to spot since they are orange instead of green. I hope that Pres.  Trump had some of those pointed out to him during his visit to the Camp Fire on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2018. A four or five  year drought in California killed those trees, along with a Bark Beetle infestation. And the drought is thought by some  scientists to have been provoked by a shift in the jet stream caused by warming in the Arctic.                So a sequence:  A century of very aggressive forest fire suppression resulting in a huge build up of fuel, a five year  drought that killed 129 million trees in the Sierra, and more elsewhere in other parts of California, dry conditions, low  humidity, warmer temperatures, more people living in the WUI, and the result is the mega fires we are now getting  every few weeks in California. If the warmer, drier, less humid conditions, and even multi‐year droughts, persist and  intensify, we will have our hands full trying to thin the trees and clear the under‐growth on millions of acres of forest in  the West. As we attempt to do that, we need things like 50 747 super tankers to address the immediate problem of  these unrelenting wild fires. And we can't have the Department of HHS issuing misleading, incomplete warnings  regarding the health impact of breathing wild fire smoke. We need full disclosure on that from all medical authorities.  CBS News did a real service by having Dr. Joh Lapook give a more complete warning about that on Saturday, Nov. 17,  2018.                    I noticed that as President Trump, Gov. Brown, Gov.‐elect Newsom talked at the Camp Fire site on Saturday, no  one seemed to remind him that 13 months ago, the wine country in Mendocino, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Lake  counties was ravaged by an enormous series of wild fires that destroyed thousands of homes and businesses. This is  now an annual event in California!, like the Rose parade.                    In around 2003 there was a huge fire in southern California that destroyed 3,000 homes, including in Malibu.                   In the fall of 1991, the East Bay hills fire destroyed 3,000 homes and killed 25 people.                      L. William Harding                  Fresno, Ca.                                         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 4:34 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack  <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, <diffenbaugh@stanford.edu>, Doug Vagim <dougvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian  <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark  Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>,  scott.mozier <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>,  robert.andersen <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Leodies Buchanan  <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>,  city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, Steven  Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, <francis.collins@nih.gov>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>,  huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, hennessy  5 <hennessy@stanford.edu>, <info@superide1.com>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, jerry ruopoli  <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>,  kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, Tom Lang <tlang@aquariusaquarium.org>,  <nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, <pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com>, popoff  <popoff@pbworld.com>, <russ@topperjewelers.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>, Jason Tarvin <jasontarvin@gmail.com>, Mark Waldrep <mwaldrep@aixmediagroup.com>,  <yicui@stanford.edu>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:43 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM  Subject: Re: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                    Saturday, Nov. 17, 2018                   To all‐  Now we have ~77 dead in the "Camp Fire" in Paradise, Ca. and over a thousand missing. Most of them  are probably dead too.                   The other day the U.S. Secretary of the Interior visited the site of the fire and said "this is unsustainable". I  have merely said that the health impacts of these relentless fires in California will cause the economy of California,  and certainly that of the Central Valley of Calif., to collapse. As all of the people with the big‐gun educations leave to  protect their health, the economy will collapse.                     Today at 9:45 AM PT, AF1 landed in northern Calif. bearing Trump. He and Gov. Brown and Gov. elect  Newsom then boarded Marine 1 to view the destruction caused by the Camp Fire. So reported KCBS SF this  morning.  It is the largest and deadliest wildfire in Calif. history.                      KCBS also says this morning that the U.S Department of Health and Human Services has declared a medical  emergency in that part of Calif. or maybe beyond too. Why was not made clear. There have been outbreaks of  norovirus in shelters in recent days in that area. Whether the declaration relates to the norovirus or to the horrific  health effects breathing wildfire smoke, mixed with asbestos, heavy metals, plastics, etc. when structures burn, was  not clear. (It is now. It was to warn about the health effects, some of them anyway, of breathing wild fire smoke‐ LH).  If there is a shred of decency, honesty and competence in the Department, they will declare such an emergency  throughout most of California due to the effects on the population from breathing wild fire smoke for weeks on end.  And they will include and warn about the cardiac effects.                 On Thursday evening, Nov. 15, 2018, Channel 30 news in Fresno reported that the AQI here was 152 and that  an Air Quality Warning was in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.   AND AND that burning was prohibited only in Merced  and Kings Counties in the Central Valley of California. The weather man went through this news very quickly, just  6 glossed over it, so that many would not notice it. "There's no burning in Merced and Kings Counties", he said quickly.  Like that is not big news!! Can you believe what you are reading? The air is just thick with wildfire smoke, and people  in most counties here are still allowed to burn their fireplaces. ARE ALLOWED to! The AGs of California and the U.S.  should charge the people running the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Control Board with felonies for this. There is  something severely wrong at the SJVAQCB if they are allowing fireplace burning in the midst of this crisis!  By Sunday  night, Nov. 18, 2018, no burning was allowed in Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties.                Yesterday, Friday, Nov. 16, 2018, I drove from Fresno to San Mateo and then down to the Stanford Shopping  Center and to the Stanford Movie Theatre in Palo Alto. I have never before seen what I saw on that drive. Out across  the Central Valley on Hwy 152,  from Hwy 99 west to Gilroy, a distance of 83 miles, the sky was a deep grey or black  beyond the one or two miles one could see. A thick black blanket was all one could see beyond that distance. KCBS is  saying the AQI in the Bay Area was 150 yesterday, and 215 in Livermore. At the Stanford Shopping Center, on Stanford  land, many people were wearing masks last night.                  Before he left Washington, D.C. this morning to come to California, Trump said into the mics that the cause of  all these horrific wildfires in California is poor forest management. KCBS said in response this morning that half of the  forests in California are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, a quarter are managed by the State of California, and a  quarter are in private hands.                    