Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181224plCC 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: 12/24/2018 Document dates: 12/05/2018 – 12/12/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL JAMES KEENE, CITY MANAGER DECEMBER 10, 2018 4 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 4 -Authorize the City Manager to Enter Into the Following Agreements for the City's Fair Value Commuting Project {Partially Funded Through a Federal Transit Administration Grant): 1) an Agreement With RideAmigos in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $150,620 for a Term of 15 Months, and 2) an Agreement With the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association {SPUR) in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $100,000 for a Term of 15 Months The contract with Right Click Solutions (also known as RideAmigos) has been updated to include two additional exhibits: (1) the City's Information Privacy Policy and (2) the City's Software as a Service Security and Privacy Terms and Conditions. The inclusion of these terms as signed exhibits in contracts is a standard procedure for the City of Palo Alto. These policies help to ensure the security of personal information and city information, as well as ensure the overall security of the City's networks. Except for the addition stated above, the contract contains no other changes. Neither the scope of work nor the contract dollar amount have changed. The updated contract is attached. The contract with SPUR has not changed. ~~ Michelle P~e Fl'erty Deputy City Manager 1 of 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D7B-ABA2D5CB8181 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C19173099 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND RIGHT CLICK SOLUTIONS, INC. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 26th day of November, 2018, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and RIGHT CLICK SOLUTIONS, INC, a CALIFORNIA CORPORATION located at 230 PACIFIC STREET, SUITE 202, SANTA MONICA, CA 90405, Telephone Number: 516-864- 3189 ("CONTRACTOR"). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the "Services") described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A. D Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.) Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY's Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 5. 2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: IZ] "A" -Scope of Services IZ] "B" -Schedule of Performance IZJ "C" -Schedule of Fees IZ] "D" -Insurance Requirements IZ] "E" -"Amended and Restated Agreement for Services of Independent Contractor" agreement between the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and Contractor, executed August 15, 2016. IZ] "F" -FTA REQUIREMENTS IZ] "G" -Saas Security and Privacy Terms & Conditions IZ] "H" -Information Privacy Policy City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 1 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D7B-ABA2D5CB8181 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from November 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Rand W of the General Terms and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: r r The total maximum lump sum compensation of OR dollars($ ); The sum of dollars ($ per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR C8J A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of one hundred and four thousand dollars ($104,000). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. C8J r CITY has set aside the sum of forty-six thousand three hundred fifty dollars ($46,350) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 2 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-907B-ABA2D5CB8181 Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. r CONTRACTOR'S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR r CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR's compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR "9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS". For purposes of this Section 7, a "9204 Public Works Project" means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. Public Contract Code Section 9204 mandates certain claims procedures for Public Works Projects, which are set forth in "Appendix _Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects". r This project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Appendix __J attached hereto and incorporated herein. OR [gl This project is not a 9204 Public Works Project. 8. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Hillary Rupert, Dept.: CMO, Telephone: 650-776-9208. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 3 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D7B-ABA2D5CB8181 Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to include its in-kind services as part of the regular monthly invoices. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 8 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled "SERVICES," and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR's representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtain~ prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR's business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 4 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D7B-ABA2D5CB8181 G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR's work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best's Key Rating of A-:Vll or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY's Risk Manager. The Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 5 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuS!gn Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D7B-ABA2D5CB8181 separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR's liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. 0. HOLD HARMLESS. Each Party shall indemnify and hold harmless to the fullest extent permitted by law the other Party and each of their respective affiliates, owners, lenders, directors, officers, investors, members, managers, employees, attorneys, agents, contractors, sublicensees, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and assigns from and against any and all damages, liabilities, costs, expenses, claims, and/or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements that any of them may suffer form or incur and that may directly or indirectly arise and/or result from either Party's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary contained herein or in any other writing, CONTRACTOR's aggregate indemnification obligations shall be capped at the Aggregate Liability Amount (defined below.) P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving sixty (GO) days' prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination is for City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 6 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D78-ABA2D5CB8181 cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR's failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY. T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. U. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. W. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 7 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D7B-ABA2D5CB8181 X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Z. PREVAILING WAGES ~ This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONTRACTOR is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the Agreement is not a public works contract, if Agreement does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the Agreement does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, 'improvement') project of more than $15,000. OR 0 Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et ~ and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Agreement for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR"). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division's office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. AA.DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 8 Rev. March 29, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: 495665AC-6012-4126-9D78-ABA2D5CB8181 CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.l(a), which reads: "A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the Agreement is awarded." CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that CONTRACTOR is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONTRACTOR is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY's request. D [For state-and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 9 Rev. March 29, 2018 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 5:01 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Portillo, Rumi Subject:12/10 Council Agenda Questions for Item 7       Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to  inquiries made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the December 10, 2018 council  meeting agenda.     Item 7: Adoption of MOA for UMPAPA – CM Tanaka       Item 7: Adoption of MOA for UMPAPA    Q. 1.  12% is a very large amount for a salary increase for 48 employees. How was  this amount decided on? Is this really the best the city could negotiate?      A. 1.   As described in the staff report, this is the first general wage increase for  these  employees  since  2013.   This  compensation  adjustment  reflects  a  negotiated agreement, balancing workforce attraction and retention issues as  developed in consultation with the City Council.       Thank you,  Judy Ng          Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2105  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org    1 Carnahan, David From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 3:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Alison Cormack Subject:12% pay raise Dear City Council Members,    I understand that at tomorrow’s City Council meeting, there is a proposal to increase base pay by 12% for all supervisors  and managers of the utility department.  This seems excessive and unwarranted.  If there are specific critical individuals  who are deemed a flight risk, then perhaps some targeted approach to retain those individuals could be considered.  But  an across‐the‐board increase of this magnitude does NOT seem responsible.    Please be fiscal stewards of our city’s finances and remove this from consent calendar.    Respectfully,  Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  2 Carnahan, David From:Susan Phillips Moskowitz <susan@mrsmoskowitz.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:They don’t need a 12% raise The Stanford university staff receive a 3‐5% raise.  Please don’t approve 12%.    Susan Phillips‐Moskowitz   1941 Tasso st., Palo Alto  3 Carnahan, David From:Graham Dresden <gdresden@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 7:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:UMPAPA Dear City Council,    Thank you very much for doing the right thing with Mr. Keene's compensation. I know that sometimes the right answer  is hard politically; however, you will sleep better at night if you continue to follow the same rules.    It has come to my attention that the city staff has reached a Memorandum of Agreement with UMPAPA (Utilities  Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto). Again, I am shocked that the agreement contains a 12% base  salary increase for all members of UMPAPA (with a total cost to the city: $1.14 million). I know that the standard percent  increase the City gives to its employees every year is 3.1%.    Also, so you know, I work in the health care field and have not had a raise in the last ten years (in fact, I have had my pay cut each year by approximately 1‐1.5%).    Please reconsider this agreement. Spending money that we don't have doesn't make any sense.    Thank you very much for listening to your constituents    Graham Dresden  4 Carnahan, David From:William Xuan <william.y.xuan@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 9:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:UMPAPA The UMPAPA issue is a hold up and we are forking over our money. This is 1 million dollars we are forking over for no  reason, except that they asked for it. Unless they have got something to show for that, besides a ransom demand, we  should stand our ground. Vote for rationality and vote against UMPAPA.  William  4049 Middlefield Rd.  5 Carnahan, David From:stephen wang <stephen_wang2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 9:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pay raise concerns Dear city council members,    As a Palo Alto resident, I am alarmed that the city staff reached a Memorandum of Agreement with UMPAPA for a 12%  base salary increase for all members of UMPAPA.    This 12% salary increase is 4x the typical pay increase for city workers.     Before this is fully passed, I believe the council should publicly explain the reasons for such a high increase in pay.       Regards,    Stephen L. Wang  Palo Alto resident          Sent from my iPhone  6 Carnahan, David From:Donna Sheridan <d@dsheridan.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 10:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Isn't this a bit much? Importance:High Dear City Council Members,  I just read this.  Is it accurate?  Why would we not just do COLA as others do?    I think we need our City Council members to be fiscally responsible and help balance our budget, not overkill on raises.  Thanks  Donna Sheridan    At tomorrow’s City Council meeting, there is a proposal to increase base pay by 12% for all 48 supervisors and managers  of the utility department. This seems excessive given the fiscal challenges our city faces. I would think that if there are  specific critical individuals who are deemed a flight risk, then perhaps some targeted approach to retain those individuals  could be considered. But an across‐the‐board increase for all supervisors/managers does NOT seem responsible. I wonder  what the first line employees would think if this were approved.  1 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:Just say NO to UMPAPA 12% wage increase City Council, The 48 managerial positions up for a 12% pay raise can live with an increase more in line with other city employees. 3% is still a very nice raise. More than I've received the last two years. Just say no to such an exorbitant pay raise. Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave 1 Carnahan, David From:Melissa Leigh Raby <melissaraby.casn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 10:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Proposal for Paid Parental Leave Thank you, City of Palo Alto, for considering this new draft policy of offering 6 weeks of paid time off for birthing parents, adoptions, foster children and non-birthing parents. As a Registered Nurse and mother of young children, I whole-heartedly believe that this is a step in the right direction for healthy babies and healthy families. Although I am proud of the City’s willingness to start with this proposal, I hope that you will soon consider extending paid time off from 6 to 12 weeks, which is the current recommendation by health care professionals. This is also in-line with many of the other employers in our city, a city that is known around the world as a progressive and innovative place to live and work. In order to recruit and retain a dedicated and highly competitive workforce, the City’s future depends on a policy that is at minimum with state law and is in line with other cities. I thank the City for putting a proposed policy forward and look forward to a decision that supports the health and wellness of our future generation!  2 Carnahan, David From:Matthew Ball <matthewnball@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 1:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Six Weeks Paid Time Off Hello,    Thank you for considering this new draft policy of offering 6 weeks of paid time off for birthing parents, adoptions,  foster children and non‐birthing parents. I believe that this is a step in the right direction for healthy babies and healthy  families. Although I am proud of the City’s willingness to start with this proposal, I hope that you will soon consider  extending paid time off from 6 to 12 weeks, which is the current recommendation by health care professionals. This is  also in‐line with many of the other employers in our city, a city that is known around the world as a progressive and  innovative place to live and work. In order to recruit and retain a dedicated and highly competitive workforce, the City’s  future depends on a policy that is at minimum with state law and is in line with other cities. I thank the City for putting a  proposed policy forward and look forward to a decision that supports the health and wellness of our future generation!     Matt  1 Carnahan, David From:Giselle Rahn <gmrahn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 2:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Paid Parental Leave Dear Council Members,     I'm pleased to know the Council is considering a measure to provide paid parental leave to City employees. I hope this is  adopted at a minimum, and strongly encourage you to consider the extending the PTO to 12 weeks. Twelve weeks is the  current standard recommendation by health care professionals to heal and bond.     Although some daycare's allow babies at 6 weeks, it’s dangerous to expose an unvaccinated newborn to that  environment. In CA, the vaccination schedule starts at the 2 month (9 week) appointment.     In addition to the bonding and health concerns for an infant, I'd like to share some personal details to explain why I think  12 weeks is reasonable. This may seem overly personal or graphic, but giving birth is a physical event to recover from  that is frequently glossed over. Five weeks after after a routine vaginal delivery with normal vaginal tearing I had only  just become comfortable standing and sitting. I cannot imagine returning to work after six weeks. Can you imagine  having to perform your job duties while your genitals are still tender from giving birth and your perineal stitches haven't  fully dissolved? What about performing your job after having major abdominal surgery?     Let's consider non‐birthing parents too and talk about sleep and self care.     My baby wasn't sleeping more than 90 to 120 minutes at a time until 6 weeks. This meant that I wasn't sleeping for  more than 45 minutes at a time unless my spouse or a visiting family member was able to take care of the baby for a  stretch of time. It takes time to recover from short term sleep deprivation.     A study by the NIH found that new fathers on leave got less sleep than new mothers, until they returned to work and  then the mother bore the burden of sleep deprivation. Another NIH study found that "In otherwise healthy adults, short‐ term consequences of sleep disruption include increased stress responsivity, somatic pain, reduced quality of life,  emotional distress and mood disorders, and cognitive, memory, and performance deficits." (source)     New parents (adoptive, foster, birthing or non birthing) need time to take care of themselves emotionally, physically,  and mentally after bringing a new child home. The fact is, they will be able to do their jobs better after 12 weeks than  after 6 weeks because they will be getting more sleep. Please, do right by them and their co‐workers by extending this  paid leave policy.     A paid parental leave policy is a great step to make the City a more inclusive employer.  The City’s future depends on a  policy that is at minimum with state law and is in line with other cities to stay competitive for talent.  Again, I thank the  City for putting a proposed policy forward and am glad this progress has been made.    Regards,  Giselle Rahn    Resident of Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 5:14 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; O'Kane, Kristen; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Subject:12/10 Council Agenda Questions for Item 14       Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to  inquiries made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the December 10, 2018 council  meeting agenda.     Action Item 14: Approval of 5‐Year Aquatics Operating/Revenue Agreement with Team  Sheeper – CM Tanaka       Item  14:  Approval  of  5‐Year  Aquatics  Operating/Revenue  Agreement  with  Team  Sheeper – CM Tanaka     Q.1.  Why is the City Council being asked to approve a new five‐year contract at this time  based on 2017 user survey data? Shouldn't the city council wait until we have the 2018  user survey data to evaluate this contract?  Does the survey data (2017 and 2018) include  results from each of the major pool user constituencies? If not, why not?    A.1.  The user survey data included in the staff report is for calendar year 2018.The  recommendation to City Council to approve a new contract is based on the results of  the RFP process.  The user survey data provides additional supporting data to help  inform that decision.    Survey data is collected from all pool users with the exception of PASA and Masters  swimmers  since  those  are  managed  by  their  respective  head  coaches  through  a  subcontract  agreement  with  Team  Sheeper.   Feedback  is  communicated  directly  between the coaches and Team Sheeper.    Q.2.  Could the vote on the Team Sheeper contract be postponed/removed from the  November 26, 2018 City Council meeting? What would be the ramifications if the city  council were to take more time to evaluate this proposed contract?  Would an interim  extension of the existing contracts be feasible?    A.2.  The agenda item was postponed until December 10, 2018 to allow for additional  time for Sheeper and Rinconada Masters to discuss a future subcontract.   The  2 preference is to start the new contract at the beginning of a new season so there aren’t  changes to the pool schedule and prices mid‐season.      Q.3.  Has the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council  approve the new Team Sheeper contract? If not, why? If yes, please provide the materials  used in reaching their recommendation.  In either case, what was the Commission’s vote?    A.3.  A presentation was made to the Parks and Recreation Commission by Community  Services Department staff on October 23, 2018.  The Commission provided feedback  but did not take action as it is not typical for a Commission to  take  action  on  a  contract.  The Parks and Recreation Commission did encourage the  City  to  find  a  solution to keep Rinconada Masters at the pool.    Q.4.  If I understand the timing correctly, the city did not send the RFP out to the bidders  until July 18, 2018. The RFP process closed on August 21, 2018.  Was this a reasonable  amount of time to give bidders that are not as familiar with the Rinconada operations  enough time to submit their proposals? Is it possible that some new potential vendors  did not submit proposals because they would have had only a few months to negotiate  their new contract plus initiate their new operations at the Rinconada Pool?    A.4.  We believe this was a reasonable amount of time.  The timeframe for issuing the  RFP and the length of time it was open were recommended by the ASD’s Purchasing  Team and match standards used across the City.    Q. 5.  Given the financial numbers and projections provided when  Team  Sheeper's  current contract was approved by the City Council in 2017, why does the city manager  recommend  that  we  approve  a  new  contract  with  Team  Sheeper  now without  a  reasonable review of those numbers and projections versus the actual numbers during  the past two years?  Are those future projections still accurate and reliable?    