It is true that for decades the management of Calif's forests has been criticized by experts. Too much fuel is  allowed to grow and the fires are huge as a result. Before the 20th C. probably, fires were allowed to burn themselves  out. In recent decades, until the 4 or 5 year drought in California, and the drier, warmer conditions, lower humidity,  drier undergrowth and drier trees caused by climate change, we would jump on small fires and put them out, and that  allowed the fuel to build up. Those fires were manageable then because the trees were green, wet and alive and the  air was more humid. BUT what Mr. Trump is ignoring is that a four‐year drought in Calif. starting ~2013, killed 129  million trees just in the Sierra. The Bark beetle killed many too. AND climate change has produced drier trees and  undergrowth and lower humidity, and warmer temperatures, making big fires more likely. Combine those factors with  all of the fuel build‐up, and you get the enormous fires that we are getting now. All of this is told to Trump by his  experts and he ignores all of that. Either his experts are incompetent, or he is a liar. I think sometimes that he enjoys  angering the American people.                  I call again on the Calif. Department of Public Health, the Governor of California, the CDC, NIH, federal and  state EPAs, the U.S. Surgeon General, and HHS to issue warnings of the drastic impact on human health of  breathing  wild fire smoke for months on end, as millions of Californians are now doing. Sens. Feinstein and Harris should hold  hearings and cause the federal agencies to own up to these health impacts and then make that information public.  The people have a right to know when their health is being seriously damaged by the air they breath and our  government agencies are lying about this. When this information is disclosed, the economy of California will collapse,  and so they are lying about it. Trump is now a menace to the people of California with his tap‐dance about bad forest  management practices. His lying about this will not save the economy of California from collapse.                What to do instead of all the lying? I renew my call for the State and/or federal governments to buy and  convert 50 747s to tankers to fight wild fires in the west. At $100 million each to buy and convert, 50 of them would  cost $5 billion. That could be taken from the corrupt, obscene defense budget of Trump of $716 billion. If the States  have to pay for them,  if Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico shared the cost,  it would be manageable. I leave out Arizona, Nevada and Utah because I don't think they have vast areas of forest.  Maybe they do have. The bone‐yards are full of old 747s and airlines around the world want to get rid of the ones they  are still flying. A 747 tanker can carry 19,000 gal. of retardant and Cal Fire has access to exactly one of them at this  point.                        Here is an informative article re where the boneyards are for the 747s and what airlines are still flying them  around the world:    7                  http://www.traveller.com.au/aircraft‐boneyard‐where‐will‐all‐the‐old‐boeing‐747‐jumbo‐jets‐go‐h0eyc3                     Add a fleet of small planes patrolling constantly with infra‐red detectors to spot fires when they are small.                       Also, place in our forests smoke detectors, wind , temp. and humidity detectors, and cameras and GPS with  satellite transmitters, and we could get a handle on these fires when they are small. Silicon Valley could design and  produce a device with all of that easily.                  L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                                           From Doug Vagim in Fresno to me:    On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:28 PM Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com> wrote:  Also, there's the military C5A, the second largest cargo plane in the world. The largest I believe was built by the  Soviets, (Russia still using) that can carry, I think, the country of Lithuania or something...    There's boneyards all over the Southwest with the C5A military transport's waiting for possible reuse and eventual  dismantling. The ability of carrying another 14,000 pounds over the 747 can go far to get to that last little burn area,  but again you're on the right track.     The ability to convert these airframes into firefighting airtanker's, that are just sitting there rotting in the Bone Yard  waiting for the acetylene torch, why not reuse them in between them getting to that point in their life.    D        Also from Mr. Vagim:      On Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 2:37 PM Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com> wrote:  Yes, driving east from Bakersfield through Mohave you can see a few airplane storage yards with 747 parked all over  the place. Probably a few dozen just begging to be reused for some purpose. I think the state or feds could pickup  one or more on the cheap...    D    On Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 2:18 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:           Mon. Nov.12, 2018              Doug‐ Thanks for this. They have thrown the heavyweight 747 into the fight. Hope my prodding had  something to do with it. Now imagine if they had 50 of them.                 If they do buy and convert 50, they'll have to lengthen runways, build hangars for them, at several places in  Calif. and the other states. Maybe have one big maintenance facility. Pre‐position vast amounts of retardant‐ it's  probably a powder‐ wherever the planes will be flying from. I don't see how any fire could stand up to 35 dumps  per day at 19,000 gal. each of retardant for too many days. True enough, smoke can limit their ops since they go in  low. Maybe a flight every 30 minutes on a fire since the wash from a big plane can cause a following plane to crash,  as happened in Queens shortly after 911.                   LH    8 On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:02 AM Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com> wrote:    World's largest air tanker joins fight...    On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 2:47 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:10 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Saturday, Nov. 10, 2018                   To all‐                 I sent the email below on Sun., Sept. 9, 2018, some two months ago when California had several huge  wildfires burning. I re‐iterate every word I wrote then. Now, Saturday, Nov. 10, 2018, California is burning again.  Still not one word from Governor Brown, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Sen. Kamala Harris, Cal Fire management, the  California Dept. of Public Health, the California EPA, the U.S. EPA, CDC, NIH, the U.S. Surgeon General or HHS  about the serious health impact of breathing wildfire smoke for months on end. These  individuals and agencies  have access to that information, and they are keeping it quiet. They should be sued for that and charged  criminally for it. Our government has failed. Maybe we need a new government.                 On Thursday, Nov. 7, 2018, mighty KCBS in San Francisco, AM 740, was reporting in the late morning a  large, 10,000 acre wildfire near the town of Paradise, Ca., near Chico Ca. in northern Calif. I watched the noon  news here in Fresno that day on Ch. 47, the CBS affiliate here. They did not mention this fire. I then called the  news room at Ch. 47 and told the man who answered about the fire and suggested that Ch. 47 News listen to  KCBS in San Francisco to hear the news. By 7 PM, Ch. 47 was reporting the fire. Now, two days later, that "Camp  Fire" in Paradise, Calif. in Butte Co. has virtually leveled the entire town of Paradise, Ca. Seven people have died  in the fire there so far and it has reached 140 square miles. 6,400 structures have been destroyed. It is already  called the most destructive wild fire in California history. Had Ch. 47 in Fresno reported the fire on Thursday on  their noon news, viewers in the Central Valley who had relatives and friends in Paradise might have called them  and warned them to get out.                 Also today, huge wild fires are burning in Ventura Co. and Los Angeles Co., Calif. Thousand Oaks and  Malibu have had a quarter of a million residents evacuate. Two are dead from the fires there, KCBS reported at  11:10 AM this morning. The "Camp Fire" in N. Calif. is putting smoke into the Bay Area, and, I can attest by  looking out of my window in Fresno, into the Central Valley.                 Because of dry conditions and offshore winds, there is a "red flag warning" in the North Bay Area and East  Bay Area hills until tomorrow night, and in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Spare the Air restrictions are in effect in  the Bay Area too. KCBS reported on Thursday that smoke from the Camp Fire could be seen in the Bay Area, 150  miles away. Now, residents in the Bay Area are breathing it.                  A spokesman for Cal Fire said today that fire crews from all over northern California will be fighting the  fire in Butte Co. for weeks. What if we had 50 747 tankers dropping 19,000 gallons of retardant on these fires  with each pass? The fires would not take anything like weeks to put out. I have heard not ONE comment from Cal  Fire or any other agency, state or federal, in response for my call to buy and convert 50 747s to tanker duty, and  to do the other things I suggest in my email below. Mum is the word! The top people at Cal Fire should all be  9 fired. They are incompetent, or worse. They prefer to fight these fires with thousands of men with shovels for  weeks on end, and with aircraft a lot smaller than a 747.                 Trump is in Paris this weekend. His new "defense" budget is $716 billion. $5 billion would probably buy  and convert 50 more 747s for tanker duty. They could be available in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho,  Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. These planes can move around at nearly 600 mph. But Trump  won't lift a finger to address this dire situation. He's taking a "Let 'em hang" approach to the California wild fires,  as are California's two U.S. Senators and Governor Brown. As are California's representatives in the House. As are  members of the California legislature. They're all too busy out shopping, I guess, to concern themselves with the  health of the people they represent.                  I predict that the economy of the Central Valley of California, if not that of the entire state, will collapse  due to these unrelenting wild fires. Breathing wild fire smoke is dangerous to one's health. The smoke goes from  the lungs into the bloodstream, and, via that, to the brain, heart, liver, pancreas, etc. Your lungs are not just two  bags of air in your chest. They are vascularized. The blood pumped through them exchanges gases there, CO2 for  O2,most prominantly.  Nobody with a big‐gun education who can make money anywhere is going to stay here  and expose themselves to this. If all of the physicians, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, dentists, professors,  management people pull out of here, who will want to live here? Who would locate a business here? Property  values will plunge. When the banks and grocery stores all leave, Fresno will be the Detroit of the West.                   Cal Fire says that we no longer have a "fire season" in California. The danger is now year‐round. And, it is  said, if you own a home in California, you are now living in a fire zone. When the cost of fire insurance becomes  prohibitive, I guess you are finished as a California home‐owner.                  The people of California should put pressure on their electeds to address the unrelenting wild fires we  now have every few weeks. Those 50 747 tankers, a fleet of small planes looking for fires with IR, smoke  detectors in the forests, maybe even fire lookout stations again, might be a good place to start. What we have  now is a complete break down of government in California.                  L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                                                   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 4:00 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David  Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim  <dvagim@gmail.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, city.council  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio  <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mark Standriff  <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, scott.mozier <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, <mmt4@pge.com>, kfsndesk  <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Joel Stiner  <jastiner@gmail.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Leodies Buchanan  <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,  huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, <info@superide1.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>,  Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, robert.andersen  <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>,  10 <diffenbaugh@stanford.edu>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, popoff  <popoff@pbworld.com>, <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, <blackstone@blastfitness.com>, Steven  Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, <pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com>, <francis.collins@nih.gov>,  <parsons@brandman.edu>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, <russ@topperjewelers.com>, Raymond  Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, <shanhui.fan@stanford.edu>, steve.brandau  <steve.brandau@fresno.gov>, Tom Lang <tlang@aquariusaquarium.org>, Jason Tarvin  <jasontarvin@gmail.com>, Mark Waldrep <mwaldrep@aixmediagroup.com>, <yicui@stanford.edu>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:29 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:08 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM  1 Carnahan, David From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:08 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Price@padailypost.com; editor@paweekly.com; Victoria.Nguyen@nbcuni.com; jawatts@kpix.cbs.com Cc:Jeanne Fleming Subject:Fwd: Cell Towers Update: Corruption at City Hall Dear All:  We are concerned about the information provided in the following email and would like it to be brought to a clear and  unambiguous resolution, so we would know that the decisions made by our City Council are untainted.    Sincerely,  Leo Povolotsky  Palo Alto resident for 27years,   HOA Board Member for 7years      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   Subject: Cell Towers Update: Corruption at City Hall  Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:04:27 ‐0800  From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  To: JFLEMING@METRICUS.NET  CC: 'Jyotsna Nimkar' <jnimkar@gmail.com>, jerry.fan@gmail.com       Dear Neighbors,  As we believe you know, the telecommunications industry has been paying for Jonathan Reichental, Palo Alto’s Chief Technical Officer and Chief Information Officer, to take expensive junkets all over the world. Meanwhile, he has been using his executive position at City Hall to influence the City’s dealings with the telecommunications industry. This includes shaping the City’s response to the applications telecom companies have made to install cell towers in our residential neighborhoods.   Jeanne has now filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission reporting Dr. Reichental’s unethical and unlawful behavior. Her complaint is the subject of a story in the Mercury News, which you can read here (it may not appear in print until tomorrow):   https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/15/complaint-accuses-palo-altos-top-tech-official-of-taking- 28-junkets-paid-by-firms-linked-to-city-business/  2   While we know this is a busy time of year for everyone, we hope you can spare a few moments to do three things:    1. Add a comment expressing your views to the comments on the Mercury News story.     