A.5.   Staff  have  reviewed  financials  throughout  the  term  of  the current  contract.   Aquatics  revenue  and  revenue  shares  came  in  lower  than  expected  in  Calendar Year 2018 (based on data through October 31, 2018.)  However, the lower  revenue is not significant – revenue shares will be approximately $10,000 as compared  with budgeted expectations of $30,000.      Team Sheeper submitted lower revenue expectations with this new RFP bid than what  they’d proposed in their 2015 bid.  This was based on their actual experience over  current contract term.  FY 20 revenue share projections are approximately $10,000 and  approximately $20,000 in FY 21 as Sheeper expects programs to slowly grow.    Q.6.  During the 2017 process to approve Team Sheeper's current contract, the Aquatics  Department forecast 2019 revenue sharing paid to the City of $125,000.  Is that still a  valid assumption for 2019? If not, what is the City’s current 2019 revenue forecast (based  on its revenue share with Team Sheeper) and how does that compare to the actual 2017  and 2018 revenue numbers?      A.6.  Staff is still reviewing these numbers and will have them available at the Council  meeting tonight.    Q.7.  What is Team Sheeper's forecast for overall revenue from operating and managing  Rinconada pool for 2019?  3   A.7.  The new contract estimates $823,000 of overall revenue for Calendar Year 2019.    Q.8.  During the approval process in 2017, the Aquatics Department forecast 2019 City  operating  pool  costs  of  $60,000.   Does  this  include  both  operating  costs  and  non‐ operating (capitalized pool maintenance and improvements) costs?  Please provide the  actual numbers for 2017 and 2018.  What are the City’s current forecasted 2019 and 2020  operating costs?  How will the City cover any operating costs in excess of the $60,000  forecasted amount?  What are the similar numbers for non‐operating costs?    A.8.  Direct operating costs are approximately $60,000 per fiscal year between staffing,  supplies  and  materials.   We  have  another  $300,000  annual  cost  for  Public  Works  maintenance and utilities.  We do not expect major capital investments in the near  future.  We also do not expect these City expenses to change during the contract  term.  Some of the operating costs are offset by the 1% revenue the City receives from  Sheeper.    Q.9.  For the Masters swim program only, what are the actual 2017 and 2018 numbers  for 1) gross fees collected by Team Sheeper and 2) the revenue sharing percent and  amount paid or due to the City?  How do these compare to amounts paid to the City by  the masters team before the current Team Sheeper contract began? What does Team  Sheeper forecast for revenue for the masters program for 2019 based on the 2019 pool  schedule that Team Sheeper submitted?     A.9.  Before the Sheeper contract, the Masters program paid the City about $14,000 per  year for use of the pool.  Masters pays Team Sheeper approximately $20,000 per year  under the current contract. The city received 1% of the Masters revenue in 2018.    Q.10.  Will the city receive its revenue share payments on a monthly basis or on another  payment schedule?    A.10.  Yearly. Team Sheeper will provide monthly revenue estimates  and  yearly  payments.        Thank you,  Judy Ng          Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2105  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org    1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 5, 2018 3:25 PM To:O'Kane, Kristen; Council, City; O'Kane, Kristen Subject:Tim Sheeper + Masters   Dear Ms O'Kane,    In a last ditch effort, I am asking that you modify your request to the city council for approval of the Tim Sheeper  proposal.  Instead, you could offer a one year extension of his current proposal, with some fee increases.    There are many more people than just the 65 Master's swimmers who do Not want this proposal to be approved.  There  are many of us (three of us lap swimmers in just the four houses on my block) who do Not want to have Tim run the  Master's program.   We have all swum at Burgess pool during his Master's program ‐ those young pups are serious  swimmers ‐‐ they can be noisy and rambunctious.    We are Not wanting that environment at our Rinconada.  Plus, we  love to see the long standing friendships and community that make up the Master's club.  What a shame that the city is  seeking to break this up, simply because a gate was open (it has been open for Masters for years without a single kid  wandering in and drowning) and Tim doesn't think Carol has enough life guards.  This smacks of an Excuse, not a reason  (there have been 2 incidents in 47 years ‐ two heart attacks and both swimmers survived).    I know this is making your life more difficult ‐‐ you didn't receive any other proposals.   But you also admitted that you  Could have written your RFP to include Carol as the Master's coach.  You Could have checked with us swimmers Before  the RFP was written to see what WE wanted, not just find out what Tim wanted.    I believe it is the city's responsibility to fix this problem.  It was created by the city and it ought to be fixed by the city.    I for one am pretty upset that while I pay for Rinconada, both through fees and property taxes, I am losing a beloved  program ‐ simply because the city is (again!) catering towards a business need, not what the residents want.    Have you watched the city council meetings?  Dozens of us, all giving up multiple Monday evenings, just to plead for  something the city is taking away from us ‐ when it doesn't have to!    You can fix this and I implore you to do just that.    Ann Protter  1 Carnahan, David From:shawn sasse <sassetoo@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 5, 2018 4:57 PM To:O'Kane, Kristen Cc:LeBlanc, Jazmin; Eva, Sharon; Council, City Subject:Re: New City Council Date for Aquatics Contract - Follow Up Kristen,    It's Dec. 5, and lap swimmers have not received your e‐mailed fact sheet.    After reading through the report the Recreation Services Department will be presenting on Dec. 10 at the City Council  meeting, I have the following comments and concerns (as do many in the swimming community):    PRESENTATION:  The critical feedback Recreation Services Department has received from the swimming community in the past year has  been left out. It is not an honest report; if it were, members of the swimming community would not be attending City  Council meetings to express their unaddressed concerns.    CONTRACT:  1) The contract states that Team Sheeper will provide 400‐500 hours of lap lane hours/week. There is nothing in the  contract to protect the current (and exclusive) use of the pool for lap swimming during PRIME hours (6‐8:30am and 6‐ 8:30pm). This has been a major concern of the lap swimming community.  2) There is nothing in the contract to protect the hours of operation of the pool on weekends and weekdays.   3) Rinconada Masters has been terminated with no equal replacement for the swimming community, and the City has  condoned this rather than supported the community team.  4) The contract does not require a review by the swimming community/City before Team Sheeper implements new  schedules.    JANUARY SAMPLE SCHEDULE:  1) Dedicated evening lap swimming has been seriously compromised. Only 3‐7 lanes are provided two weeknights per  week, and the pool closes earlier. PASA has been given a big advantage. Where is the community´s representation in  this?   2) What is the schedule for the other 11 months? What protects the swimming community from further upsets and  surprises?  3) How are the hours of operation going to fluctuate year round? Are we going to have decreased hours of operation,  especially during the summer (as happened last summer).    We are pushing for the Recreation Services Department to act in the swimming community's interest. Team Sheeper´s  Burgess pool feels less like a community pool and more like Team Sheeper´s private pool. I swim at Rinconada exactly  because it´s NOT Burgess ‐ it´s a COMMUNITY pool with COMMUNITY focused hours of operation and a schedule that  doesn’t mix users in the same time slots. Let´s protect our swimming community in the contract. This is what we were  promised from day one.      I have copied the City Council with this email so all are aware of the swimming community's ongoing and unresolved  concerns with the proposed contract.      2 Shawn Sasse            On Nov 26, 2018, at 3:04 PM, O'Kane, Kristen <Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:  Dear lap swimmers,     As a user of Rinconada Pool, I wanted to ensure you knew that the proposed Aquatics Contract has been moved to the  December 10, 2018 City Council Meeting.  The agenda for the December 10th meeting will be posted this Thursday.  The  item was moved because of concern that tonight’s full agenda would not provide ample time for community comments  and City Council discussion on this important topic.     In the meantime, staff will be preparing a fact sheet to clarify common questions we have heard, and we will send that  out in the next few days. We will also post it at the pool.  If you would like to meet with me or another staff member  before December 10th, please let me know and I will be happy to find a time to meet with you.       Kind regards,     Kristen        <image001.jpg>    Kristen O’Kane  Chief Operating Officer ‐ Community Services 1305 Middlefield Rd. | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.463.4908 | E: kristen.o’kane@cityofpaloalto.org    Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you           1 Carnahan, David From:Bruce Anderson <bruce.g.anderson@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 11:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Regarding the Pool Contract    Staff Report    According to staff report ID#9841, “the City struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff …”  It appears that the proposed contractor can hire and retain staff. Why is it easier for the contractor? The local hiring pool is the same. (Where my wife used to work, they had staffing shortages. The library did not allow willing people to work more than half time because then they had to provide costly benefits. And people would only stay around until they could find work with more hours and benefits.)    The staff report appears to be cut and pasted from Team Sheeper advertising material.    The part about continuous contract safety violations seems strange. It would be interesting to know what they are. Swimmers seem to feel safe.    The report anticipates General Fund savings of approximately $140,000. How is Team Sheeper able to provide this savings? Do they pay their lifeguards less? Do they charge users more? What kind of a business is Team Sheeper? They need to buy insurance. What taxes do they pay?     Contract    Exhibit A  Item I.a.ii requires two lifeguards on deck. This seems to be a new requirement, at least for lap swimming. For lap swimming, there have historically been two on duty, taking turns with one on deck and one managing admissions. This has been very satisfactory and it seems unnecessary to have two on deck. Lap swimming is very orderly and the swimmers competent, not like summer recreational swim where all is chaos. Having a third person on duty will increase costs and put upward pressure on user pricing.    Item I.c.iii prohibits lifeguard use of cell phones while on deck. Some lifeguards like to listen to music and podcasts on their phones. Is this now prohibited? Probably necessary for recreational swim but not lap swim.   Item II.c.ii specifies at least 400 lap swim lane hours/week. This is less than half the number shown on the proposed schedule. If all the required hours were scheduled in the middle of the day, that would not work for me.    Bruce Anderson  Palo Alto resident and voter  1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 5:44 PM To:O'Kane, Kristen; Council, City; O'Kane, Kristen Subject:Re: Tim Sheeper + Masters   Dear Ms O'Kane and the City Council,    Thank you for encouraging Tim Sheeper to work with Carol McPherson of the Rinc Masters swim program.   They met  today and he offered her a contract for 6 months, with restrictions, fee increases, and changes.    One restriction is that Tim will not allow her to teach the Swim4Fitness class.   This class is the only class that teaches  adults how to improve their strokes and is taught by an experienced coach (not a high school student during summer  months).  It's a small class, with revolving students, typically 6‐8 at any given time.  As I've mentioned to the city council,  my son with mental health issues is finally learning to swim, at age 17, and after many attempts to teach him (including  an attempt through Tim Sheeper this summer).    Thus, I am personally very sad and sorry to see this ended.  It has meant a lot to me and my son, and it feels like a loss  that I cannot understand.  Why oh why would he exclude this wonderful program????    Equally puzzling is why he is offering just 6 months, unless it is to appease the swimmers, with hopes of his quietly  refusing to renew in June.    While we are pleased there has been some movement on Tim's part, it doesn't feel quite right.  It would be better if he  allowed her to teach Swim4Fitness and the contract was for the year, with the same fees she pays today.    BTW, there is talk of moving her entire program to another pool (which is happy to accept her).   If this happens, Tim will  likely lose revenue from nearly 60 swimmers (or more, if lap swimmers like me move too, which I will).  And probably  more importantly, create a sense of ill will.   I have loved swimming at Rinconada for decades, sure hate to lose it  because Tim doesn't like working with Carol.      Sincerely,  Ann Protter                      On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:24 PM Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> wrote:    Dear Ms O'Kane,    In a last ditch effort, I am asking that you modify your request to the city council for approval of the Tim Sheeper  proposal.  Instead, you could offer a one year extension of his current proposal, with some fee increases.    2 There are many more people than just the 65 Master's swimmers who do Not want this proposal to be  approved.  There are many of us (three of us lap swimmers in just the four houses on my block) who do Not want to  have Tim run the Master's program.   We have all swum at Burgess pool during his Master's program ‐ those young  pups are serious swimmers ‐‐ they can be noisy and rambunctious.    We are Not wanting that environment at our  Rinconada.  Plus, we love to see the long standing friendships and community that make up the Master's club.  What a  shame that the city is seeking to break this up, simply because a gate was open (it has been open for Masters for years  without a single kid wandering in and drowning) and Tim doesn't think Carol has enough life guards.  This smacks of an  Excuse, not a reason (there have been 2 incidents in 47 years ‐ two heart attacks and both swimmers survived).    I know this is making your life more difficult ‐‐ you didn't receive any other proposals.   But you also admitted that you  Could have written your RFP to include Carol as the Master's coach.  You Could have checked with us swimmers Before  the RFP was written to see what WE wanted, not just find out what Tim wanted.    I believe it is the city's responsibility to fix this problem.  It was created by the city and it ought to be fixed by the city.    I for one am pretty upset that while I pay for Rinconada, both through fees and property taxes, I am losing a beloved  program ‐ simply because the city is (again!) catering towards a business need, not what the residents want.    Have you watched the city council meetings?  Dozens of us, all giving up multiple Monday evenings, just to plead for  something the city is taking away from us ‐ when it doesn't have to!    You can fix this and I implore you to do just that.    Ann Protter  1 Carnahan, David From:Susanne Jul <susanne.jul@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool vision As an avid lap‐swimmer, I am dismayed that swim program management discussions remain unclear and contentious.  My sense is that there are two core difficulties: a lack of a clear shared vision for the pool community, and a lack of a  clear process for stakeholder oversight and input in the realization of such a vision.    I am forwarding a sketch of a vision that I had sent to the city in March, apparently to no effect. Perhaps with city council  involvement, we can exercise more control and develop a better model for ensuring community integration in oversight  of community facility management.    Given the late stages of contract negotiations, would it be possible to extend the current contract for some period, and  undertake a more transparent and inclusive planning process under the oversight of city council?    Thank you for your time and efforts on behalf of the community,  ‐‐ Susanne    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Subject: Pool vision  Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:55:01 ‐0800  From: Susanne Jul <susanne.jul@gmail.com> Reply‐To: susanne.jul@gmail.com  To: stephanie.douglas@cityofpaloalto.org      Dear Stephanie,    I was at the meeting last night. I'm sorry it's such an uphill battle to do the right thing and solicit community input.    I think the heart of the difficulty is that we don't have a shared vision for the pool. It's like the car salesman I once  encountered: I walked onto the lot certain that I wanted to buy a particular car model, but wanted to check out driving  visibility, and how hard it would be to load my bike. The salesman kept asking, "Have you decided what color you want?"  I walked out, and went straight to another dealer.    I've sketched out a long‐term vision below. I think that you'll find life much easier if you have something like this to work  from. It turns the conversation to goals, priorities and evaluation criteria rather than opening the Pandora's box of  personal opinion.    I'd be happy to talk with you about it. I have limited time, but would be happy to do what I can to help flesh it out.    Thank you for all the work you do,  ‐‐ Susanne    Vision for Rinconada Community Pool  2 OBJECTIVES  Build and maintain a facility and community that promotes swimming by  1. supporting individuals of all ages, skill levels, and backgrounds in experiencing the joys and benefits of swimming  in a manner that meets individual needs, desires, and lifestyles, and   2. providing a training ground for the swim professionals of tomorrow.     OUTCOMES   Swimmers of skill levels, and backgrounds regularly have opportunities to     o use the pool for personally directed swim activities  o improve their skills through private, informal, or occasional coaching  o participate in organized programs that provide regular training aimed at improving skills, maintaining  fitness, or competition   The pool contributes to the health of the sport of swimming by     o encouraging swimming as a lifestyle choice  o nurturing and providing a training ground for swim professionals such as athletes, lifeguards, coaches,  pool managers, etc.   The pool contributes to the greater community of Palo Alto by actively adopting Palo Alto community values,  promoting     o social integration and inclusiveness, including providing for the needs of physically, mentally, or  economically disadvantaged community members  o environmentally responsible operations and behaviors   The pool is a center for the community of swimmers in Palo Alto, and     o has a core of community members who actively work to ensure that the pool vision is being realized, and the  needs of all stakeholders are taken into account  o supports a communication and conflict resolution strategy that ensures that information flows among all  stakeholders, operational problems can be addressed quickly and effectively, and conflicts can be addressed  in alignment with the pool vision    OUTPUTS   Maintain currently successful programs at a minimum of their current levels of schedule and pricing:     o Lap swim  o PASA  o Masters   Develop/ensure learning programs     o swim lessons for … [Moving toward having lessons or coaching opportunities at "all ages, skill levels, and backgrounds”]  o swim professionals   Criteria and plan for environmentally responsible operations and behaviors  3  Criteria and plan making the pool a center of the community of swimmers    Prepare to be unprepared.    Thanks to everyone who helped support our research on spontaneous leadership in Hurricane Harvey.  1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Pines <susan@pines.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 9:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Downtown Grandfathered Facilities Law Dear City Council,    I strongly urge that you vote against any change to this law that would result in less housing units available in the  Downtown area.  As you know,  housing is an urgent priority, and doing anything detrimental to the current housing  stock is just ridiculous.    Please consider the overall goal of increasing and maintaining our housing units in your deliberations.    Respectfully,    Susan Pines  4109 Donald Dr, Palo Alto, CA     2 Carnahan, David From:hjc@cohensw.com Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 8:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Howard Cohen Subject:President Hotel Council members:    As a concerned citizen of Palo Alto, and a supporter of Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning, I have been following the story of  AJ Partners'   aquisition of the President Hotel apartments and their attempt to bulldoze the city into allowing them to evict the  extant tenants and return the building to functioning as a hotel.    The entire process stinks and looks as if AJ has been acting underhandedly to get the city to quickly eliminate a number  or laws and ordinances which would (1) protect scarce rental housing in Palo Alto, (2) override legal protection for the  use of grandfathered buildings, such as the President, from having their uses changed (such as, from rental apartments  to a boutique hotel), and (3) override the zoning requirements for commercial buildings to provide adequate parking,  among other things.    All this without proper and open and public discussion with a lame duck City Council.    I agree with PASZ that  1) No change be made to the law without a full vetting and review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, as is  normally required, and    2) That any revision should continue to prevent residential uses from changing to commercial ones so as to preserve  Downtown housing and protect tenants from being displaced.    Backroom deals have no place in our city. To me, this whole process smells of corruption and slime and I am  disappointed in all of you who are pushing this destructive process forward.      Howard J Cohen, Ph.D.    3272 Cowper Street    Palo Alto, CA 94306  ‐‐           Howard J. Cohen, Ph.D., President       howard@cohensw.com          Cohen Software Consulting, Inc.         http://www.cohensw.com          Applications, Algorithms, GUI, RDBMS    (650) 856‐8123          Bioinformatics                          (650) 856‐4273 (fax)          Litigation Support                      (650) 269‐1467 (cell)  3 Carnahan, David From:Subhash Narang <snarang012@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 7:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Hotel Conversion Dear Council Members, I am writing to oppose the changes proposed by staff to Section 18.18.120 (Grandfathered Uses and Facilities) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Adjust Regulations Relating to Noncomplying Facilities. Why is the council letting “secret” demands by AJ Capital pressure the council to do its bidding? 