Doing so will signal to the paper that this is a story of interest to their readers—a story worthy of a follow-up or two. Adding a comment will also send a signal to City Hall, where we know the story is being monitored, that Jonathan Reichental’s misconduct is an issue residents care about.    2. Email City Council (City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org), copying the City Clerk (City.Clerk@cityofpaloalto.org) and the Architectural Review Board (arb@cityofpaloalto.org), and ask Council 1) to reverse its approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers and 2) to halt the cell tower application review process until there has been a full investigation of Jonathan Reichental’s actions. We, the residents of Palo Alto, were not given a level playing field on which to make our case about neighborhood cell towers. City Council needs to level the playing field and rehear the case.    3. Email the editor of the Daily Post (Price@padailypost.com), the editor of the Palo Alto Weekly (editor@paweekly.com), Vicky Nguyen of NBC Bay Area (Victoria.Nguyen@nbcuni.com) and Julie Watts of KPIX (jawatts@kpix.cbs.com) and ask them to please cover this important story of corruption at City Hall. A one sentence email to each of them would be fine.    As always, thank you for your on-going support and consideration.  Jeanne, Jyo & Jerry  For United Neighbors       1 Carnahan, David From:Monica Yeung Arima <myarima@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 11:57 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr; Ray &amp Anneke Dempsey Subject:Fwd: Someone has commented on Traffic congestion or traffic safety concern #5093558 FYI.     Best regards,    Monica Yeung Arima  Yarkin Realty (LIC 01185969)  650 888-4116 (Cell)  650 215-9914 (Home Office eFax) Website: http://www.myarima.com    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Monica Yeung Arima <myarima@gmail.com>  Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:52 PM  Subject: Re: Someone has commented on Traffic congestion or traffic safety concern #5093558  To: Michael Flexer <michael.flexer@gmail.com>    Hi Michael, Thanks! It would be helpful if you also submit your comments to the city manager and city council as well. People live at the corner know how many accidents we have there. The amount of accidents there were so much that it is uncalled for not doing anything, but since there is no reports created by the police department because either it was not reported or they don't issue a police report. It almost feel like there's an accident once every week. I do not care if it is a stop sign or a 2 roundabout. Something need to be done before someone get hurt badly. In addition to my car accident with a biker years ago, we have a Stanford student drove into our "parked" minivan on the sidewalk. Our van of 15 years was total and so does her zip car. Her hand was hurt probably by her cell phone. I believe this one was on record because the police need to break into her car in order to quiet the alarm. Our minivan was bought when my son was in preschool, not used very much. It was mainly used as a vehicle to bus students on field trips if anyone of you remembered that. When the accident happened, our minivan was only 60,000+ miles even it was a 15 years old minivan. Please give evidence to the city as of the frequency of accidents at Bryant and Lincoln, so they realize the significance of the issues.     Best regards,    Monica Yeung Arima  Yarkin Realty (LIC 01185969)  650 888-4116 (Cell)  650 215-9914 (Home Office eFax) Website: http://www.myarima.com    On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:33 PM Michael Flexer <michael.flexer@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi Monica,    Given the number of accidents and danger posed, I think a stop sign at our corner is needed.      Thanks for doing this.    3 Michael    On Nov 16, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Monica Yeung Arima <myarima@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi All, I live on 1052 Bryant Street, right at the corner of Bryant and Lincoln. The one with many roses around. I am writing this as a frustration of years of complaints to the city of Palo Alto. I need your help. I used PaloAlto311 (See attached email item #) often to report these issues. I physically went to public works department and I called into different departments multiple times. But it seems like it is not going any where. The issues are as follows:  Want to install a street cleaning sign for street cleaning in Professorville. Before the RPP program was installed, our streets only got cleaned 3-5 times a year with manual labor nailed the "DO NOT PARK' street cleaning signs there. It is labor intensive to put the signs up on the trees and the streets were only cleaned a few times a year. The rest of the time, the streets were always parked with cars, so it can never be cleaned. As a results, the streets were always piled with leaves because the machine have no access to the curb. If there is big rain, some time the leaves would block the storm drain entrance. As a famous Historic District and an expensive area, one will think that the city would take better care of the environment. I was told when the street sign was up for the RPP program, "they" will install the street cleaning signs. But after the RPP program was up for 3 years and the street cleaning signs were still not up after a number of times of complaints. One comment that I got back was that "they" are short in budget. The last comments that I received was that the police department was 4 short staff, so even if the street cleaning signs are up, there will be no one to reinforce the rules. This totally doesn't make sense to me. As of now, the 2 hr parking signs was there, meter man have to ticket whoever is in violation of the 2 hr parking zone. Why would it costs more money to regulate the street cleaning violations? I need your help on this issue. I want street cleaning signs attached on the existing RPP posts in Professorville.   Want to install a round about (like the one on Addition and Bryant Street) to slow down traffic on Bryant Street. Bryant and Lincoln is a very busy intersection. It is also all the internet, telephone wiring, utilities main junction area. Street is always under construction. Residents use Bryant street as bike lane to go to and from downtown. Bryant street do not have a stop sign. Bikers or cars run very fast on Bryant Street after they stop at Embarcadero Road. Parents used Lincoln Avenue to send their children to and from schools, Paly and Addison. I work off at home, so I observed many accidents on this intersection both with bikers or cars over the last 25+ years. I, myself, have an accident there in front of my house a number of years ago. The bikers ran into my car in high speed and got bounced off the street. He refused to be sent to hospital, so even when police were there, no report was issued. Many accidents happened, even if police show up, no reports were issued since there was no injuries. So it is hard to collect statistic for you. The link that PaloAlto311 sent me does not speak correctly on how the traffic on this street is. According to the city's schedule, the improvement (mainly the repaving of the street) is supposed to be done by October 2018, but, yet the corner is still having yellow ribbons at the corner since a few months ago. The repaving is completed but the corner was left unfinished. See pictures. I request to have a round about to be installed here before too many people got hurt. It is a health and safety issue. Please consider this instead of giving me too many run around.  As I understand that there was plan to install a roundabout by the end of Bryant Street off Palo Alto Avenue. I think the roundabout will be better used at Bryant Street and Lincoln Avenue. As for the 5 argument on some of my responses in PaloAlto311 that bike lane is inappropriate for roundabout. He should have studied the street before he made that comment because the Addison and Bryant Street roundabout existed a number of years already and is working perfectly fine.     Looking forward for your response.  <image1.jpeg><image2.jpeg> Best regards,    Monica Yeung Arima  Yarkin Realty (LIC 01185969)  650 888-4116 (Cell)  650 215-9914 (Home Office eFax) Website: http://www.myarima.com    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Palo Alto <noreply@publicstuff.com>  Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:15 AM  Subject: Someone has commented on Traffic congestion or traffic safety concern #5093558  To: <myarima@gmail.com>    Palo Alto   NEW COMMENT Hi Monica Yeung, PLN5854 posted a comment on Traffic congestion or traffic safety concern Request #5093558, a request you commented on. 6 COMMENT Shahla Yazdy: Hello. Bryant Street is considered a Bicycle Blvd and therefore no additional stop signs will not be placed on Bryant. The sight lines are clear and there are signs that clearly indicate that "Cross traffic does not stop". In regards to other improvements on Bryant Street - The City of Palo Alto will not be moving forward with any traffic calming treatments on Bryant St at this time. A full update on the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Phase 1 Project was provided to City Council in the July 30 meeting staff report, which can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58017.61&BlobID=66090 Nov 14, 2018, 8:15 AM PST by Shahla Yazdy (This is visible to Everyone) https://iframe.publicstuff.com/#?client_id=406&request_id=5093558 Please do not reply directly to this email. Thanks! Palo Alto EMAIL PREFERENCES | UNSUBSCRIBE   Carnahan, David From:Tracy Mallory <tracylists1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:grade separation of rail crossings As one of many residents commenting on the project, I’d like to ask if the project evaluation criteria ever included loss of  property value with the various options, and also ask again why the reversed hybrid option has been dismissed?  If an above gade‐level option for the train of any kind is selected the increase in noise, especially at night and the visual  blight (especially during the day;‐) will obviously have a dramatic effect on the value of properties on either side of the  tracks, with greater reductions closer to the rail line.  It should not be hard to get some “real” estimates, but the following is more likely to be low than high.  Conservatively:    1 mile of significanlty impacted housing, call it 50 lot lengths along the route, but could be twice this    5 lots deep on each side seriously affected ‐ lose 10% property value    10 lots further on each sidely moderately affected ‐ lose 5% property value    10 lots further mildly affected ‐ lose 2.5% property value  On east side average property value is ?? 2.5M  On west side average property value is ?? 2M  ((250 * 2M) + (250 * 2.5M)) * 0.1 +  ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.05 +  ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.025  = $281,250  It’s pretty clear why a lot of residents are very upset about the direct cost to them of a cheap solution. It is not  acceptable to compare this to existing raised track solutions farther north. Once you get to Redwood city there are  relatively few houses along the route, but south Palo Alto is all single‐family housing.  I’m surprised that the “other” hybrid option of raising the roads an lowering the rail line has been dismissed. I would be  very distressed by  having my house taken as a result of eminent domain needs, but losing ten houses, perhaps paying  the owners twice what they are worth, would be much, much cheaper than impacting thousands of homeowners for the  rest of their lives and dividing the south end of the city permanently with visual as well as a physical wall. We don’t need  massive structures of the magnitude of San Antonio Road. Although fairly wide, the roadway could have quite a low load  limit, requiring trucks to use San Antonio or Oregon as today. Sink the train 15 feet(not 30) which would put it 17 feet  below where it is today(it’s above grade now) and raise the road 10 feet and everyone except for a few well‐ compensated home‐owners will be much happier than with any of the current plans.  Sincerely,  Tracy Mallory  650‐279‐0037  PS: Here’s the math:  >>> expr \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 5 \/ 100 \) \+ \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 25 \/ 1000 \) \+ \( \( \( 250 \* 2000000 \) + \( 250 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 10 \/ 100 \) 281250000 1 Carnahan, David From:Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 3:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Hearing minutes from March 27, 2017 To the Palo Alto City Council, I am sorry to take your time again. Thank you for allowing me one more correspondence here on the issue of what is taking place at the 670 Los Trancos development facing Arastradero Open Space Preserve. Today another Palo Alto resident who spoke out at the March 2017 hearing against the development just sent me a copy of the minutes to that meeting, accessed in this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58436 The concern about what is taking place today on this site is twofold: 1. Is the present construction at the base of the hill, and highly visible to the park, in line with what you approved on March 27, 2017 ? Nowhere can I find in the minutes an indication that construction would be performed at the base of the hill. 2. The construction work is not at all screened from park view, as was promised at the hearing. The minutes substantiate a lot of conversation about screening the project from public view, about planting slow-growing oaks (or quicker oaks), and trying to visually minimize the project overall, as seen from Arastradero Open Space preserve. One photo is repeated for you below (sent to you earlier this week), to highlight the discrepancy between what is taking place up there today, vs what was agreed to by the owner, and voted for, at the 2017 hearing. A few specific comments for you here, from your minutes of March 27, 2017: Page 35: Graham Owen, Associate Planner said the guest house would not be visible from Arastradero Preserve. If this is not the guest house, what please is being built at the bottom of the slope today ? Thank you for clarifying this, and its legality. page 36: Mr. Owen also pointed out that the main home would be built directly under the top of the knoll. We see this in the artist’s rendition of the house, screened by oak trees, shown in the SJ Mercury link sent to you earlier this week. So, why is the entire hillside covered with plastic ? Page 39: Paul McClean, architect: “The first Open Space Development Criteria is development should not be visually intrusive. We look at that as gospel.” Has this gospel not already been broken, just over a year into construction ? Please kindly refer to the photo below. Page 39: Guy Gecht (owner): stated that his project is visible from only 2% of the park’s trails.  My comment: Please know that when hiking up Meadowlark Trail, or up any incline, a hiker looks upwards and ahead to the sky and the peak….. that is the view, the goal, and the endpoint of any uphill hike. Whatever the footage on the path, the top view is worth a lot more than “2%." 