1.The council should follow proper procedure and have the PTC vet the proposed ordinance. 2. The 2019 Council should discuss the proposed ordinance. 3. If the regulations need changing, allow commercial-to-retail use conversions for noncomplying facilities. With the ongoing housing crisis, under no circumstances should we convert housing to other uses. As the Palo Alto Weekly states in this week’s editorial, this Council item is “a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with Palo Alto city government these days.” The council I hope the incoming City Council is more transparent in its dealings and treats the people who want to comment at council meetings, with proper respect. 4 Carnahan, David From:Roy Stehle <rstehle@windband.org> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 7:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:rstehle@windband.org Subject:President Hotel parking requirements Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members,    It is unfortunate that affordable housing at the old President Hotel has been lost.  I am not in a position to judge  whether a hotel was an approved use at the time that the property was sold.    I do know that any reduction in the number of parking spaces required by its use as a new hotel should never be  approved.  The ten underground spaces are clearly inadequate.  There is inadequate parking, now, in downtown Palo  Alto.  As a long‐time resident, my trips downtown are greatly reduced now as a result of inadequate parking.    The comments by A J Capital that parking is not required because present day travelers are using ride sharing is far from  being proven.  Ride sharing vehicles still occupy our streets and require extended time to connect with riders and load luggage.  If the  hotel suggests it will use valet parking, then they need to be required to prove that they have secured that parking  facility or they need to pay to have it established.  Please do not reduce the presently required number of parking  spaces, based on occupancy, are prescribed by current code.    People do drive their own cars to conduct business and visit family in Palo Alto.  It will be a long time before transit or  ride sharing will allow parking requirements to be drastically reduced in this case or in any other similar applications.    Sincerely,     Roy Stehle    Palo Alto, CA 94303  5 Carnahan, David From:Susan Wolfe <wolfeperson@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 5:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep President Hotel as an apartment building Hello,  When we have the housing crisis we have here in Palo Alto, I think it’s a bad idea to change laws so that a developer can  swoop in and create another hotel. We need affordable housing more than we need another hotel, and I think the city  council should act accordingly.  Thank you.  Susan Wolfe       Sent from my iPhone  6 Carnahan, David From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 4:53 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Agenda Item 16, Non-Complying Faciities Downtown Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members; When I first read this staff report it didn't seem very controversial, but recently messages on the Internet note that the way it is written it would allow conversion of the President Hotel from housing to other uses such as a hotel, while current law requires retention of housing there since that was the use when the building became non-conforming. Presumably when the ordinance was passed in 2016 it was intended allow residential uses downtown to be non-compliant, that non-conforming uses must retain the same use when remodeling. However the ordinance apparently allows converting the residential use at the President Hotel to a hotel because the new use would be conforming. That is a very unfortunate result of the current version of the ordinance change. Therefore I suggest that the ordinance be revised to require retention of non-conforming apartment uses. Palo Alto has a major jobs-housing imbalance, and a huge lack of affordable housing. The 75 relatively low-income housing at the President Hotel are more affordable units than have been built in Palo Alto in the past two years. It is very bad policy to vote to remove housing units, and even worse policy to lose so many lower income units. Please do not adopt the current version of the ordinance but either amend it to exclude residential units in non-conforming buildings from being replaced, or send the entire ordinance to Planning and Transportation for more detailed review. Regards, Bob Moss 7 Carnahan, David From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 4:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:President building condo conversion I oppose converting rental property in Palo Alto to condominiums. This is counterproductive to the effort to create  rental housing in Palo Alto.      Please put the brakes on this project and reconsider your priorities.      Kim Lemmer  2282 Amherst St  Palo Alto CA 94306  8 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 3:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Funny meeting   Dear City Council,  Do you remember that funny meeting where everyone — the state, the YIMBY contingents, the council, the Comp Plan  team, city staff, and the public— was pressing Palo Alto to rezone in order to eliminate apartments and build more hotel  rooms? Me neither.    Staff is wrong to bring this effort forward and try to amend zoning on behalf of a developer whose interests are NOT  ALIGNED with the city’s need for more housing. Pretty much everybody agrees we need housing.  Where does the Comp  Plan say that hotel rooms are a higher priority than housing?     Cheryl Lilienstein  9 Carnahan, David From:Steven Atneosen <atneosen@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 3:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Fw: President Hotel and A.J. Capital - Self Dealing by City Council members? Dear City Council members:    I urge you to take the ethical and appropriate path in your response to A.J. Capital's request to bend the rules  in its favor ‐ and perhaps in the interests of certain council members. Like many residents, I spend my day  growing tech companies so that I can afford the ever increasing cost of living that is directly related to your  inability to make competent decisions on planning for the future. There will be a point where people like me ‐  and there are many ‐ decide to spend more time ensuring that your actions are transparent and accountable.    Do the right thing. Help Palo Alto properly address its inadequate housing ‐ for all demographics ‐ and plan  properly for the future by representing everyone's interests. Say no to A.J. Capital.    Best,    Steven Atneosen   atneosen@hotmail.com  10 Carnahan, David From:Doris Petersen <dbpetersen32@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Presidents Hotel conversion I very strongly oppose the proposal to convert the Presidents Hotel from its current usage to a hotel. Housing, especially  low and moderate housing should be the councils main concern. Thank you, Doris Petersen  1803 Edgewood Dr.  11 Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 11:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:Preserve The President Hotel for its tenants Given all of the controversy over The President Hotel's conversion into a hotel, please stop the evictions and preserve the existing moderate income housing there. We already have a severe jobs / housing imbalance and there's no reason to make it worse by converting residential uses to commercial uses. So please presve downtown housing and protect tenants from being displaced. . Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301   1 Carnahan, David From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 8:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Monday's vote Palo Alto does not need another hotel. Palo Alto needs housing that middle‐income, local workers can afford.  Please do  not give in to developers who want to convert the President Hotel from residences in into a hotel.  The developers knew  that it was zoned for residences when they bought it.     Thank you, Angela Dellaporta   2 Carnahan, David From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Grandfathered Uses of Downtown Facilities City Council Members: Regarding the December 10 meeting, please do NOT overturn the ordinance that prohibits downtown property owners from changing the use of oversized buildings. Prior to any modifications to this law:  Staff should conduct a policy analysis to evaluate the broad ramifications of elimination.  PTC should review the ordinance per the standard procedure.  Modifications should be considered that would reflect city goals, for example, allow changes in use that would convert commercial or offices to housing or retail, but prevent changes in use that would convert housing or retail to commercial or offices. There is no need to rush a decision. The consequences of this law extend far beyond any short-term issues surrounding use of the President. Thank you. jaclyn schrier 427 Alma Street #307 Palo Alto 3 Carnahan, David From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 1:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:CODE   Dear Council members - Like many other residents I have no comprehension of why you would correct an error or staff change that somehow got into the code - knowing full well that this will help developers to further add to the housing/parking shortage and their bottom line. Correct the error - but not speedily rush it through as it will deliberately sell out the best interest of Palo Alto. Use wording which will correct the problem, but not sell out our city.    Everyone of you holding the title of City Council Member ran a campaign to prove to each and every voter - YOU - would make a promise to do what is best for the Residents of Palo Alto, the Town of Palo Alto and the Quality of Life in Palo Alto Your vote on this issue puts that promise seriously in jeopardy. It is hard to understand that the majority sentiment on the Council wants to sell us out so developers can mow us over and get richer. Unfortunately my Monday nite class ends too late to get to City Hall and sign in to speak to the 4 issue at hand. If I could, I would give my time to Jeff Levinsky, as he has more details and specifics than I do - and think you should hear all he has to say regarding the rules and regulations for this issue. Hopefully, you will honor my request. Thank you .       BTW I wonder why no one ever caught a typo or staff change with such important ramifications, for years. We “supposedly” pay to hire the best. Simple typos are one thing, but that fact that no one reviewed the document in detail makes me suspect of how this might show up in the future with other documents. This is not the first error (not just typing) that has cost us tax dollars that we pay to hire the best.       Thank you for permitting my request Sincerely Lenore Cymes       5 Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop Rigging Things to Support Developers and Start Supporting Residents. Don't rig the laws to support the developers! How nice our officials are working so hard to help the buyers and how special the named officials refuse to comment yet again. How about open government? PS: It's great that the Daily Post is shining the light on such dealings. If you read NextDoor and all the online comments, you'd know that taxpayers were outraged by the sneaky attempt to inflate Mr. Keene's already high comp package and that we didn't need some conspiracy -- as Mayor Kniss oddly suggested in the Friday's Daily Post -- to write you in protest! Council to consider proposals that would help buyers of Hotel President https://padailypost.com/2018/12/08/council-to-consider-proposals-that- would-help-buyers-of-hotel-president/ " Four Palo Alto city laws are standing in the way of the Hotel President apartments from being converted back into a hotel, and the City Council is set to consider changing one of them on Monday (Dec. 10) night." Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 6 Carnahan, David From:Janet Dafoe <janet.dafoe@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 11:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:zoning change Dear Council Members,  I would like to strongly request that you do not change zoning so as to allow apartments to be able to convert to hotels  or any other use but residential. We need housing in Palo Alto, especially below market rate housing. I fail to understand  how you can assert that we need to address the jobs/housing imbalance and at the same time take actions to reduce  much needed housing. This makes no sense and it continues to boggle my mind. I fervently hope that you do the right  thing and desist from changing zoning to allow the apartments to change use categories. We don't need to help  developers make more profits. We need to address our urgent housing needs. Here are 75 units that it looks like you  might be willing to eliminate. Why? It makes no sense to me.     Thank you,    ‐‐   Janet L. Dafoe, PhD  1 Carnahan, David From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 10:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Proposed Rezoning Vote Honorable City Council Members,   We are concerned about the possibility of the change to zoning being considered that would allow changing present residential uses to commercial uses. This seems contraindicated to us when there is such a need for more affordable housing in Palo Alto. Additionally, it is not clear to us that enough study has been given to this proposed change. We strongly urge you to postpone decision on this matter until the new council convenes in January and a full study by the Planning and Transportation Commission can be accomplished. Sue and Ken Dinwiddie 543 Jackson Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Sue and Ken Dinwiddie Home: 650-325-3033 Cell: 650-867-0308 windinthestrings.com sued@daise.com 2 Carnahan, David From:Andy Miksztal <andy.miksztal@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 2:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Conversion to Hotel - Vote NO! ProGrowth City Council Members,    If you really believe in more affordable housing why would you allow conversion of apartments to an  expensive hotel that only benefits out siders and developers?    Regards,  Andy Miksztal  743 Cereza Drive  Palo Alto  3 Carnahan, David From:Adele Gershater <adele.gershater@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 2:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel Dear members of the City Council,  I am writing to urge you NOT to approve the zoning changes requested by A.J. Capital. There is no need for yet another luxury hotel in Palo Alto. What we do desperately need, which the President Hotel currently has, is affordable housing.   Please do not allow the President Hotel to convert to a luxury property. No need for a conversion. Let the current residents remain in their affordable housing units.  Regards,  Adele  Adele Gershater  adele.gershater@gmail.com  650-245-7952 (cell)  4 Carnahan, David From:Jeanette Kennedy <calalexs@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 2:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel The purchase of the President Hotel and the displacement of 75 households is a disgrace. PA needs households. Mountain View and Menlo Park pay more attention to supporting their populations then we do. PA does not need any more luxury hotels, in fact we don't need more hotels (or retail space) we need places for folks to live. Not just low cost residences but apartments to support the community stores and restaurants. The Weekly story about how the purchase of the hotel went forward was an eye opener, it is an indication of a counsel asleep at he the wheel. Jeanette Kennedy 736 Kendall PA 94306 5 Carnahan, David From:S Anthony <wushujia00@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 3:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel/Affordable Housing Do not let developers remove affordable housing (e.g. President Hotel) in order to create yet another hotel.  Please!       If anything, changes should be made that will quickly and decisively support more affordable housing for current (as well  as future) residents in our city.    Sincerely,  Marie Anthony  (50 yr Palo Alto resident)  6 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote No on 16 - You Know It's the Right Thing To Do Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members: Let’s stop kidding ourselves shall we? The scales have fallen off the eyes of the “no-growth,” “slow growth” “and “fast-growth” advocates alike. We are all Palo Altans and we resist this double standard evidenced by city staff and some council members as they spout "pro-housing rhetoric" while bending over backward in their attempts to change the laws in order to enrich a property owner, and in doing so lose forever 75 units of rental housing. We just have to call you out on this. If you really believe in supporting housing in Palo Alto, please do not let AJ Capital and friends bully you into changing the laws to benefit the vested interests. Those neighbors got kicked out of homes in which they had lived, some for as long as 30 years, and are under some kind of gag order now. Which is repugnant enough. Well two wrongs don’t make a right. Vote "no" tomorrow night on Agenda Item 16. Also, do you recall when you voted a "Free" upzone to Windy Hill - the owners of 2755 ECR? Do you think that precedent encouraged AJ to try for their own developer giveaway? If so, well let's get off this slippery slope straightaway by Voting "no" on 16, and halt further erosion of trust in our system. "People first," remember that. You've said it yourselves a dozen times. So let's see you put your money where your mouth is by your "no" vote, tomorrow night. Thank you. Becky Sanders Moderator Ventura Neighborhood Association 7 Carnahan, David From:Sylvia Gartner <sgartner@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 4:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel and AJ Capital The capitulation to A.J. Capital and the back room dealings with this entity revealed in the Palo Alto Weekly are appalling  to me.    You members of City Council who drone on about the need for more housing in Palo Alto (without seriously getting  behind limiting office and commercial development downtown) have completely revealed yourselves as hypocrites.    There is already "housing" at the President Hotel.  People have lived there happily for decades.      I used to be proud to live in Palo Alto.  Its tree lined streets reminded me of my Ohio neighborhood growing up.      Now we see more and more corruption.  Formerly our city council members were just people who wanted to do a public  service.  Some of them went on to elected office in the county or the state.  But most of them just served and did their  best.    Now our elections feature blue‐bin filling expensive mailers.   And who pays for these?   People who want to influence  our city council members for their financial gain.    And former members of staff ‐ looking at you Steve Emslie ‐ go on to use their insider knowledge of the levers of power  in the city to take on lucrative work with the same carpetbaggers now involved in making this town a less and less livable  place.    If there is any hope of saving the President Hotel for affordable housing, please vote that way.    Sylvia Gartner  824 Moreno Avenue        8 Carnahan, David From:Lawrence Garwin <lawrencegarwin@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 5:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Maintain President's Hotel Apartments as Apartments. Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members,    Please maintain the President's Hotel Apartments as apartments and DO NOT repeal, change, or pass any of the 4 laws  required to allow it to be converted to a hotel.     Palo Alto needs more lower cost housing and not more hotels.    It is morally abhorrent that our city council and staff has allowed the recent President's Hotel Apartments residents to  be evicted and paid off for their silence in order to create another hotel to profit a developer at the expense of current  residents; this includes not only those evicted, but the rest of us citywide that pay rent, enjoy the company of those who  pay rent, or who have any compassion at all for our fellow townspeople.     Not only should city council and staff make no law changes to further the conversion of the apartments to a hotel, you  and staff should pursue legal action to secure the apartments as low cost apartments in perpetuity and invite back those  already evicted.     The evictions and apparent back room dealings and stealth law making are an absolute embarrassment to all of those  who call Palo Alto our home.     I look to you, our council members, to right these past wrongs, or at least push the proceedings off until the new council  is installed next year, as changing laws to help a developer at the expense of current residents should not be done  during a lame duck session.     Thank you for your compassionate consideration of my remarks.     Lawrence Garwin  Palo Alto  9 Carnahan, David From:david <lischins@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 6:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please don't allow the developers to destroy 75 affordable homes at the President Hotel To members of the City Council,    Please don't allow the developer who bought the President Hotel to bulldoze 75 apartments and force established,  middle‐class, long term members of our community  out of their homes in the midst of a record housing shortage. In  addition to the individual impacts on the residents, the message you will send to developers, which seems to be the  message you're sending with all your proposals to encourage housing, is that developers should be able to violate all the  housing code rules that have made Palo Alto such a desirable place to live.    Gutting size and density limits, eliminating special restrictions on buildings that don't meet current building codes,  allowing wildly unrealistic parking requirements and weakening rules to protect homeowners access to light ‐‐ these  proposed changes are bad enough.   Combined with your demonstrated preferential interest in meeting with developers rather than residents, I can't help  but question your motivation and even your integrity. Though I have not attended the recent meetings, news coverage  has suggested that some of you are inclined to move forward with these giveaways despite expert opinion that they  probably won't increase the supply of affordable housing.    There must be better way to encourage affordable housing. Please take the time to find it!    Sincerely,    Dedra Hauser    10 Carnahan, David From:Terry Roberts <TerRoberts@mindspring.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 6:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:stop stealth changes for the President Hotel Hello City Council, I've been appalled to learn about the stealth dealings and quickie law changes that are in the works for the developers of the President Hotel. Please stop this! Please give the citizens of Palo Alto the courtesy of listening to their concerns about changing residences to hotel rooms, and the courtesy of making the business that goes before the Council transparent. I didn't vote people in to deal behind my back. We're all counting on you to deal ethically with the citizens of Palo Alto; please start doing it. Thank you, -Terry Roberts, Greer Road, Palo Alto  11 Carnahan, David From:Joyce McClure <joycekmcclure@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 7:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel I implore you to honor the code that restricts changing the use of the President Hotel. This is a wonderful community of  apartments, and should be preserved as such to support the interests of Palo Alto residents, not out of state developers.   