2 Page 46: As public speaker Winter Dellenbach succinctly put it: “The homeowner walked into this with eyes open….it’s called open space zoning for a reason. It’s about space…” Page 41: Public speakers Claire Landowski and John Krueger: their entire presentation merits re-reading. It is an eloquent appeal to preserve precious open space that offers a sanctuary and respite from urban life, and provides healthy outdoor exercise. The point of revisiting their words is not to prolong an argument that was closed on March 27, but to question what is going on up there today, and is this blight on our park being monitored by the city ? Page 42: Landowski & Krueger: “There is virtually no support for this development outside a handful of immediate neighbors. What would it say about the City of Palo Alto if the Council refuses to uphold its own Municipal Codes against the will of its constituents ?......” “…….this is dangerous precedent you are setting…..” For all the words of praise for the attractive house design, seen in the minutes on various pages, by the architects and a few immediate neighbors, where is the ‘exquisite sensitivity’ today, for hikers and other people using the park now ? Mr. Gecht is documented to have complained to Council Member Tanaka, apparently on March 26 2017, that the photos depicting his story poles were taken using telephoto. But the visual impact to the live onsite viewer is actually much worse. Telephoto views simply render a flat photo, seen offsite, a closer impression to the real view seen by hikers, and are not meant to mislead. The visual impact on the park today is real, and it is ugly. During the hearing, Council Member Kou rightly tried to press the issue of screening plantings, and of plantings that could grow fast enough, or be planted soon enough, to partially hide the project during construction. She was also concerned about deciduous trees not hiding the buildings in winter. Today during construction absolutely nothing screens the plastic hillside, the machinery or fencing surrounding this project. Page 58: Council Member DuBois: “I have some concerns about the mass. I really appreciate your commitments to screen it as fast as possible. Is the pre-planting now part of the condition of approval ?” Page 59 Mr. Gecht: “We agree.” Vice Mayor Kniss: “That’s fine, good idea.” Page 64: INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER……. “in addition to the required tree planting, the Applicant shall plant prior to the commencement of construction, fast growing vegetation and trees to further obscure the home during construction……” So a final question to the City Council today please is, who is overseeing this project to be in compliance with all that was promised on March 27, 2017, and all that was agreed to, both in terms of the location of construction itself, and in terms of the visual blight taking place that enjoys no form of screening whatsoever ? Thank you for your patience to read through this. Although the project was approved long ago, you have a lot of unhappy people trying to enjoy that park today, who are not seeing what they thought was promised, even though they were defeated in the main goal of blocking the project. And a last suggestion / plea: if page 35 of the 3/27/17 minutes is understood correctly, that only 5 of the 10 Hewlett Tract subdivision sites have been developed, cannot the city of Palo Alto please save the other 5 (or 4) that are remaining, and put these on the ballot to buy and preserve as open space ? I am not sure if preserving the remaining plots would help or positively affect our public parks (am not sure of their location or their visibility from the two parks up there), but it is very certain that 670 Los Trancos 3 should never have been approved for development, especially since the only viable building space was on the hill directly in view of a beloved and popular open space park. That plot wasn't viable for construction to begin with, especially for an estate home of almost 10,000 square feet. The wildlife corridor has been impacted, too. Deer are still up there, but fewer than a few years ago are walking through the park now. Arastradero Open Space Preserve has been a wildlife jewel, now somewhat diminished. Sincerely, Kim Atkinson and fellow hikers who have seen this correspondence Construction is near a hiking trail summit panoramic view point of the whole Bay Area, accessed by an offshoot of the Meadowlark Trail, with a picnic table. This is what we see near there now, instead of an open vista towards the Santa Cruz mountains: 1 Carnahan, David From:J. Shi <jian1@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:57 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Price@padailypost.com; editor@paweekly.com; Victoria.Nguyen@nbcuni.com; jawatts@kpix.cbs.com Cc:Jian Shi Subject:I am against to set Verizon Cell Tower at our Palo Alto Neighborhoods. Hi, We are very angry to set Verizon Cell Tower at our Palo Alto Neighborhoods. IT is very bad for our children and other people health. Please: 1) To reverse its approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers and 2) To halt the cell tower application review process until there has been a full investigation of Jonathan Reichental’s actions. We, the residents of Palo Alto, were not given a level playing field on which to make our case about neighborhood cell towers. City Council needs to level the playing field and rehear the case. Thanks and Regards. Jian J. Shi 4010 Villa Vista, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650251-9570 1 Carnahan, David From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 9:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Jonathan Reichental's Actions In light of the recent article in the San Jose Mercury about Jonathan Reichental, I urge you to reverse the City Council's approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers and 2) to halt the cell tower application review process until there has been a full investigation of Mr. Reichental’s actions. We, the residents of Palo Alto, were not given a level playing field on which to make our case about neighborhood cell towers. City Council needs to level the playing field and rehear the case. 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 8:45 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Let's revisit the cell phone towers decision by City Council The uncovering of the "gifts" from the telecommunication industry to Jonathan Reichental puts the decision process of the city council regarding the installation of cell phone towers in our residential neighborhoods in an unfavorable light. Let's revisit this issue!! Mary Thomas 1 Carnahan, David From:James Taylor <jamet1234@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail options in Palo Alto Hi    A quick bit of feedback from someone currently living in Greenmeadow who grew up in England living near electrified  trains (at grade in one case, elevated on an embankment in the other case ‐ both within 2 house widths, one MUCH  more frequent than caltrain dreams of).    It seems to me that the only realistic option is to run the trains at grade level and close Charleston, Churchill and  Meadow. The track could be raised a little to allow a pedestrian / cycle path such as the one at N. California to pass  under (allowing the majority of Gunn, Paly and Fletcher students to make the crossing). San  Antonio/Oregon/University/Embarcadero are surely enough crossings for what is, at the end of the day, a small city.  Once they were closed traffic would sort itself out and the city could then invest in improving the new hotspots created.   All the other options are either prohibitively expensive (tunnels), thoroughly unpleasant for those living nearby (viaduct)  or just utterly impractical given the water table (trench and probably tunnel too).    As a city we need and should want a regular electric rail service. This means the at‐grade crossings have to go. Closing  them is the only option as no matter what people say, they won't be will be willing to pay the taxes necessary for  anything else.    I appreciate you listening to the local population but you should be realistic about what can be done. And a tunnel is too  expense, the trench seems unlikely and the viaduct will never make it past the voters.    Thanks for listening  James    1 Carnahan, David From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 10:55 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Regarding Verizon’s Cell Tower applications Hi ‐    I believe the application process was done unfairly due to Jonathan Reichental influenced recommendations as our  neighborhood opinions and voice were not ‘heard’.     