Joyce McClure  1005 Bryant St, Palo Alto, CA 94301  Pro Resident  12 Carnahan, David From:Gregory Turnbull <ghturnbull10@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 8:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel To City Council members: It is unbelievable to me that you might move to concede to the requests being made by AJ Capital. To do so would lend approval to the worst kind of political scheming and pressure politics that should be beneath the standards expected of our elected officials. The nefarious activities of certain council members and city staff regarding this whole issue have now been well publicized and echo some of the lack of morality and ethics we have been seeing in our nation’s capital. Should the council take actions to knuckle under to the pressures and threats being forwarded by AJ Capital and its advisors, it will certainly give immense further credibility to those who argue that many on the council are in the pocket of the development community. I urge you to regain your ethical balance and resist this shady deal. Gregory Turnbull Resident of Palo Alto for almost fifty years 13 Carnahan, David From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 8:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Zoning Changes - 'critical for preserving "public health, safety and welfare." On what basis? who makes this decision? Dear City Council - I was surprised to read in a local newspaper that a justification for accelerating proposed zoning change was 'for preserving "public health, safety and welfare." (From Palo Alto Online: Also, zone changes are typically vetted by the Planning and Transportation Commission before going to the council. In this case, staff deemed the removal of the "grandfather facility" provision critical for preserving "public health, safety and welfare." As such, it is going straight to council for approval on a temporary basis (the planning commission would later consider a permanent change). If the decision was made to preserve "public health, safety and welfare.", was one of the City of Palo Alto's Health and Safety professionals consulted to make this assessment? Or, was this a Staff decision made without health, safety and welfare experts to consider the impact? Who on Staff approved this justification? what specific health, safety and welfare concerns were cited? and what was the justification for these concerns and how would accerating the zoning changes preserve "public health, safety and welfare."? These are critical questions to answer. People who deal with public and workforce safety know that the trust of people is essential for safety programs to work - if "safety" is used as an administrative lever to accelerate an administrative end, peoples safety will be compromised. The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I am very interested in knowing the safety issues in this process and the qualification of the personnel who are making the safety decisions. Barry Hart 920 Palo Alto Ave 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:11 AM To:Neilson Buchanan Subject:Pogo said, "We have met an enemy and it is us." This report overflows with facts..... and leaves the future up to thousands and thousands of leaders. How to influence the flow of capital is the issue for me. Tonight Palo Alto City Council has the classic option of converting an apartment once full of moderate income tenants. What fate awaits the investor vs the tenants? Our nine councilpersons are searching for levers to balance the scale of social justice.....or follow the flow of capital. The apartments named President Hotel could not be more appropriate. Palo Alto as a whole is not distressed economically, but some citizens are really stressed. Too many people are ready to pull a housing lever and surge housing. There is no obvious lever for infrastructure capital to match housing surge. There is no credible housing for displaced tenants for the President Hotel. "Looking backward, looking forward" "The American economy is both riding a record-breaking expansion and adrift in a decade of lost progress. Which truth applies depends on your zip code. A large and rapidly growing share of the population lives in thriving areas. The post- recession economy has delivered phenomenal economic growth and rising prosperity for degree holders, professional workers, and communities with spending power. But an economy that only works for the college-educated and the places they congregate is not an economy that works. The ruddy national economic outlook risks breeding complacency. It should not. The median American community has not healed from the trauma of the Great Recession and is ill-equipped to cope with the inevitable next downturn. This period of national 2 prosperity is our chance to reinvest in communities and rekindle the economy’s dynamic forces. Policymakers should strive to make opportunity more accessible, healthy risk- taking more viable, markets more competitive, and people more empowered to choose and shape their communities." 2018 Distressed Communities Index     2018 Distressed Communities Index The Distressed Communities Index (DCI) combines seven complementary metrics into a broad-based assessment of com...    Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com   1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 10:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Presidents Hotel and Other Similar Properties Dear Council Members,    I read with dismay the most recent attempt to cater to developer interests over the interests of residents of  Palo Alto, particular those residents who are not affluent.  Of course I speak of the proposed changes that  would allow the Presidents Hotel which currently provides affordable housing to be converted to a boutique  hotel.      I don't know when it was that the tide turned at the offices of City staff.  Perhaps it was the appointment of  City Manager Jim Keene, or perhaps they were simply taking their cue from some members of the Council ‐‐  current and former.  The latest last minute "emergency" call to change ordnances already on the books to  protect housing for those who would otherwise be priced out of the market is simply the latest example of a  City government that says one thing about housing, but then does quite another.      Those of you on the Council who have called for great developer incentives to provide housing, cloaking your  arguments in the mystical and wholly unsupported view that building primarily market rate housing is really  an attempt to provide more affordable housing, now have a pretty stark choice.  Either you are in favor of  maintaining and creating more affordable housing, or you are not.  You can either protect the affordable  housing we have, or you can vote once again in favor of developers and against the best interests of the  neediest citizens among us.      All residents are watching what you do.  It is two years until the next election when some of you will be  seeking re‐election and some of you may hope to move on to other offices.  That is a long time, and much  damage can be done in the meantime.  But we have long memories.  The voters spoke at the last election, but  you are not listening.  Palo Alto, one of the smartest communities in the country, deserves creative solutions  and not the tired old arguments that turn wonderful communities into canyons of concrete blocks and little  sense of community.  We can do better.    I urge you to protect the Presidents Hotel among other currently available affordable housing units.    Sincerely,  Carol Scott  Resident of Evergreen Park        ‐‐   Carol Scott  2 Carnahan, David From:kemp650@aol.com Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 11:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel - loss of 75 affordable housing units - what?! Dear City Council, I am dismayed that the City of Palo Alto is poised to allow AJ Capital to decrease Palo Alto's stock of affordable housing at a time when we are trying to add 300 housing units this year. How can we let something like this happen? As I understand it, AJ Capital would have been restricted to continue using the President Hotel as housing and not able to convert it to hotel space. However, there is some existing provision that needs to be adjusted for their needs--to allow them to proceed with the conversion to hotel rooms over desperately needed housing. In addition, AJ Capital wants the city council to allow them to skip paying the parking fees since they won't be able to provide adequate parking for their hotel. If the City Council allows AJ Capital a variance on this request, I will lose even more faith in my elected representatives when it comes to controlling traffic congestion and providing adequate parking so that it doesn't spill over into our residential neighborhoods. The fees that AJ Capital should pay for parking would go a long ways towards the planned parking garages. The City should collect what is rightfully due to them. Thanks for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Susan Kemp 3 Carnahan, David From:Linnea Wickstrom <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 12:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Linnea wickstrom Subject:President Hotel Honorable Council Members,     I am so confused. I cannot understand why AJ Capital would be granted an exception to the ordinance on change of use or  why exempting AJ Capital from $13M in in‐lieu parking fees would even be considered.     I can guess that AJ Capital would sue the City if precluded from the proposed conversion. And I can guess that the revenue to  the City would be much greater from a hotel than from housing.    Even so, when Palo Alto is so far behind it’s own housing goals and when any new housing faces immense hurdles, even in  high‐density areas, why is losing 75 affordable, walkable, downtown residences being given so much runway?    Linnea Wickstrom  Palo Alto, CA  1 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 3:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:I thought you wanted housing. Why mess with the Grandfathered Uses and Facilities ordinance? Another example of speaking out of both sides of your mouths. It's quite shameful what you are doing. And you have no guts to put it first on the agenda. Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 4:05 PM To:Council, City; Council, City Cc:allison@padailypost.com; Gennady Sheyner Subject:December 10, 2018, Council Meeting, Item: 16: Proposed Ordinance Amending PAMC Section 18.18.120 Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    December 10, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    By Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery    DECEMBER 10, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #16  PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.18.120    CROSS REFERENCE: 488 UNIVERSITY AVENUE (PRESIDENT HOTEL)      Dear City Council:    I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because the proposed ordinance violates the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).    In addition, the proposed ordinance is an ordinance that increases property owners development rights, requires two readings, and is subject to referendum, while the findings and declarations in the proposed ordinance includes language that is copied from California Government Code Section 65858 that exists to authorize interim ordinances to prohibit a property owner from using his or her property to protect the planning process so that the property owner could not introduce potentially nonconforming land uses that could defeat a later adopted Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance.    Further, the staff report for this agenda item (ID # 9910) at Page 3 says, “The proposed ordinance seeks to revert the Downtown non-complying facilities regulations back to the pre-2016 standard”, and at Page 2 says, “The change may have been unintentional and occurred in January 2016”, but documents available in the City Clerk’s office and online demonstrate that the language has existed in the Palo Alto Municipal Code since at least 2 2006, and I believe records available elsewhere will show that the language has been in the Zoning Ordinance even earlier than that.        Brown Act Violation    The primary purpose of this proposed ordinance is to enable the conversion of the property at 488 University Avenue from rental apartments to a hotel.    The failure to include that fact in the agenda description is a violation of the Brown Act.      CEQA Violation    CEQA Regulation 15378(a) defines “project” as the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”, including “(1) An activity undertaken by any public agency.”    CEQA Regulation 15378(d) says, “Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under subdivision (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental approvals .. the Lead Agency shall describe the project as the development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis.    Therefore, the CEQA project is the proposed conversion of 488 University Avenue from apartments to a hotel, and the regulation in the subject agenda item is part of that CEQA project.    Segmenting this agenda item from the CEQA analysis of the development project is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion.    The project is not exempt from CEQA under either of reasons given in the agenda description and staff report.    The reasons why the project is not exempt are included in the arguments in July 27, 2018, letter from Heather Minner of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP that appears in the Public Letters to Council in the August 13, 2018, City Council Agenda Packet on pages 90-96 at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=45470.91& BlobID=66185        Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.120(b)(2).    3 The proposed ordinance seeks to delete language in PAMC Section 18.18.120 that the Planning Director claims was added to the Municipal Code inadvertently in error by means of cutting and pasting the language from someplace else, although he is careful in not citing the source of the “cut-and-paste” language because there is none.    The language in question has been part of the Municipal Code continuously since at least 2006 when the Council adopted Ordinance No. 4923, and I believe that the same language has been in the Municipal Code continuously longer than that, but due to a gap in the City Clerk’s records I was unable to verify that fact today, but I believe there are other records that confirm my belief and I will let you know that as soon as I am able to access those records.    The language that staff proposes to delete is at Page 64 of Ordinance No. 4923 introduced October 16, 2006, adopted November 6, 2006, and effective December 7, 2006, or twelve years ago, and is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19591.    I realize that there may be further actions on the subject of this agenda item in other forums.    Therefore, I will be proving a copy of this letter to the City Clerk with a certified copy attached of Ordinance No. 4923 for inclusion in the Public Letters to Council in the next City Council Agenda Packet, and for the Administrative Record of these proceedings and other proceedings regarding 488 University Avenue.    Sincerely,      Herb Borock    Attachment: (Hand Delivered Copy Only)    Certified Copy of Ordinance No. 4923     1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 5:06 AM To:rothlaw1@comcast.net; Yang, Albert; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Timothy Kassouni Andrea Sacramento, Park 7th St Entrance; Council, City Subject:Fwd: Council Hearing Dec 3 Please see forwarded link to video of council hearing on December 3.    Thanks.    Elizabeth   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: "Carnahan, David" <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Date: December 4, 2018 at 2:37:31 PM PST  To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>  Cc: Timothy Kassouni <timothy@kassounilaw.com>, Andrew Wong <a.jaime.wong@gmail.com>, Jaime  Wong <jandewong@gmail.com>  Subject: RE: Council Hearing Dec 3  Elizabeth,     Here is the LINK.     David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org       1 Carnahan, David From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 5, 2018 7:08 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City; Price@padailypost.com; editor@paweekly.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:345 Forest Avenue | Crown Castle/Verizon Node Warm greetings,    Having lived now 3 years at 345 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 and overlooking the lovely 1930s fountain and little courtyard I have seen hundreds of people stop and gaze from various angles at this courtyard and wonderful building.    Any type of extension to the current size of the traffic light - small as the Telecom firm will claim it to be - is directly IN THE VIEW of one of the most photographed local landmarks.     The role of the ARB has to be to defend the beauty of our city and small or large add-on contraptions have NO PLACE at this location.     The Crown Castle/Verizon applicant is proposing a node at Forest/Gilman. Let them know that they can keep their nodes away from blocking/changing the view (be it even slightly) of our town!    Sincerely,    Ardan Michael Blum    ‐‐     CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or may otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachment thereto.       1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 12:46 PM To:Ro Khanna; press_harris@harris.senate.gov Subject:AAP WARNS- 5G cause cancer?? Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com -----------U.S. must start thinking of human health------- BREAKING NEWS: Congress is demanding answers about the safety of 5G wireless technology before it is installed throughout America. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Rep. Anna Eshoo of CA have formally requested that the (FCC) disclose evidence of 5G safety. Sen. Blumenthal; “We need to know IF radio frequencies can cause cancer.” Cellphone radiation has been linked to serious health risks. Earlier this year, the US National Toxicology Report showed a link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in brain/heart. ------ Read below: Environmental Health Trust and Amer. Acad. of Pediatrics Environmental Health Trust ehtrust.org/wp-content The Academy of Pediatrics Recommendations about Cell Phones, Cell Towers and Wireless The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the largest US medical association of pediatricians and pediatric specialists, recommends that the US government tighten wireless exposure limits and that the public reduce children’s exposure to cell phones and other devices that emit wireless radiation. In 2016, the AAP issued a press release about the U.S National Toxicology Program research findings of cancerous tumors found in rats exposed to cell phone radiation. The Academy’s website HealthyChild.org then publicly issued new recommendations to reduce children’s exposure to wireless radiation. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly supported the Cell Phone Right to Know Act H.R. 6358, federal legislation that would have informed the American public that wireless devices expose consumers to radiofrequency microwave radiation exposures. This legislation would have authorized the US government to review the scientific research on biological effects, initiate research on electromagnetic fields and develop safety standards by the Environmental Protection Agency. The official position of the AAP is documented in three letters they sent to government officials. The letters describe children’s unique vulnerability to wireless radiation and call on the federal government to review and tighten radiation standards for wireless devices in order to protect pregnant women and children’s health. In 2012, the AAP sent a letter in support of the newly proposed Right To Know federal legislation. In 2012, the AAP wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) calling for it to open up a review of radiofrequency limits. In 2013, after the FCC opened up “Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” the AAP submitted a letter to the FCC with their official comment. 2 In 2012, the AAP published Pediatric Environmental Health, the AAP Textbook of Children’s Environmental Health and Chapter 41 is about Electromagnetic Fields. AAP Recommendations: • Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can’t guarantee that the amount of radiation you’re absorbing will be at a safe level. • When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head. • Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits. • Make only short or essential calls on cell phones. • If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. • Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases. • Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items. AAP on Cell Tower Radiation: “In recent years, concern has increased about exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and phone station antennae. An Egyptian study confirmed concerns that living nearby mobile phone base stations increased the risk for developing: Headaches, Memory problems, Dizziness, Depression, Sleep problems Short-term exposure to these fields in experimental studies have not always shown negative effects, but this does not rule out cumulative damage from these fields, so larger studies over longer periods are needed to help understand who is at risk. In large studies, an association has been observed between symptoms and exposure to these fields in the everyday environment.” American Academy of Pediatrics Documents AAP Healthy Children.org * Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know *AAP Healthy Children Website on Cell Tower Radiation and Health Effects *AAP responds to study showing link between cell phone radiation, tumors in rats * AAP Press Release May 27, 2016 Pediatric Environmental Health, Textbook of Children’s Environmental Health 3rd Edition edited by Philip J. Landrigan, Ruth A. Etzel. Chapter 41, Electromagnetic Fields Oxford Medicine Chapter 41 “More study needed on risk of brain tumors from cell phone use” * AAP Press Release, September 25, 2011 American Academy of Pediatrics Official Letters 2013 * AAP Letter to FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling for a review of RF guidelines 2012 *AAP Letter to US Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act 2012 * AAP Letter to the FCC Chairman calling for the FCC to open up a review of RF guidelines News Reports WMKY Public Radio: *AAP Recommends Putting Cellphone Use on Hold for Children’s Health * WebMed: Children Face Higher Health Risk From Cell Phones Baltimore Sun: Pediatric researchers suggest potential dangers for children from cellphone exposure * National Center for Health Research: Children and cell phones: is phone radiation risky for kids? * Time Magazine (2012): Pediatricians Say Cell Phone Radiation Standards Need Another Look * CNN Sanjay Gupta: Children and Cell Phones Report Environmental Health * Trust Resources PDF of a Powerpoint of the American Academy of Recommendations American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations to “Reduce Exposure to Cell Phones” Nation’s largest group of children’s doctors responds to new government study linking cell phone radiation to cancer. 3 * Press Release September 2016 The American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations are highlighted in this Factsheet and Postcard about children and wireless radiation. From Environmental Health Trust ----------- BioInitiative 2012 From bioInitiative.org A rational for Standards for low-intensity EMRs Updated Research Summaries The Research Summaries by Dr. Lai include published scientific study references and abstracts that are updated to 2017, replacing the 2014 files. We have expanded the number of downloadable research summaries to include abstract collections on neurological effects and on comet assay studies, and provided new graphics on “Effect vs No Effect” studies. The new..read more → BioInitiative Report: Medical concerns intensify over deadly brain tumors from cell phone use/Orebro University Hospital, Sweden There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones” says Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Orebro University, Sweden, according to publications through mid-2017. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a Group 1 (Known) Human Carcinogen……read more → Cell Phone Radiation Study Confirms Cancer Risk Orebro University, Sweden May 31, 2016 The National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health has completed the largest-ever animal study on cell phone radiation and cancer. The results confirm that cell phone radiation exposure levels within the currently allowable safety limits are the “likely cause” of..read more → Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, Epoigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development Announcing a Special Section of Child Development from © The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. Contemporary Mobile Technology and Child and Adolescent Development, edited by Zheng Yan and Lennart Hardell, May 15, 2017 Article by Cindy Sage and Ernesto Burgio Abstract Mobile phones and other wireless devices that produce electromagnetic fields (EMF) and.. read more → Effects of Mobile Phones on Children's and Adolescents' Health: A Commentary Announcing a Special Section of Child Development from © The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. Contemporary Mobile Technology and Child and Adolescent Development, edited by Zheng Yan and Lennart Hardell, May 15, 2017 Article by Lennart Hardell Orebro University Abstract The use of digital technology has grown rapidly during the last couple of..read more → Effects of Mobile Phones on Children’s and Adolescents’ Health: A Commen...    Comment to the FCC on Docket 16-421 on Streamlining for Small Cell (Antenna) Rollout by Relaxing the Rules for Siting The FCC is proposing to ‘streamline’ the permitting process for small wireless facilities, without completing its investigation of RF health effects of low-intensity radio frequency radiation. This fact alone 4 argues against the FCC speeding and easing the approval of millions of new ‘small cell’ wireless antenna sites under Docket 16-421. It also argues against permitting thousands of new.. read more → From bioInitiative.org 1 Carnahan, David From:Courtney Modena <cmodena1@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 7:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable housing Get a clue! Look around!  People need homes!    Open your eyes, all of you.  What is happening to everyone? How do you sleep at night knowing people are suffering, not  eating and sleeping on  our streets.    Enough already!!!!!  More affordable housing.    ASAP!        Sent from me  1 Carnahan, David From:martin@sommer.net Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:arobeso@menlopark.org Subject:Attn: Rail Committee, Palo Alto Email sent to Angela Obeso, City of Menlo Park: Please address the issue of: a) closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing, in conjunction with b) taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Thank you! Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Great meeting you last night  Date:2018‐12‐06 10:24  From:martin@sommer.net  To:arobeso@menlopark.org  Good morning Angela, It was great meeting you last night at the Menlo Park Caltrain meeting. I had proposed the idea of closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing in Palo Alto, and taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. I had also suggested moving the small El Palo Alto Park to the other side of the tracks, and extend the El Camino Park. This idea would: a) eliminate the cost of another grade separation, b) eliminate train noise wrt to current crossing, and c) lower the number of track crossings, between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Please let me know, if I can help you explain this idea to Menlo Park and/or Palo Alto stake holders. Thanks again, Martin 2 -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers in Residential Neighborhoods My husband and I urge you:    To reverse your May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its cheap, ugly and potentially hazardous equipment aboveground next to people’s homes;    To direct City Staff to vigorously enforce Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances with respect to the siting and installation of cell towers near residences; and, more specifically,    To direct City Staff to stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the FCC’s aggressively pro-telecommunications-industry October order into our municipal ordinances.    Sincerely,    George and Barbara Kelly  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 2:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:City Staff pressing PTC to get with the telecom industry's program Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and Council Members DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka and Wolbach, I am writing to urge you to direct City Staff to stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate into Palo Alto’s municipal ordinances the current administration FCC’s October order establishing, among other things, $270 per year as the maximum pole rental fee for neighborhood cell tower equipment. The PTC will be considering this recommendation at its meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, December 12th, 2018. It is impossible to imagine that what City Staff is advising the PTC to do could be of benefit to Palo Alto’s residents. New York, Seattle, Portland, Denver, San Jose and dozens of other cities are resisting the order and suing the FCC over it. Moreover, to reduce fire hazards, the California PUC just initiated the process of establishing rules that ultimately will require the undergrounding of many utility poles. In this context, how can it make sense for City Staff to recommend to the PTC that they codify allowing these poles to be loaded up with heavy cell tower equipment, let alone codify renting space on the poles for the pittance of $270 a year? Please consider what is best for residents and direct City Staff to stop advising the PTC to needlessly lock Palo Alto into a bad policy that aggressively favors the telecommunications industry at the expense of the people who live here. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bruce Nixon <bnixon25@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 7:09 PM To:Amy Kacher Cc:Council, City; crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: [CPNA] Crescent park Traffic Yes, really bad. I had to deal with it getting home. Lots of detours.    Sent from my iPhone    > On Dec 11, 2018, at 5:38 PM, 'Amy Kacher' via Crescent Park PA <crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com> wrote:  >   > City Council   >   > We need to take into account the reality of just how frequently we get complete gridlock in our neighborhood, when  planning development.    >   >   > This photo is taken at the corner of Hamilton and Center 12/11/18 5:29pm.   > Cars are backed up on Hamilton past Lincoln. Cars on Center are backed up to Dana.   >   > I have also attached a screen shot of waz showing that from Dana and Center, it is 22 minutes travel time to IKEA.  Normally it is 5 minutes.   >   > ‐‐   > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.  > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent‐park‐ pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  > To post to this group, send email to crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com.  > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent‐park‐pa.  > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  > <image2.jpeg>  >   >   >   > ‐‐   > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.  > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent‐park‐ pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  > To post to this group, send email to crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com.  > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent‐park‐pa.  > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  > <image1.png>  >   >   >   > Sent from my iPhone  >   2 > ‐‐   > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.  > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent‐park‐ pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  > To post to this group, send email to crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com.  > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent‐park‐pa.  > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:38 PM To:Council, City; crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com Subject:Crescent park Traffic City Council     We need to take into account the reality of just how frequently we get complete gridlock in our neighborhood, when  planning development.        This photo is taken at the corner of Hamilton and Center 12/11/18 5:29pm.   Cars are backed up on Hamilton past Lincoln. Cars on Center are backed up to Dana.     I have also attached a screen shot of waz showing that from Dana and Center, it is 22 minutes travel time to IKEA.  Normally it is 5 minutes.   2     3 18:33 22 Min 12 Km •II>) TolKEA No events on route 4       Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:37 AM To:Stump, Molly Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; 'James Sutton' Subject:Demand for Reconsideration of City Council Vote on Verizon Cell Tower Applications Via Email Correspondence Molly Stump, Esq. City of Palo Alto City Attorney 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Demand for Reconsideration of City Council Vote on Verizon Cell Tower Applications Dear Ms. Stump: This letter demands that the City Council reconsider its May 21, 2018 decision to deny my appeal of the Planning Department’s prior approval of eleven permits to install Verizon cellular telephone towers in residential neighborhoods (see 5/21/18 Council Agenda Item #6) because this City decision may have been tainted by a conflict of interest and illegal “gifts.” As you certainly are aware, CTO Jonathan Reichental has come under severe scrutiny recently for accepting free trips and fees from the telecommunications industry and for not properly disclosing those “gifts” and this income on his annual financial disclosure statements (FPPC Form 700). After accepting these over-the-limit gifts and undisclosed fees from the telecommunications industry, he then evidently used his official position as Palo Alto’s CTO to influence City decisions on telecommunications issues on behalf of telecommunications companies – most likely including the decision of the Planning Department and City Council to approve Vinculums/Verizon’s first round of 2 applications to install in residential neighborhoods cell towers with hundreds of pounds of ancillary equipment located aboveground. In fact, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) is currently investigating whether Mr. Reichental violated the disclosure and disqualification provisions of the ethics laws. If found in violation of these laws, he could face fines of thousands of dollars. As the City’s Chief Technology Officer, Mr. Reichental is clearly aware of, and involved in, all City decisions involving wireless communications, cellular telephone towers, etc. In particular, Mr. Reichental leads the multi-department Connected Cities working group. This group continually oversees telecommunications projects in the City, including—according to the Connected Cities meeting agendas and minutes—overseeing Verizon’s applications to install cell towers. In fact, one of Mr. Reichental’s juniors on his Connected Cities group—the Utilities Department’s Jim Fleming (no relation to me)—advised City Council regarding the Verizon applications at the May 21, 2018, appeals hearing. Moreover, Mr. Reichental sits on the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Wireless Communications Initiative Committee, which submitted a brief opposing my appeal of the Planning Department’s decision. (Joint Venture Silicon Valley receives financial support from AT&T, Crown Castle and Verizon, all of whom have submitted applications to the City of Palo Alto to install cell towers.) It is therefore very likely that Mr. Reichental “used his official position to influence” the decision, in violation of the law. (See Cal. Govt. Code section 87103.) Reconsidering the decision and giving the public and the City Council the opportunity to discuss whether Mr. Reichental’s transgressions warrant a change in the decision is clearly appropriate under these circumstances. In fact, a new hearing on the appeal is warranted in order to protect my due process rights as an appellant. (See Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152 [party was deprived a fair hearing because city official was unable to exercise “disinterested skill, zeal 3 and diligence” due to his personal interest in decision].) Moreover, the law clearly states that a City Council decision can be overturned based on the improper involvement of a City employee who hid his personal financial interest in the decision. (Cal. Govt. Code section 91003(b).) In sum, Mr. Reichental’s possible acceptance of over-the-limit gifts and undisclosed fees from the telecommunications industry may have tainted the City’s review of the Vinculums/Verizon applications and therefore warrants reconsideration by the City Council. Thank you for your prompt response to this request. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming cc: James R. Sutton, Esq. Sutton Law Firm Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 Post Office Box 60399 Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:40 AM To:Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez Subject:Fluoridation VIOLATES Human Rights Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com From fluoridealert.org, Fluoride Action Network, FAN  Human Rights Day About Fluoride in Tap Water   by Paul Connett, PhD, Director Today, December 10, is Human Rights Day. It commemorates the day in 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  * Fluoride puts a medical treatment in tap water without informed consent  * The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.  * Fluoride is world’s longest-running medical experiment  * An individual’s informed consent has priority over any other authority  .  Fluoridation and Human Rights  For many people the strongest argument against fluoridation is that it is a violation of the individual’s right to informed consent to medical treatment, and that is a human right. No government (local, state or federal) should have the right to add chemicals to the drinking water designed to treat human beings as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink. Every doctor and dentist should know this but few seem to care. But on Humans Right day it is time to remind them.  For starters look at the language in the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Here is some of that language and we have underlined the principles that highlight the violations of human rights inherent in water fluoridation:  Principles Within the scope of this Declaration, in decisions or practices taken or carried out by those to whom it is addressed, the following principles 2 are to be respected. Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights 1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected. 2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society. Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. 3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.  Doubtless, promoters of fluoridation will point out that principles 2 and 3 pertain to “research” and they will argue that fluoridation is not research; that its benefits and efficacy were “proved” years ago. However, they can’t have it both ways, whenever a study shows a serious harm (like the U.S. government funded- Bashash et al, 2017 and 2018 studies) the promoters’ response is to call for more studies.  Calling for more studies is tantamount to admitting that their case has NOT been proved and that fluoridation is one of the world’s longest-running 3 medical experiments. The earliest promoters of fluoridation understood this that is why they insisted that the fluoridation 1945 “trials” in Grand Rapids, MI and Newburgh, NY were “demonstrations” not “experiments.”  Sadly, the world is not run on ethical principles, but for one day a year – Dec 10 - perhaps we can pretend that it is. For the rest of the year – as far as fighting fluoridation is concerned it is a relief that the hard science is on our side. Our biggest problem – especially in 2019 - is trying to let the public and the media know that this is the case. We have to make the “invisible” visible to the public, and then in court.   Paul Connett, PhD,  Director, Fluoride Action Network, Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride…(Chelsea Green, 2010)  See all FAN bulletins online       1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 8:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: ABAG October- November enews   From: ABAG <pratul@mtc‐ca.ccsend.com> On Behalf Of ABAG  Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 5:50 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: ABAG October‐ November enews    For your information       October‐November Update      CASA — The Committee to House the Bay Area — Compact Status Report  Staff briefed the Executive Board on the CASA effort and areas of agreement for the CASA Compact and asked for the Board's input and discussion. By the end of 2018, CASA will have engaged a broad range of stakeholders to develop a suite of recommendations for legislative reform, new revenue, and regional leadership. These recommendations will be packaged into the CASA Compact for consideration by ABAG, MTC and myriad state and local policy makers.    The current schedule calls for the CASA Compact to be finalized by mid-December. If the schedule holds, the ABAG Executive Board in January and the MTC Commission in December would consider authorizing the President and Chair to sign the CASA Compact.    CASA includes leaders from across the Bay Area who will build actionable political consensus around (1) increasing housing production at all levels of affordability, (2) preserving existing affordable housing, and (3) protecting vulnerable populations from housing instability and displacement for consideration by ABAG,MTC and myriad.     CASA is being led by three Co-Chairs: Fred Blackwell, The San Francisco Foundation; Leslye Corsiglia, Silicon Valley at Home; and Michael Covarrubias, TMG Partners. It is structured around a Steering Committee and Technical Committee composed of local elected officials, thought leaders, and policy experts from across the region. The CASA     2 effort is supported and staffed by the consolidated ABAG and MTC staff and a team of consultants. More information about CASA is available here.     New Executive Director Recruitment Underway The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is recruiting for a new Executive Director, who will report directly to the MTC Commission, and be responsible for the administration of more than $2 billion per year in funding for the operation, maintenance and expansion of the Bay Area’s surface transportation network. Under contract with the ABAG, the MTC Executive Director also provides staffing and support services to ABAG. The next Executive Director must be an exceptional leader with an unflappable presence and the ability to respond to the region's challenges, both strategically and tactically.     A MTC Executive Director Selection Committee (EDSC) and an ABAG Committee will both review the nominations. Current Executive Director Steve Heminger is retiring in February of 2019. More information is available here.       Next Steps: Looking at Governance     Joint ABAG Executive Board Meeting and MTC Commission - Approval of Plan Bay Area 2040   Information from the governance presentation made to the joint MTC Planning and ABAG Adminstration Committee meeting on November 9th is availble here.     Pursuant to its joint 2017 action by ABAG and MTC to consolidate staffs, both agencies also agreed to explore pontential consolidation of the governing bodies. As a next step — Management Partners — an outside consulting firm will begin examining the governance structures of many regional planning agencies with a focus on those with both land use and transportation planning powers and responsibilities. To initiate the process, a Board   and Commission working group has already met with staff and Management Partners.   The collected information will inform the ABAG Executive Board and the MTC Commission. A final report is due in June 2019. The Board and Commission will then 3 discuss whether the two agencies should restructure their governing boards to better serve the region and to better utilize the consolidated staff. Both ABAG and MTC retain the decision on whether or not to merge the two governing boards.     Bay Area Cities Permitted More Housing in 2017, Acute Shortfall of Affordable Housing Still Exists     New data on housing.abag.ca.gov reveals Bay Area cities and counties permitted 27,103 new housing units in 2017, more than either 2016 (20,868) or 2015 (20,495); but only 18 percent of these units were for very-low-, low- or moderate-income residents -- far below the 58 percent required by the state's Housing and Community Development Department. A new report summarizing the 2017 data, is available on https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housing/publications.html. as Bay Area Housing Permit Activity Report, 2015-2017.     "With this new data, we can clearly see that more housing development is on the way, but we're still far behind in meeting the housing demand for all income levels," commented ABAG President and Sonoma County Supervisor David Rabbitt. "The work that is being done at ABAG and at MTC in the Committee to House the Bay Area, known as CASA, is urgently needed to bring Bay Area leaders together to solve this problem."     The housing data portal now includes complete datasets for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017; and will continue to be updated to incorporate cities' and counties' housing permit and policy activities in future years. These datasets provide a resource to shape both the development and evaluation of Bay Area governments' housing policies, and will help support the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)'s funding initiatives.    