Jonathan Reichental, Palo Alto’s Chief Technical Officer and Chief Information Officer for Palo Alto has likely been  influenced by the telecom industry to advance the city’s response favorably with regard to installing cell towers in our  residential neighborhoods. I point you to this article that points out his potential unethical and unlawful behavior here:     https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/15/complaint‐accuses‐palo‐altos‐top‐tech‐official‐of‐taking‐28‐junkets‐paid‐ by‐firms‐linked‐to‐city‐business/    As a resident of Palo Alto and seeing this as an issue I am requesting the City Council reverse its approval of the  Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers. Additionally I am asking the Council to halt the cell tower application review  process until there has been a full investigation of Jonathan Reichental’s actions. Please rehear the case for application!   Thank you for your consideration on this important matter, ‐Phil Coulson  1 Carnahan, David From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 12:12 PM To:Council, City Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Request to reverse City Council's approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers Dear All, I am writing this email to request the Palo Alto City Council to 1) Reverse the approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers and 2) Halt the cell tower application review process until there has been a full investigation of Jonathan Reichental’s actions. Thanks, Amrutha 1 Carnahan, David From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 4:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Reverse the approval of the Verizon Cluster 1 cell towers Dear City Council,    In light of the recent allegations against Jonathan Reichental, please reverse your approval of the Vinculums/Verizon  Cluster 1 cell towers and halt the review process of any further cell towers in Palo Alto. If Mr. Reichental is in cahoots  with the telecommunications industry, the citizens of Palo Alto did not get a fair shake when fighting and appealing the  Verizon cell node issue. This is a serious matter and our city of Palo Alto employees must behave ethically.    Thank you,    Francesca Kautz      1 Carnahan, David From:tahira14@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Subject:STOP signs To: City Council of Palo Alto    This is in regard to the Bryant Street and Everett Street crossing. Due to not having 4 way STOP signs, this crossing has  become very hazardous. There have been numerous near disasters and accidents as well. Today it happened again  where there was a near collision. Please install STOP signs on Bryant Street at the Everett Street crossing. It is the most  inexpensive way to avoid accidents. I have written emails, have expressed my concern at a City Council meeting on  traffic recently, but have had no response. Kindly examine other streets in this downtown area where there are no 4  way STOP signs and where they must be installed. What is the City Council waiting for?  Someone to get killed?  Our City  Council elected members must take serious note of this and take action or else they do not deserve our vote.     Hoping for a response soon. Thank you.     Sincerely  Tahira Piracha.       Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Monk <susankmonk@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:10 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Minor, Beth Subject:Thank you Dear Council Members and fellow Commissioners,      I am writing to inform you that I have begun the process of relocating my household to Southern California, and by the  end of this month that process will be complete. As a result, I will not be able to attend the December meeting and I  want to make sure each of you know just how much I have enjoyed participating on the Planning Commission.      I want to especially thank you all for giving me the opportunity to offer the perspective of renters on this important and  influential commission. I have been a renter throughout my residency in Palo Alto, and like many of the members of our  community who rent, our perspective and voice should be represented. I encourage Council to consider the importance  of a diversity of voices in filling my seat on the PTC, and to strongly consider candidates who rent as well as own.       I am proud of our work updating our zoning codes to address the housing crisis, while keeping Palo Alto one of the most  desirable places to live in the country. The Comprehensive Plan, the Affordable Housing Overlay, the ADU Ordinance,  and many other projects will hopefully improve the livability and affordability of Palo Alto.    In the two years I have served on the Commission, I have been continually impressed with the compassion and  dedication you each bring to the work of serving the community. I am very proud to have served alongside my fellow  Commissioners and wish all of you the very best.     Sincerely,  Sue          Susan Monk, JD   619.804.4141     susankmonk@gmail.com      Let's Connect!  The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. http://linkedin.com/in/susankmonk  1 Carnahan, David From:Amie Neff <amie.neff@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:15 PM To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; Adrian Fine; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Train Committee Meeting Feedback Nov 14 Hi All,     I'm sorry we were forced to an early conclusion, I was looking forward to hearing more about the passenger tunnel,  freight above option. I have 2 thoughts to share:    1) Given the constraints currently making the City Wide Tunnel and even shallow trench options difficult (drainage,  subsurface right‐of‐way claims, maintenance, costs, venting, train recovery, etc.), we may be at a better advantage if we  can eliminate the freight and put Cal‐Train below grade. I am in favor of investigating this option. While it doesn't  eliminate the tracks running through the city, it does give us an opportunity to decouple the issue of freight  from our  city‐wide response to increased Cal‐Train frequency and ridership, and this is smart.   I would like to Echo Nadia Niak's request that AECom remain impartial in presenting each option with an equal amount  of enthusiasm and skepticism. It is not in our best interest to follow the desires of our consultant. That I am now  painfully aware of the 1st choice of our consultants makes this process feel like lip‐service.     2)  Eddie briefly mentioned her team was looking at relocating the viaduct to the shoefly location, but declined to go  into further detail. It seemed as if Lydia Kou, another speaking member of the community (whose name I forget) and  myself all had the impression that pushing the viaduct into the shoefly, might mean that Alma street, (when the viaduct  was completed) would be bifurcated by the viaduct overhead. This isn't a bad idea. If we could push the viaduct over far  enough into our current existing traffic lane, then we would stack transportation vertically, instead of taking up valuable  land required to put the train adjacent to Alma.   The viaduct doesn't demand the same width as an at‐grade train, and the space below is freed up for alternate uses.  Putting a park beneath isn't realistic, but putting cars beneath? Why not? Shifting the viaduct away from people's back  yards is a nice idea. Plus, you'll be able to leave the train in place during the bulk of construction. Of course, the train will  have to shift back to the original track, and Alma will have to be adjusted to accommodate that shift, but if you did it  away from the existing crossings, near, for example,  Bruce Bauer lumber on the South end, and near El Dorado on the  North end, you could avoid impacting any roadway crossings. The bike lane could then roughly link San Antonio Station  with the new development at Fry's. Here are a couple of imperfect images to sample:      2         I'd love to see details on AECom's suggestion, and investigate how far over we could push the train viaduct into Alma.     Thanks All.  ‐‐   Amie Neff  M.Arch, LEED® AP  ‐‐  cell: 650/ 396/ 9146  amie.neff@gmail.com  www.capabledesign.com  1 Carnahan, David From:Nahid Waleh <nwaleh@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 7:30 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Dear City Council:  Please reverse the approval of the Verizon/Vinculums Cluster 1 cell towers and halt the cell tower application review process until there has been a full investigation of Jonathan Reichental’s actions. We, the residents of Palo Alto, were not given a level playing field on which to make our case about neighborhood cell towers. City Council needs to level the playing field and rehear the case.  Respectfully,  Nahid Waleh  2344 Emerson Street  Date February 15, 2018 March 15, 2018 April 19, 2018 May 17, 2018 June 21, 2018 July 19, 2018 August 16, 2018 September 20, 2018 October 18, 2018 t-Vtl u~~._, G~ ~,~~NG City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule November 2018 1 [ ] Placed Before Meeting -· .r A ....... • -- Item -~ -'i:IL •v• g • Library collaboration with PAUSD to issue students Library Cards • 2018 Council Priorities • Agenda planning for 2018 • Review of Recent City Council/PAUSD Board Meetings • 2018 Summer Programs (City) • Planned bike and pedestrian improvements to Churchill Ave -City Chief Transportation Official • Discussion of Agenda Topics for April and May • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • Update Coordinated North Ventura Area Plan • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Safe Routes to School -Rosie Mesterhazy, MPH, LCI #5255. Safe Routes to School Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division Department of Planning+ Community Environment • Cubberley Master Plan Update • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Summary of Contracts and Support Services provided between City and PAUSD • Future Meetings and Agendas Cancelled due to Council and PAUSD Holiday Break • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Cubberley Master Plan -Introduce Bobbie Hill from Concordia (Consultant) • Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review Recent City Council I PAUSD Board Meetings: • City and District Staff Comments and Announcements • Previously Item 4 -CANCELED and MOVED TO 10/18 -Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent with the City Manager • Stanford General Use Plan Update • Coordination Between City and PAUSD on Capital Improvements • Cubberley Master Plan Update • Future Meetings and Agendas • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent with the City Manager • Cubberley Master Plan (specific topics to be added) • Future Meetings and Agenda's 1 - ~·.,. .... _:-.:~· ~' November 15, 2018 City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule November 2018 • Review Recent City Council I PAUSD Board Meetings 0 CITY: Public Safety Building, Referral to Identify $4 Million in General Fund Savings, Study Session with Senator Hill, Study Session on Traffic 0 PAUSD: Update on California Voters Rights Act, 2019 Calendar • City and District Staff Comments and Announcements • Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP) • Cubberley Master Plan Update • School Resource Officer Agreement Update • Future Meetings and Agendas December -Date TBD • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Cubberley Master Plan (specific topics to be added) • Future Meetings and Agenda's To be Scheduled and/or Potential Items for discussion with tent. dates: - • Cubberley Master Plan (Month/Standing • Traffic School Team (May 2019 Josh Mello) item Kristen O'Kane) • Teacher housing -thoughts and potential • Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent collaboration (TBD) w/City Manager (Sept Jim Keene and Don • Stanford -PAUSD/City-Coordination and Austin) shared interests (TBD) • Consideration of a joint Town Hall with • Ways for City and District to work together BOE and City Council (TBD -purpose and more effectively to accomplish shared structure needs to be defined Rob de goals (Aug-Nov Kristen O'Kane) Geus) o Shared use of facilities • Invest in May Fete Parade (Dec Kristen o Cost of services O'Kane) • Middle School Athletics (Nov. Kristen • Reaffirming Palo Alto's Commitment to a O'Kane) Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and • Emergency Preparedness (Dec. Ken Protective Community and prepared Dauber) recommendations to support and extend • Teacher & staff housing (TBD) the Council resolution (Oct Minka van der • Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (Nov Zwaag) Jonathan Lait) • Stanford General Use Plan (GUP) -(Aug and Sept Jonathan La it) • City Internships for PAUSD students that align with City's existing job shadow day (TBD Kristen O'Kane) • State Mandates that impact PAUSD and City (As relevant mandates are identified) • Grade Separation (Oct Rob de Geus) 2 ' RETURN ADDRESS: I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... ~s~h&.,, ~ ~ ~ ~·/lS nf)vi .. p Cit .n""~ c0-. op-AWl 1 ~ ~5 c}"1 ~ it'(l,i,,ltJ1 . ·FM·1 l.. co :z c::> < N C> n'~ ---. --!-< -< n o r ..,, ~~ :xr :r:a u;o ::x o :X::-..,, !:j ..,,0 Office of the Clerk w ~(-, Please distribute to all cfv" Council~mbers 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 1., .11"11 h •• 11111.11 .. 1. l •'I· lll,1111.111 •• 111111.111• 111111.1 n£? Q) --; :z: ~-< ~ nO ,...,, ~ ~~ Off. :::c;r-1ce of the Clerk :c-uio Please distribute to all Q! Co~~embers • 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7~or Palo Alto, CA, 943~ n 0 ,,,l> Independent Campuses Characteristics: Mostly independent campuses with their own court- yards; linear park connects Middlefield Road to the fields; two points of entry and drop-off area along Middlefield, parking under the fields; lowest build- ings (mostly 2 story) and largest building footprint; buildings near the street edge. QRRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ~NDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION ............. ............................................................................ ...... .. GROGRAM DISTRIBUTION GALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE QEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR GEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE COMMENTS 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® r;; r;(J fA OVERALL RANK \S (among the three concepts) Shared Village Characteristics: Shared courtyard areas between community center and school uses; single point of entry/exit with two drop-off loops; all long-term parking in a parking garage; mostly 3 story buildings for compact footprint away from the street edge, for more green space along Middlefield; buildings oriented on E/W axis to maximize energy efficiency and daylighting. ('ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ~NDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................... GROGRAM DISTRIBUTION GALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE GaNG A GOOD NEIGHBOR GrnESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE COMMENTS 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©©® 0®©0® 0®©0® r;;r G(J fA OVERALL RANK \,& (among the three concepts) Buildin • 1n Characteristics: Single structure surrounded by green space; single point of entry with one drop-off area; all long-term parking in a central parking garage with green roof, around which buildings wrap and connect; most compact footprint, greatest green space; 4 story building with cascading tiers of balconies; light wells and/or atriums employed to provide daylighting to inner areas. ('ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ~DSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION ..................................... ......... . ........................ ········ ~··· ······- GROGRAM DISTRIBUTION GALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE GEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR GEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE COMMENTS 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0® 0®©0© 0®©0® QJ fA OVERALL RANK \S (among the three concepts) Co