These initiatives include the One Bay Area Grant program and the new Housing Incentive Pool challenge grant program that are linked to cities' and counties' results in permitting, producing and preserving housing. MTC established the Housing Incentive Pool to reward local governments that permit or preserve the greatest number of housing units at the moderate-, low- and very-low income levels. (see related story below)       MTC Offers Cities, Counties Big Carrot to Spur Affordable Housing       4 Taking a bold step to ease the Bay Area’s persistent shortage of affordable housing, MTC will be distributing $71 million of Housing Incentive Pool funds, or HIP for short, to reward with transportation infrastructure dollars the cities and counties that over the nemoney on a per- unit basis to the 15 jurisdictions that issue certificates of occupancy for the greatest number of eligible housing units — both newly-built and preserved as affordable to low-, very-low- and moderate-income households over the five calendar years 2018 through 2022. These grants will be awarded only after the fifth year of the HIP time period.     As part of the HIP initiative, MTC is establishing a pilot program through which cities and counties can compete for $5 million in grants for infrastructure improvements around affordable housing developments. The Commission and staff in partnership with county congestion management agencies will develop guidelines for this program over the coming months.     HIP is a housing $76 million grant program, that awards transportation infrastructure dollars to cities and counties that over the next five years produce or preserve the largest number of affordable housing units in designated Priority Development Areas or in Transit Priority Areas. These are areas that cities and counties have identified as preferred locations for new homes, job growth and other investment, or that are near transit hubs.     The HIP commitment includes $46 million in state funds administered by MTC through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) plus $30 million in flexible federal funds through the second round of the Commission’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) program.     “The idea is to incentivize the construction and preservation of affordable housing,” said Steve Heminger, executive director of both ABAG and MTC. “We are trying to encourage…whoever can do it, large (jurisdiction) or small.”     MTC and ABAG established several other eligibility criteria for the HIP program as well:   Preserved affordable housing units must either be subsidized multifamily properties that have been identified by the California Housing Partnership Corp. as being at high or very-high risk of conversion to market-rate rents, or multifamily properties with affordable-but-unrestricted rents on which new long-term rent restrictions have been placed.   A preserved affordable housing unit with deed restrictions running at least 55 years will be counted as one HIP unit. Units with shorter-term deed restrictions will receive a pro-rated share of a single HIP unit based on this 55-year standard.   Newly-constructed units must be deed-restricted for continued affordability to low-, very-low or moderate-income households.   To be eligible for HIP funding, each city or county must have its overall Housing Elements certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and also demonstrate compliance with state housing laws related to surplus lands, accessory dwelling units and density bonuses. Self-certification through a local resolution is allowed to demonstrate compliance with these final three requirements.          5 Cities and counties looking to ensure that housing units can count toward HIP are encouraged to contact Gillian Adams of the ABAG MTC staff at 415-820-7911, or by email at gadams@bayareametro.gov for more information.     San Franicsco Estuary Partnership Hosts National Estuary Program Conference             Every fall, staff from the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEP) gather together in one estuary to transfer knowledge, share stories and tools, and advance collaborative opportunities, at the NEP Fall Tech Transfer Meeting. This past October, SFEP had the great pleasure of hosting the annual meeting.  Staff from NEPs from around the country as well as staff from US EPA headquarters and three regional offices attended the Meeting. The agenda included presentations from NEPs on various topics during tech transfer sessions, an afternoon boat tour, a panel presentation on integrating environmental justice into the work of NEPs, field visits to restoration sites around the Bay, and a collaboration with the Exploratorium with estuary-themed presentations and interactive demonstrations for their “After Dark” series.  According to Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership Director, "The Fall NEP meeting is a great opportunity to focus on the benefits of the national program. The NEPs successfully leverage funds to focus on local capacity building informed by national priorities. NEPs address issues of national importance with a unique non-regulatory collaborative approach and direct engagement with the community. Our model is unique and successful and the NEPs take great pride in the work that we are able to accomplish."         Earthquake Guides Show Ways to Lessen Damage         6   An online tool is now available to help residents identify potential earthquake- related damage to their homes and provides information on how to gird against the next big temblor.    The Earthquake Home Quiz can be accessed at ABAG Resilience Program's website at homequakequiz.org, along with   a downloadable PDF of the Earthquake     Field Guide to help assess potential impacts of earthquakes. The new Earthquake Field Guide was released to coincide with the 10th Annual Great California ShakeOut on Oct. 18, a statewide preparedness event.     "The time to prepare is now," said David Rabbitt, ABAG president and member of the California Seismic Safety Commission. "We are in earthquake country and it's just a matter of time before we are affected in some way, whether small or large. The quiz is an engaging, new way to see what the effects might be and lays the groundwork for preparedness."     The U.S. Geological Survey has determined there is a 72 percent chance of at least one earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater striking somewhere in the Bay Area in the next 30 years. It's the continual movement of the Earth's plates against each other that causes energy to build. When the plates slip, energy is released and earthquakes result. In the Bay Area's case, it's the Pacific Plate moving northwest past the North American Plate that puts pressure along the faults in the region.    The quiz allows residents to gain insight into seismic safety, whether they are in a single- family home, apartment building or mobile home. The types of housing in the region are as diverse as the Bay Area itself and the quiz allows residents to explore the resilience of their particular type of home.     The release of these online tools come in the wake of updated ABAG estimates of housing losses in the region as a result of a large-scale earthquake. The ABAG data tell a compelling and personal story about the Bay Area's potential future after an earthquake: How many buildings will be damaged? How many households will be displaced? And how many residents will be seeking shelter? Visit resilience.abag.ca.gov/housing/losses to review the findings and connect with the data behind the numbers.      ABAG's newest estimates of housing losses provide a significant update to the last such data released in 2003, with the latest figures reflecting current housing stock and the Bay Area's present population.    The figures use the most recent modeling techniques to identify potential residential housing losses for 16 plausible earthquake scenarios in the Bay Area. Under the most dramatic scenario, a 7.8-magnitude quake along all the northern segments of the San     7 Andreas Fault, 68,900 residential buildings would be rendered uninhabitable, while causing $28.4 billion in residential building damage alone.    Under this scenario, San Mateo would have the largest number of uninhabitable residential buildings at 19,300; followed by San Francisco at 18,300; Santa Clara at 15,500; Alameda at 8,300; Marin at 3,100; Sonoma at 2,400; Contra Costa at 1,400; Solano at 400; and Napa at 200. In all, 68,900 buildings would be uninhabitable.            Bay Trail and Water Trail Projects Help Celebrate the Bay        The Bay Area celebrated the San Francisco Bay on October 6th with 54 different events around the Bay. Led by Save the Bay, Bay Day was again the perfect opportunity to explore and discover the beauty and diversity of our Bay.    Celebrants selected from creek clean ups to kayak tours launched from Water Trail landing sites to Bay Trail walks. Redwood City hosted PortFest and the Palo Alto Baylands Restoration event brought residents and supporters together.     Visit the Bay Day website for more information and to plan for next year.           8   ABAG President Rabbitt and Jerry Lahr    Executive Board Congratulates Jerry Lahr on his Retirement    The Executive Board recogized the retirement of Energy Program Director Jerry Lahr for his nearly two decades of work on Bay Area energy issues. Lahr is retiring in January 2019, after successfully sheparding the Energy Program through significant changes and the addition of BayREN and its energy conservation services.     Congratulations Jerry!    Energy Program Staff          ABAG Meetings and Events Calendar Wednesday, December 12   ABAG POWER Executive Committee Meeting, 11 a.m.  Meeting Location TBD, Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street    Wednesday, January 10  ABAG Regional Planning Committee, 1:00 p.m.  Yerba Buena Room, Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street    Thursday, January 17, 2019  Finance Committee, 5 p.m.  ACFA Governing Board Meeting, 5:10 p.m  Executive Board, 7 p.m.  Board Room, Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street    Check the ABAG Meetings and Agenda page for upcoming meeting information.           9 Association of Bay Area Governments | ABAG/MTC/BATA Public Information, Bay Area Metro Center, San Francisco, CA 94105 Unsubscribe city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by lzippert@bayareametro.gov   1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: :President Hotel ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> To: City Council <city.council@paloalto.org> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018, 2:32:03 PM PST Subject: :President Hotel To the City Council, The Palo Weekly said it all last Friday. This lack of transparency, manipulation, and former staff members involved in this deal, etc. There is a huge lack of trust in this Council, residents who elected you are not being consulted or listened to. Examples, road changes (Atascadero, Ross Rd etc.) are not consulted or asked for their input as to what is needed or NOT needed, the President Hotel being the latest. This sure reminds me of a mini Washington D.C. Is that what we want? Please let the next Council work on this, do not change the zoning. You say you want low/moderate income folks to have housing, well the President was just that. A new luxury hotel does not do that, plus it will increase parking congestion. Your words and actions do not match. Read some of the comments beneath the editorial to get more informed about what we feel. From the Editorial "There is legitimate room for debate on each of these proposed changes had they come before the city in an appropriate and transparent way, followed normal procedures for consideration by the planning commission and absent a manipulative tenant agreement designed to take advantage of and buy the silence of the tenants. The involvement of former senior-level city staff members as paid consultants to A.J. Capital has done nothing but raise suspicions of deals crafted behind the closed doors of City Hall conference rooms. 2 A disingenuous attempt has been made to suggest it's merely a coincidence that these zoning changes were scheduled for the final meetings of the year while citizens are distracted by the holidays and a new seven-member City Council potentially less sympathetic to A.J. Capital will be seated in January. (One, the downtown cap, has been moved to a January agenda, according to City Manager Jim Keene.) City staff, Mayor Liz Kniss and whomever else was involved were wrong to rush this proposal forward and allow the city to become a supporting actor to the three-way deal A.J. Capital is trying to pull off. Instead of facilitating a conversion in use that will sacrifice 75 units of housing for the creation of another hotel, the city should instead be taking advantage of the current zoning rules to block this conversion." 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 10:50 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:FW: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations Attachments:CARRD Comment - Short Electric tunnel only recommendation.pdf From: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 10:19 AM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Fwd: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations  Hi, I'm resending this to ensure it is included in the City Council packet for December 17th. Thanks in advance for your help! Nadia Naik 650-814-1820   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:10 PM  Subject: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: James Keene <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, Shikada, Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, De Geus, Robert  <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>, Goodwin Eileen <apexstr@pacbell.net>, <etty.mercurio@aecom.com>,  <millette.litzinger@aecom.com>, Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>    Dear City Council Members,    We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this  time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the  lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall).    In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for  electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface.  Please see the attached letter for further details.  If you have any questions, please let me know.  Nadia Naik  Co‐founder, CARRD     November  12,  2018       Subject:  Recommendation  of  adding  alternative  of  short  tunnel  for  electrified  trains  only  with   freight  at  the  surface  for  Meadow  and  Charleston  alternatives.         Dear  City  Council  Members,       We  support  the  Staff  Report  recommendation  to  not  eliminate  any  grade  separation   alternatives  at  this  time.  While  the  Viaduct  is  the  least  favored  alternative,  it  remains  worthy  of   further  analysis  because  it  is  the  lowest  cost  and  allows  more  connectivity  than  a  Hybrid  (which   functions  effectively  as  a  wall).       In  addition,  we  would  like  to  propose  an  alternative  that  was  mentioned  previously:  a  short   tunnel  for  electrified  trains,  with  freight  remaining  at  the  surface.  The  slope,  clearance,   ventilation  and  Fire  Life  Safety  requirements  driven  by  freight  and  other  diesel  trains  in  the   tunnels  add  significant  costs  to  the  tunnel  proposal  currently  under  consideration.    Freight   tentatively  remaining  at  the  surface  for  the  present  would  not  liberate  all  of  the  ROW  land  for   other  uses,  but  the  vehicular  crossing  capacity  issue  would  be  addressed.         A  key  condition  has  recently  changed  along  the  corridor  making  this  a  feasible  alternative;   Caltrain  is  no  longer  considering  running  both  diesel  and  electric  trains  and  will  now  have  a  fully   electric  fleet.  In  addition,  the  Dumbarton  Rail  project  recently  received  approval  to  begin  its   investigation  of  whether  to  rebuild  the  old  rail  bridge  that  formerly  carried  freight  across  the   Bay.    If  this  came  to  fruition,  freight  might  be  partially  or  fully  diverted  to  a  Dumbarton  route   and  no  longer  pass  through  Palo  Alto,  leaving  the  right-­‐of-­‐way  above  the  tunnel  free  for  other   uses.         We  have  identified  a  similar  tunneling  project,  the  San  Francisco  Central  Subway  Tunnel,   which  seems  to  indicate  that  tunneling  may  even  be  much  cheaper  than  a  trench.       HMM  Trench  Study:     As  you  may  recall,  in  2014,  HMM  gave  a  rough  estimated  cost  for  a  trench  below  Meadow  and   Charleston  at  $488  Million  (in  2014  dollars).       Here  was  the  breakdown:      2           Central  Subway  Tunnel  Without  Freight     Also  in  2014,  the  Central  Subway  project  in  San  Francisco  completed  a  1.7  mile  dual  subway   tunnel  using  two  20.7  ft  diameter  tunnel  boring  machines  (TBM).  While  the  overall  cost  of  the   project  is  very  high,  the  vast  majority  of  the  cost  is  related  to  several  very  deep  and  complex   stations.  The  cost  to  complete  the  tunnel  portion  of  the  project:  $234  million  dollars  (2014   dollars).  For  reference,  the  distance  from  Loma  Verde  Ave  to  San  Antonio  Road  in  Palo  Alto  is   1.6  miles.  Palo  Alto  would  likely  have  a  additional  costs  beyond  what  was  needed  on  the   subway  project  (signaling,  larger  diameter  bore,  etc.)  but  the  price  difference  is  worth   investigating  and  maybe  minimal  with  the  use  of  a  single  bore  tunnel.     Unlike  Palo  Alto’s  right  of  way,  these  tunnels  were  built  in  densely  urban  San  Francisco  and   under  an  active  BART  line1.  The  TBMs  went  through  various  soils  ranging  from  soft  soils  to   thinly  bedded  siltstone,  shale  and  sandstone  bedrock  -­‐  with  some  area  designated  as   “Potentially  Gassy  with  Special  Conditions”  by  Cal/OSHA2.  The  TBMs  also  had  to  navigate  the                                                                                                                   1   http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/     2   http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/    3   steep  and  turning  alignment  in  an  area  where  they  dealt  with  low  cover,  nearby  utilities,  and   sensitive  structures  requiring  analyses  and  precautions  to  limit  settlement  impact  and  ensure   the  structures  in  downtown  SF  were  safe.    Given  Palo  Alto  is  in  a  suburban  area  with  less   constraints,  it  seems  reasonable  to  consider  this  alternative  closely.       Palo  Alto  Short  Tunnel     Another  way  to  reduce  the  cost  of  a  tunnel  is  to  reduce  the  diameter.  In  2014,  the  High  Speed   Rail  Authority’s  White  Paper  on  Tunneling  describes  how  they  achieved  significant  cost   reductions  by  reducing  maximum  operating  speeds  assumptions  in  the  tunnels  from  220  mph   to  200  mph,  thereby  allowing  them  to  reduce  tunnel  diameters  from  29.5’  to  28’  ID  (Inside   Diameter).  3     CARRD  requested  from  AECOM  information  on  the  tunnel  assumptions  being  used  for  the  City   wide  tunnel  (which  include  freight)  and  they  responded  that  they  are  using  a  “28  ft  Inside   Diameter  Tunnel”  which  would  large  enough  to  allow  200  mph  speeds.  A  significantly  smaller   diameter  would  be  required  to  accommodate  planned  speeds  of  110  mph.  And,  as  noted  in  our   previous  public  comment  on  height  clearances,  the  Caltrain  Electrification  EIR  specifically  notes   that  the  clearance  levels  at  the  San  Francisquito  creek  bridge  (where  freight  passes  today)  is   actually  19ft.  It  is  therefore  worth  investigating  whether  the  tunnel  dimensions  for  a  short,   electrified  train  only  tunnel  in  Palo  Alto  where  maximum  speed  for  both  Caltrain  and  HSR  is  110   miles  per  hour  would  allow  us  to  have  a  tunnel  diameter  that  is  less  than  28’.       Other  key  things  to  consider  for  the  short  tunnel  with  freight  on  the  surface  (EOT)  option:       • Without  freight,  the  1%  grade  requirement  could  more  readily  change  to  2%  or  even  3%   grade,  which  would  allow  for  more  design  flexibility.   • Caltrain  and  freight  could  continue  operations  during  construction  with  minimal   disruption  except  at  the  site  of  tunnel  boring  machine  entrance  and  exit.   • Traffic  during  construction  would  be  minimally  disrupted   • Tunnels  in  stations  are  expensive,  but  this  option  would  not  impact  stations   • Tunnels  are  faster  to  build.  Construction  time  is  dramatically  reduced  because  the  work   window  issues  and  the  phasing  required  on  the  road  side  are  much  less.     • It  would  go  under  the  utilities,  reducing  the  cost.     • It  could  go  under  the  creeks.     • It  does  not  impact  the  streets.     • The  equivalent  of  shoofly  tracks  are  needed  near  the  portal,  but  not  along  the  entire   right-­‐of-­‐way.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3  California High-Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, July 25, 2014    4   • With  careful  planning  and  analysis,  TBM’s  can  be  reused  -­‐  perhaps  by  other  cities  along   the  corridor.  4   • In  the  future,  some  or  all  freight  could  be  re-­‐routed  over  the  Dumbarton  Rail  route   (currently  being  studied)  thus  freeing  up  space  along  the  right-­‐of-­‐way  for  other  potential   land  use  options.   • Temporary  space  for  the  tunnel  portal  may  be  necessary  and  could  require  minimal   eminent  domain  that  could  be  returned  to  the  housing  stock  on  completion  of  the   project.     • The  ROW  closer  to  San  Antonio  road  is  much  wider  than  other  parts  of  the  City  (150  ft   wide).  If  the  TBM  was  launched  from  that  end,  then  the  removal  requires  less  space.       To  see  the  space  required  for  extracting  a  TBM,  see  this  video  showing  the  removal  of  the  TBMs   used  on  the  Central  Subway  project  in  SF.  https://bit.ly/2PpntNC    Note  the  size  of  the   extraction  point  is  quite  small.       Summary:       Preliminary  design  of  grade  separations  are  vague  and  costs  climb  when  one  considers  the   issues  of  staging,  prolonged  construction,  utility  relocation,  ground  water  issues,  and   maintaining  operations  on  a  heavily  trafficked  railway  during  construction.  What  initially  seems   like  a  cheaper  solution,  can  become  expensive  quickly  when  these  costs  are  all  tallied  up.  For   this  reason,  we  support  the  inclusion  of  a  short  electric  train  only  tunnel  with  freight  on  the   surface.       If  you  would  like  any  additional  information  or  have  any  additional  questions,  please  let  us   know.         Sincerely,       Nadia  Naik  and  Elizabeth  Alexis   Co-­‐founders   CARRD                                                                                                                     4   https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm-refurbishment.html   1 Carnahan, David From:Postol Front <postolfront@live.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 2:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:I just read that you criminalized sleeping in a car. What a bunch of self righteous bullies you are!! That is a violation of privacy, and the fourth amendment. It's none of  your business if someone sleeps in their car or not! What a bunch of California jerks you are!! Good place to avoid. I will  make sure and put you on my playlist of places and states to avoid! It's no surprise that California is going broke!! Postol  Front  1 Brettle, Jessica From:mathurpooja1976 <mathurpooja1976@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:50 AM To:Council, City Cc:Brettle, Jessica Subject:Invitation to attend inter faith vigil for gun violence victims, Sunday Dec 16th, 4.30 pm to 6 pm Dear City Council members,    I am a volunteer with moms demand action for gun sense, an organization started by an In Indiana mom, Shannon Watts, after the Sandy Hook elementary school tragedy.    Over the last 6 years, our organization has been active nationwide, with a chapter in all 50 states, working for common sense gun laws.    Every year, in December, our organization has held inter faith vigils, in hundreds of communities nationwide, to honor victims of gun violence and to bring awareness of this issue.    We are holding a vigil this Sunday, Dec 16th, 4.30 pm to 6 p.m at Lytton plaza in Palo Alto.    We cordially invite you to attend the vigil. If you are able to attend, please let me know and we will mention your name in the speeches on Sunday.    Thank you for all your hard work for the city of Palo Alto. Thank you for your public service.     Your Sincerely,    POOJA MATHUR   (Resident of Palo Alto)        Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone  1 Carnahan, David From:fred Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 8:12 AM To:Maloney, Con Cc:Council, City; aram james Subject:Just a rant about palo alto police and city Lt. Maloney,     As i said it looks like the police put those green stickers on windshields as I saw a police car leaving the scene right after  it was put on. Of course it may not have been you guys as I didn't actually see who stuck it on my rv. I peeled it off.     I asked for a little more time, a week but heard nothing from you and I was given a tow notice.     Oh well, so it goes in this world of ours.     But I'll complain with death not to far away. About   if I'm average. I'm now one of the poor with no power.     I've lived in palo alto over 40 years paying the high rental prices here for over 30 years of that time while I had a high  tech job. Then after my wife died in   and I lost my job, I moved onto the street in 2010. There's very little low  income housing here despite what the local politicians may say.   I'll be   in January. Stanford wants to do  surgery on my   as it's in very bad shape. I've been turning  them down because it's almost impossible to recover from that surgery while living on the street. I'm also being treated  for     at stanford. If I'm average I have  years to live before the   kills me. Maybe I'll be  lucky and medical science will discover a cure in the next  and maybe not.     The police are employed and controlled by the rich power elite of the city. I understand you guys must obey them. But  they have no compassion for the poor ill old who are just trying to survive as best they can in a city who cares nothing  about us really. The city has no compassion.     I wish you guys had more backbone and stood up to them when they're wrong. But you know what they said about  wishes.     I also wish you guys stopped real crime rather than harassing the poor old sick like me who are just trying to hang onto  life and improve themselves. I work about 6 hours Monday through Friday at a minimum wage job trying to rebuild.     As for the rv with the blown engine I'm working as fast as I can to get rid of it. I've found it costs to much to buy and  replace the engine, so now I working as fast as I can to get rid of it. If the city gets rid of it, it will cost me a few thousand  I don't have. The city has towed a Ford I had that I hadn't the money to fix. The cost of towing charges that bill's towing  charges you, the daily storage fees, mount up very fast.     Fred     1 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 9:40 AM To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:Tim Lindholm; Hal Prince; Godfrey, Carolyn Elizabeth; Andrea Lichter; bigkltla@yahoo.com; Neeraj Pendse; Beth Guislin; Greg Welch; Norman H. Beamer; Neilson Buchanan; Michael Hodos; De Geus, Robert; Becky Sanders; Mark Nadim Subject:Middlefield North traffic project review delayed again City Managers, Council members:    I note that the review by Council of the Middlefield North traffic project has been pulled from the December 17 Council  agenda ‐ the second time this topic has been delayed.    It is an understatement to say that residents find it puzzling and concerning that the city does not want to move forward  with a traffic project that is a success from all the measurements and analysis performed. While many other traffic  projects suffer from long delays and/or negative reactions, Middlefield North should be a model for a successful  partnership between the City and residents.    This projected completed its one year trial in June and a report was completed by the City's consultant in August that  showed a dramatic decrease in accidents, lower speeds and high resident satisfaction with the changes.    I can confirm that I and my neighbors feel safer driving on Middlefield as well as walking on our sidewalks and crossing  at the new crosswalks.    However, the temporary barriers put in pace in June 2017 are deteriorating and could be made even more effective with  permanent replacements.    If this is matter of a successful projects being bumped off the Council calendar because they cannot manage their work  load, then we need the Council to meet more than one night per week. This increase in Council frequency would also  address the significant problem of starting resident input on controversial issues late in the evening, reducing resident  participation in local government.    Yes, Palo Alto is dealing with difficult and complex issues. But a clear success like the Middlefield North traffic project  should not be delayed because the City cannot manage its agenda.    Please put this project back on the calendar for 2018.    John Guislin        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:35 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mark Standriff; Joel Stiner; Steve Wayte; Steven Feinstein; steve.hogg; Cathy Lewis; Mayor; terry; Mark Kreutzer; info@superide1.com; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Council, City; robert.andersen; leager; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; Raymond Rivas; huidentalsanmateo; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; popoff; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; nick yovino Subject:Fwd: On December 9, 1968 at a computer conference in San Francisco, Engelbart showed off the first inklings of numerous technologies that we all now take for granted   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 5:21 PM  Subject: Fwd: On December 9, 1968 at a computer conference in San Francisco, Engelbart showed off the first inklings of  numerous technologies that we all now take for granted  To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:59 PM  Subject: Fwd: On December 9, 1968 at a computer conference in San Francisco, Engelbart showed off the first inklings of  numerous technologies that we all now take for granted  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:26 PM  Subject: Re: On December 9, 1968 at a computer conference in San Francisco, Engelbart showed off the first inklings of  numerous technologies that we all now take for granted  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>           Tues. Dec. 11, 2018                Mr. Doug Vagim                Doug‐ Thanks. I watched 15 min. of it last night. About all I could take with the noises in there. I am a layman wrt  computers, so it is hard to appreciate what is being shown. I'll read the article. I read a lot of the comments, and the  computer people are all blown away by this being shown in 1968.    2          Apparently he was using a mouse, teleconferencing, I guess with microwave links, but not satellite links, some sort  of indexing and categorizing by the computer, it was all done on a mainframe in real time, pretty impressive right there,  it was all projected on a big screen in the hall. It seems amazing that the experts are all so amazed. We surely had  computers galore in 1968. Remember using the "IBM form" to take exams in college? You'd buy your IBM form at the  bookstore and bring it with you to the exam. It was all mainframes in 1968. That was what made the home computer so  stunning. Most people in the 70s thought they would always BE mainframes, not something you'd have in your home, or  on your desk at work. IBM broke upon the scene in ~1978 with its PC ads featuring Charlie Chaplin. Around then Apple  did that too. And then Bill Gates and his pals saw that the small computers would need programs. He said he saw an  article in Popular Science while at Harvard and he knew instantly to quit Harvard and get into writing software.              I recall him saying that, after he dropped out of Harvard, he and is pals lived in an apartment in Albuquerque and  wrote code. They went to a lot of "action movies" he said. Probably lived on Coca Cola and pizza, I think he said.               I recall Steve Jobs saying he went to the IBM research center in Palo Alto known as PARC‐  Palo Alto Research  Center‐ I think on Page Mill Road‐ late 60s or early 70s‐ and saw the graphical user interface‐ the GUI‐  demo'd. He said  "I knew right away that that was how it would be done".                 You do wonder, if it was all mainframes in 1968, how the Apollo astronauts had those computers in their LEMs as  they went down to the moon in 1969,1970, 1971 and 1972, the ones that kept getting overloaded and giving false  alarms, which were over‐ruled from the ground. "501 and 502 alarms again" and "we're go on those alarms" would  come up from the ground. You hear that in the Apollo 11 landing anyway.                I had finished my MBA at Oregon by June, 1968 and was working on other things. Stanford had been big in  electronics and EE since the 30s, graduating Hewlett and Packard then. Computer Science came much later, but they  were surely teaching computer science at Stanford when I graduated in 1964. I just didn't study it. I'll bet they had a  pretty small enrollment at that point. Most people had no idea then that small personal computers were 14 years in the  future, and that software for them would be a huge business, so they studied Chem, Bio, EE, Physics, all of the  engineering programs, Civil, Chemical, etc., and the liberal arts. And no idea of the internet. It was the internet that  stimulated the huge sales of PCs and Macs. Even in the 80's I think PCs and Macs were bought by businesses and the  rare individual geek.             One night on Charlie Rose, Andy Grove, the head of Intel for 20+ plus years, said "I completely missed the coming of  the internet". Bill Gates said the same thing. Imagine, those two guys, of all people, did not see the importance of the  internet until it was really available.                Here is a 3 hour management course written, in 1990, by Grove, apparently:                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgvZBVbdsWY                   Stanford Research Institute became a lightning rod for protests during Viet Nam, naturally, since they did a lot of  work for DOD. I think they even changed their name to SRI International as a result.              And now you have the power of a 60's mainframe in an I‐phone. First the transistor and then the microprocessor  made the huge miniaturization of the computer possible. That was driven in part to reduce the weight of satellites.  Imagine if an I‐phone needed vacuum tubes. You'd need an extra room on your house for the mainframe for your  phone.                   LH                 Speaking of phones‐  my landline  gave trouble three weeks ago. Static, followed by a faint dial tone. First my DSL  gave a lot of trouble. I changed the filters on the walls. That helped. I was getting a lot of red lights on the modem for  broadband, and a lot of the red light for service. The DSL got back to normal, but then the phone gave trouble. I was able  3 to make calls if I waited for 20 seconds for a dial tone to come on over the static. I called ATT last Tues. and they tested  the line and said the line was OK. They gave me a "ticket number"  Finally, last Tues., the dial tone was gone. At that  point I went to the ATT store on Blackstone. They said they could not test my phone since they use VOIP and told me to  buy a new phone, I did, at Best Buy, and it didn't work either. I went back on Thurs. and they talked to the tech people  out of earshot and then arranged to send a tech out to the house yesterday.                  He determined at the ATT box on my garage that there was no dial tone on their system. Problem was beyond  my house. He went down the street and pulled a big cable out of a box and ran tests on it. It was OK so he concluded the  problem was north on Valentine up by Bullard. He left and went there. He returned in 30 min. and said he found there  that water was shorting a part in a box there, and he dried it off good. He tested at my box again and said I should be  good. Yes, nice dial tone in my house, and broadband back on. Problem solved. So I was without a phone for 5 days. He  was somewhat perplexed that I had perfect broadband service for most of time after the phone started giving trouble,  including after I lost the dial tone. He said they are separate.              He told me how to test the system. Open the box outside, unplug a plug at lower right, plug my phone into that, and  if I get a dial tone, the problem is inside my house. Not getting one there, he knew the problem was with their  system.  Unrelated, he said DSL is on the way out. We'll have box on a pole in our neighborhood, and an antenna at the  house. That will be our broadband internet. This guy was brilliant, and talked in jargon. I told him that a man at Stanford  invented DSL, how to send high speed internet down "a twisted wire pair". He said yes, and they have to be twisted to  work. five twists per foot and now six per foot. In 2000 in Santa Clara I had broadband, but it came in through the cable  TV port.               Interesting vid. you sent. They have come a long way since 1968. Breathtaking, really. Nova should do a whole show  on that progress. Start with the vid you sent, tell what exactly is being shown, show where computer science was in  1964‐68, then progress from there to the PC in 1978, the development of the microprocessor,  the software business,  the arrival of the internet around 1990, the development of cell‐phones, the I‐phone and Android, and where things  may go in the next 10 years. Self driving cars are about to break upon the world, and I think Nvidia will be a huge player.  At ~$150 per share, I think it is cheap. That's because I paid $242 for mine and have watched the vids by Jensen Huang.                  Huang said that Nvidia is not a chip company. They make the chips, the algorithms, the software stack. They are  doing millions of simulations of mishaps on the road before they ship in two years. If a vehicle anywhere in the world  has a mishap, that will be uploaded into the cloud and downloaded to every self‐driving vehicle in the world. He says  that self driving cars will save a lot of lives. We kill ~30,000 people per year on the road in the U.S.               L. William Harding            Fresno        On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:03 AM Doug Vagim <dougvagim@gmail.com> wrote:    Fascinating... I think you must have at Stanford at the time.  While I don't recall this demo, I  believe I attended the larger conference, (the computer industry's product show.)    50 years on, we’re living the reality first shown at the “Mother of All Demos”    Douglas Engelbart changed computer history forever on December 9, 1968.    Article  50 years on, we’re living the reality first shown at the “Mother of All Demos”    4 Video  The Mother of All Demos, presented by Douglas Engelbart (1968)  1 Carnahan, David From:Rica Enriquez <rica.enriquez@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 6:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Paid Parental Leave Policy Support To Whom It May Concern:    I would like to voice my support for the paid parental leave policy going to council today. I am fortunate to have parental leave support that matches the proposed policy which would provide:    Employees up to six weeks of fully paid and benefited time off. Employees can use the six weeks anytime in the twelve months following the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child in their home. Employees will continue to accrue their benefits as well for the period of time they are on Paid Parental Leave as if on active work status. This six weeks can also be combined with banked employee vacation and sick leave time to provide a more extended paid parental leave for employees.    I not only found it necessary to foster a loving child, but also return as a functional and productive employee. Most  daycares will not accept children less than 8 weeks old. At this time it is extremely difficult to care for an infant, oneself,  and work regular hours. My employer strives to take care of its employees and in return our company has many  dedicated professionals who appreciate that they can do the work they enjoy with the flexibility needed to raise their  families. I hope the council can see the merit in this and approve the policy proposed.    Sincerely,    Rica Enriquez  1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 10:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Parking for Wilton Court Dear Members of the City Council,    I write regarding the recent recommendation by City agencies to approve the 100% affordable housing  development known as Wilton Court.    While I am delighted that Wilton Court will consist of 100% "affordable" housing (I wish I knew what anyone  means by this), I am dismayed at the discriminatory behavior that is exhibited by the requirement that only  .69 parking spaces per unit be provided to residents of the project.      I can understand that one might believe that units reserved for the disabled might require less  parking.  However, there are many forms of disability, and many disabled individuals can drive.  Further, if  they cannot drive, they will have visitors and perhaps caretakers who do.      Further, everything we know about lower income workers today ‐‐ not in the future ‐‐ suggests that they need  their cars more than affluent young tech workers many of whom have transportation provided by their  employers either in the form of shuttles or transit passes or even Uber subscriptions.  Young tech workers  generally go to and from one office.    The lower income worker on the other hand most likely has a working spouse.  They may have more that one  job that requires them to move quickly from one location to the other ‐‐ neither served by Cal Train.  Using  public transportation such as buses means long hours commuting and may not even be feasible.  Getting to  several jobs, picking up kids from day care, getting to the store for food and doing other errands in their short  time off from work at this point in our City's development of transit options, requires a car.      Yet by not providing them with adequate parking, you are essentially saying only the wealthy deserve to have  cars and a place to park them.  You are also telling the neighboring communities that they must deal with even  more on‐street parking in already overcrowded narrow streets.      I hope you will require that this meager parking space requirement be revisited.      Thank you.    Carol Scott  Resident of Evergreen Park      ‐‐   Carol Scott  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Iqbal Serang <iqbalserang@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 12:26 PM To:gsheyner@paweekly.com; editor@paweekly.com; letters@paweekly.com; iqbalserangarchitect@gmail.com; Council, City Cc:Email; Katja Serang Subject:Photo of Fog over President Hotel Apts. 12-11-18, at 8:15 am. A Tribute to Gennady Sheyner of the PA Weekly. Attachments:IMG_20181211_082116591_HDR.jpg; IMG_20181211_082029799_HDR.jpg Hello Gennady; Thanks for your impressive articles on The President Hotel Apartments, (PA Weekly, Nov 30, & Dec 7,  2018. www.PaloAltoOnline.com)  They are an accurate, informative investigation of the current topic of housing in Palo Alto, and the Bay Area, which  deserves widespread reading and recognition.  In writing these articles, you have encompassed the entire environment and culture of the subject and it's impact on  residents with sensitivity and integrity.   As a longstanding resident of this city and of the President Hotel Apartments, I am grateful, and in your debt for  capturing all of the complexities of this story and it's facts, nuances, and chronology.   My humble salutations to you and your magazine for printing the whole story.    Thanking you,  Sincerely,    Iqbal Serang    President Hotel Apts.,   488 University Ave. #307,  Palo Alto, Ca. 94301.    Mobile: (650) 906‐7059.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Wei Si <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:29 PM To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please Support Castilleja Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,     My name is Wei Si and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a parent and supporter of Castilleja School.     Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close  the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more  young women is central to furthering that mission.     As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community  partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust  Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the  admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.     Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,  Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.     Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our  wonderful city.     Sincerely,    Wei Si   siwei99@yahoo.com    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 6:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:please take action Dear City Council members,    Recent developments regarding cell towers in residential neighborhoods and the actions of city staff are alarming and I urge you to stand up for Palo Alto residents!    I am writing to ask you:    1. To reverse your May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its cheap and potentially hazardous equipment aboveground next to people’s homes; [what about fire hazards?]    2. To direct City Staff to vigorously enforce Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances with respect to the siting and installation of cell towers near residences; and, more specifically,     3. To direct City Staff to stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the FCC’s aggressively pro-telecommunications-industry October order into our municipal ordinances. [How for example is $270/year rent in the best interest of Palo Alto residents?]    Dozens of other cities are standing up for their neighborhoods on this issue. Palo Alto can and should be a leader in creating a community that is respectful of residents’ needs and concerns.     Sincerely,  Tina Chow, Ph.D.  Barron Park    1 Carnahan, David From:Margo Deane <margodeane@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 5:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel conversion So the city of Palo Alto pretends to want to do something to help with the problem of not enough affordable housing  .......Why then is the city council approving the ousting of tenants from the President Hotel so we can allow for rich  investors to create yet another high end hotel ? And one that will not be able to provide parking that is adequate.  This is outrageous !  Why can't we work with the owners in a way similar to what was done with Buena Vista Park !? Or does the city really  care about those being displaced?   I am sorry that I cannot attend the city council meeting tonight so that I might be better able to understand what is  happening.  Thankfully I saw this post on Next Door Palo Alto. I hope I am interpreting the post correctly.    Margo Deane  540 Seale Ave  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 4:09 PM To:DeMarzo, Elise; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Proposed Art for the new Public Safety Building Dear Elise DeMarzo, Peter Wegner (please forward a copy to Peter), City Council, and City Manager:    Thank you for sharing the initial art designs for the new parking structure and Public Safety Building planned  for Sherman Avenue in the Cal Ave neighborhood.  I enjoyed hearing about your creative process, Peter.  Your  research and thought processes are impressive and inspiring.    The PSB will be in my backyard as I live in Mayfield and ride my bike on Sherman and Park every day.  Also, I  am an artist myself ‐‐ I have a BFA and a Master of Arts.  I very much enjoy the public art in Palo Alto and I look  forward to new treasures in the future.      You asked for feedback last week at the community meeting focused on the four art pieces Peter is designing  for the PSB and the new parking garage.  Hence I write with reservations concerning your concept for the  outside wall of the parking structure (I think this is where you plan to place it).  The three‐dimensional  sculpture composed of LED lights gives me pause.  As an environmentalist, I believe it is a mistake to create art  that requires power consumption 24 hours a day, and I'm concerned about the costs of ongoing maintenance  such an artwork would require.  Such a sculpture would be expensive to run and maintain, and it would  needlessly draw on the City's resources.  I also feel the massive three‐dimensionality of the piece is  unattractive.  While the lighting would add interest, it also suggests that the City has energy to burn and that is  a turnoff.    I would much rather see something in metal or glass or perhaps a wall of succulents ‐‐ something that doesn't  require ongoing energy consumption and expensive maintenance.  I think of Anish Kapoor's spectacular  stainless steel sculpture in Chicago's Millennium Park titled Cloud Gate, or the famous metal bull sculpture  that until recently was in front of Merrill Lynch in New York City, or the stunning outdoor wall of succulents at  SFMOMA.  Some greenery would look wonderful on that wall.  It would add color, texture and would plants  help fight climate change.     I hope that everyone involved in choosing Public Art for Palo Alto will factor in an analysis of the  environmental impacts.  We should be conserving energy AND reducing plastics, etc.  The proposed indoor  piece in the PSB lobby was described as being composed of slices of plastic.  Could that same concept be  constructed from wood?  I imagine it would be equally if not more beautiful if made from wood.    Everything we do in our City must take into account climate change ‐‐ everything right down to the art we  choose.  Thank you for considering these points.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee  410  Sheridan Avenue    1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 4:24 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Joel Stiner; nick yovino; bballpod; huidentalsanmateo; info@superide1.com; robert.andersen; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Steven Feinstein; Chris Field; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Raymond Rivas; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kclark; leager; newsdesk; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; terry; Tom Lang Subject:Re: "Dark Money" documentary in its entirety. Plenty serious. Has to change.   On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 4:11 PM  Subject: Re: "Dark Money" documentary in its entirety. Plenty serious. Has to change.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 4:04 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote            Sunday, Dec. 9, 2018                      To all‐                  Here is "Dark Money".  Very serious problem that we must solve.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvmK9kFTvGs              Apparently Congress will have to pass legislation that nullifies the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision,  thereby enabling the States to pass campaign finance laws requiring transparency wrt who finances candidates. Such  legislation probably cannot pass with Trump as President. It's just possible that he is a beneficiary of the current  system.           L. William Harding         Fresno  1 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 5, 2018 9:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Step back on the housing ordinance giveaways to deveoplers Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members,         I was one of the attendees of last Monday’s council meeting, where the residents spoke  mainly opposing the changing of the ground rules for development in the downtown area as well  as PA in general.  The argument that was put forward by Councilman Walbach that it’s time to  pass the said ordinance, because we have spent so much time deciding on the details as part of  the comprehensive plan. This is a poor and lame argument.  Since 2017, there have been many  changes in the quality of life issues, such as overall crowding due to too many people in town  without adequate housing and parking, it does make sense to take a step back on approving the  city code in favor of the developers for doing away with parking requirements, building “open ‘  spaces on the rooftop of conversions and developments in the downtown area. Just handing out  out giveaways for market rate housing is not the way, please!      As my friend Rebecca Sanders remarked, for whose benefit is the city government set up and  whose interests are they serving, when we see special deals being parceled to builders and  developers, so their financial interests are taken care of, while the residents have to live with the  consequences of the resulting crowding. Unsurprisingly, developers are interested in  maximizing  their benefits, but it is your job to look for the overall benefits to the  residents.  Please ask yourself this question “ Is the city council doing its job ? “. I for one can say  that some individual council members are paying attention to the welfare of the residents but  unfortunately not enough.  Once a council member’s tenure finishes, their time on the council  may come to an end but, the consequences of their decisions have a huge impact on the life of  the residents for a long time.  At this critical juncture, please don’t drop the ball and make  decisions, whose consequences cannot be undone!  Erring on the side of caution is better than  giving away exceptions to the developers and burdening us residents. The project on the VTA lot is  a good one to watch. You have approved the experiment, and now we should wait and see how  things work out with the reduced parking idea. The wait is definitely worth it.      There should be no exceptions as far as development in the downtown area is concerned. There  are city ordinances are there for a reason. Hoping that BMR housing will be the result, will not  happen just by wishing. Please tell the developers that they are not going to get exceptions and  see what happens. Handing the keys to the town is not an option, you just cannot foist the  burdens on us, the residents.    Thank you for listening,  Ranganath (greater Ventura resident)  2   On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 4:57 PM Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com wrote:  Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members,         I was one of the attendees of last Monday’s council meeting, where the residents spoke  mainly opposing the changing of the ground rules for development in the downtown area as well  as PA in general.  The argument that was put forward by Councilman Walbach that it’s time to  pass the said ordinance, because we have spent so much time deciding on the details as part of  the comprehensive plan. This is a poor and lame argument.  Since 2017, there have been many  changes in the quality of life issues, such as overall crowding due to too many people in town  without adequate housing and parking, it does make sense to take a step back on approving the  city code in favor of the developers for doing away with parking requirements, building “open ‘  spaces on the rooftop of conversions and developments in the downtown area. Just handing out  out giveaways for market rate housing is not the way, please!      As my friend Rebecca Sanders remarked, for whose benefit is the city government set up and  whose interests are they serving, when we see special deals being parceled to builders and  developers, so their financial interests are taken care of, while the residents have to live with the  consequences of the resulting crowding. Unsurprisingly, developers are interested in  maximizing  their benefits, but it is your job to look for the overall benefits to the  residents.  Please ask yourself this question “ Is the city council doing its job ? “. I for one can say  that some individual council members are paying attention to the welfare of the residents but  unfortunately not enough.  Once a council member’s tenure finishes, their time on the council  may come to an end but, the consequences of their decisions have a huge impact on the life of  the residents for a long time.  At this critical juncture, please don’t drop the ball and make  decisions, whose consequences cannot be undone!  Erring on the side of caution is better than  giving away exceptions to the developers and burdening us residents. The project on the VTA lot  is a good one to watch. You have approved the experiment, and now we should wait and see  how things work out with the reduced parking idea. The wait is definitely worth it.      There should be no exceptions as far as development in the downtown area is concerned.  There are city ordinances are there for a reason. Hoping that BMR housing will be the result, will  not happen just by wishing. Please tell the developers that they are not going to get exceptions  and see what happens. Handing the keys to the town is not an option, you just cannot foist the  burdens on us, the residents.    Thank you for listening,  Ranganath (greater Ventura resident)  1 Carnahan, David From:Caryn Huberman <yackybooks@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 7:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding rush to change the Downtown Granfathered Facilities Law To The Honorable City of Palo Alto City Council:    I urge you NOT to rush through a change to law. No change whatsoever to the current Downtown  Grandfathered Facilities Law of 2016 should be made until there is a FULL vetting and FULL review by the  Planning and Transportation Committee.    There is simply NO urgency to overriding current law, particularly at the eleventh hour.     It is unacceptable to the citizens of Palo Alto.     Also, please note that this long time Palo Alto resident urges the Council , when the issue is again  considered in 2019, to make NO changes that would prevent, in any manner, residential uses to convert to  commercial ones.     Palo Alto MUST preserve the housing it now has!!    We must preserve affordable downtown housing and protect tenants from being displaced.    Respectfully,  Caryn Huberman Yacowitz  567 Lincoln Avenue  Palo Alto, 94301  1 Carnahan, David From:Tariq <southwestassociatesllc@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reply need Immediately I've just tried to report a none emergency incident with your city of Palo Alto, this is my personal email address not my  work!.  My associate and i had to come to work this afternoon and decided to catch a city bus to our destination.   At the  San Antonio bus center we where verbally assalted by a homeless person.   If this is the case with your city I'd like to  know why there isn't a easier none emergency number to call.   I don't need no run around with the usual political cover  yourself!, My associate and I are part of the Microsoft real estate/global relocations team and this isn't the first incident  here in Palo Alto.    Tariq asani  1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 9:36 AM To:Stump, Molly; Minor, Beth Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; 'James Sutton' Subject:Request for City Action Against CTO Jonathan Reichental Attachments:Reichental press coverage.pdf; Palo Alto Daily Post p.1.jpeg; Palo Alto Daily Post p.2.jpeg; San Jose Mercury News.pdf; Palo Alto Weekly.jpeg; 11.6.18 FPPC Complaint reporting Reichental.doc Via Email Correspondence Molly Stump, Esq. Palo Alto City Attorney 250 Hamilton Ave., 8th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Beth Minor Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave., 7th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Request for City Action Against CTO Jonathan Reichental   Dear Ms. Stump and Ms. Minor:   This letter serves to formally notify the City Attorney and City Clerk that CTO Jonathan Reichental has violated the “gift” and conflict of interest provisions of state law in connection with several trips which he has taken which were paid for by 501(c)(6) nonprofit organizations and the telecommunications industry, and through his participation in the “Connected Cities” working group and other official City actions. These violations are outlined in the enclosed complaint letters which I recently filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission. In connection with your authority under state law (California Government Code sections 91000 et seq.) as the “civil prosecutor” and “filing officer,” respectively, I respectfully request that you immediately 2 investigate these violations, immediately require Mr. Reichental to amend his Form 700s to include the missing sources of income, missing trips, and incomplete information about the trips, ask him to refrain from participating in any further City matters affecting the telecommunications industry, and take any other steps and levy any and all fines justified by the law. Though I assume that you have seen them, I also want to make certain that the record shows that the City has received the recent San Jose Mercury News, Palo Alto Daily Post and Palo Alto Weekly articles about Mr. Reichental’s violation of these laws. (Copies attached.) These articles demonstrate that the public clearly is interested in whether Mr. Reichental has violated the law, and will hopefully prompt both the FPPC and the City to open an immediate investigation and take enforcement action against Mr. Reichental as soon as possible. In addition, Mr. Reichental effectively admits in the November 16, 2018 Daily Post article that his Form 700s are riddled with errors and omissions. I understand that Mr. Reichental is required to file a Leaving Office Form 700 within thirty days after leaving his job here, hence it will be due in mid-January. I respectfully request that Mr. Reichental amend all of the Form 700s he has filed during his tenure in Palo Alto by that date, amend them so that they are accurate, complete and unambiguous. Feel free to contact me if you need any additional information regarding the complaint letters or Mr. Reichental’s activities on behalf of the telecommunications companies, and thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.   Sincerely,   3 Jeanne Fleming cc: James R. Sutton, Esq. Sutton Law Firm Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 Post Office Box 60399 Palo Alto, CA 94306   1 Sworn Complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission reporting Jonathan Reichental, the Chief Technology Officer and Chief Information Officer of Palo Alto, California Part One: Overview Jonathan Reichental is both the Chief Technology Officer and the Chief Information Officer for the City of Palo Alto. Between 2013 and 2017, Dr. Reichental took at least 28 trips that were paid for by outside-the-City enterprises. Twenty-five of those trips were international. There is substantial evidence that Dr. Reichental, in repeatedly accepting expensive gifts of travel from others, has been systematically violating California gift law. The second section of this complaint documents these violations. There is also substantial evidence that Dr. Reichental has used his official position as Palo Alto’s Chief Technical Officer/Chief Information Officer to influence City matters affecting the companies that underwrote his travels. The third section of this complaint addresses this issue. At its core, the complaint boils down to this: During his tenure as a senior city official, Jonathan Reichental has been repeatedly flown around the world by the telecommunications industry. In the Statements of Economic Interests/Form 700s he has filed reporting this travel, he has repeatedly mischaracterized the parties paying for his trips as 501(c)(3) nonprofits, although they clearly are not. In addition, he has taken a substantial number of trips that he has failed to report. Plus, he has failed to report income from his considerable employment outside the City. And finally, Dr. Reichental has repaid his patrons for their generosity by being the steadfast ally of the telecommunications companies that have dealings with the City of Palo Alto. Substantiation for these allegations can be found in the attachments to this complaint, most of which are documents obtained through the California Public Records Act. Some of Dr. Reichental’s misconduct is hiding in plain sight on the Statements of Economic Interests/Form 700s he filed. Other misconduct can be seen only by comparing one document to another. The text which follows is intended to provide a roadmap through the attachments, highlighting the elements that point to violations of the law. 2 If you have any questions or wish additional documentation, please contact me: Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650/325-5151 3 Part Two: Gift Law Violations There is substantial evidence that Jonathan Reichental has been systematically violating California gift law while working for the City of Palo Alto. For example, in 2016, TMForum—a telecommunications industry trade association— paid for Dr. Reichental to take two trips overseas, one to China and one to the French Riviera. For each trip, TMForum paid for Dr. Reichental’s roundtrip business class airfare, hotel expenses, meals, ground transportation and visa expenses. Attached is Dr. Reichental’s 2016 Statement of Economic Interests/Form 700 on which he reports these two trips, along with seven others (Exhibit A). Attached as well is correspondence between TMForum and Dr. Reichental that lays out the substantial expenses TMForum paid for on Dr. Reichental’s China trip (to be found on Exhibit B Page 1 and Exhibit B Page 2). (NOTE: TMForum paid for the same expenses when they sent him to France.) A governmental ethics attorney, Jim Sutton of San Francisco, has analyzed at my request one of those TMForum-funded trips, the trip to China. Here is his analysis: “Palo Alto CTO/CIO Jonathan Reichental lists receiving a gift of travel payments valued at $5,000 from “TM Forum,” a telecommunications industry trade association, on his 2016 Statement of Economic Interests/Form 700 (among other gifts and sources of income). The Form 700 indicates that Mr. Reichental made a speech in connection with this travel, that the event lasted for five days, that it took place in China, and that the TM Forum is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. However, TM Forum’s most recent federal tax return (IRS Form 990) indicates that it is actually a 501(c)(6) nonprofit corporation. This trip seems to violate the $470 gift limit because: (1) even though Mr. Reichental may have made a speech at the event in China, the exception for making a speech explicitly only applies to travel within the United States and only applies to up to three days of travel; (2) the TM Forum is not a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.” These same two points are applicable to Dr. Reichental’s 2016 trip to France, which was also paid for by TMForum (i.e., it involved international travel, and it was paid for by an organization that is not a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit). More generally, Dr. Reichental appears to have repeatedly misrepresented trade associations as 501(c)(3) nonprofits in order to evade the constraints imposed by California gift law. For example, Platform for Innovation—a German entity which in 2016 paid for one five-day and one four-day trip to Vienna for Dr. Reichental—appears to be an industry trade association like TMForum. Yet Dr. Reichental reported it to be a 4 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Similarly, the Global Risk Institute, which paid for Dr. Reichental’s trip to Canada in 2016, does not appear to be a charity or educational institution and thus does not qualify as 501(c)(3) non-profit. Yet Dr. Reichental reported it to be one. Dr. Reichental’s mischaracterizations of his trip to China, his trip to France, his two trips to Vienna and his trip to Canada are documented in Exhibit A (Dr. Reichental’s Statement of Economic Interests/Form 700 for 2016). Then there is Management Forum der Verlagsgruppe Handelsblatt GmbH, which paid for a four-day trip to Germany for Dr. Reichental in 2016 (again see Exhibit A). Dr. Reichental says their payment of his travel expenses was a “gift.” Yet Management Forum appears to be a for-profit German enterprise, part of Handelsblatt Media Group. Moreover, Dr. Reichental said he “provided training” for Management Forum in Frankfort—i.e., he did not make a speech or appear on a panel. As I understand California Gift Law, this trip also would appear to violate the $470 gift limit. Please note as well that: 1. All of the travel payments Dr. Reichental reports on his 2016 Form 700—and indeed all of the travel payments he reports on all of his 2012-2017 Form 700s— are round numbers. When do expenses ever sum to round numbers? 2. The numbers he reports often seem remarkably low. For example, how could Dr. Reichental’s roundtrip business class airfare, hotel expenses, meals, ground transportation and visa expenses on his five-day trip to China in 2016 have amounted to only $5,000, when a business class roundtrip plane ticket there alone costs almost that much? (The numbers Dr. Reichental reports often look more like fees than travel expenses.) Attached you will find the other Statements of Economic Interest/Form 700s Dr. Reichental filed between the first full year of his employment (2012), and February, 2018, the date of his most recent filing. They are labeled Exhibits C through G. The specific items in each year’s filing that I believe merit your attention are listed below. In particular, you will find highlighted: - Discrepancies between Dr. Reichental’s Statements of Economic Interest and the Outside Employment Statements he filed. (His Outside Employment Statements are labeled Exhibits H through L.) Please note that, in highlighting these discrepancies, the dates I’ve used refer to the dates on which the Outside Employment Statements were submitted by Dr. Reichental, 5 not the dates they were approved or the dates the City’s Human Resources Department received them. - For each of the years 2012 through 2015, discrepancies between Dr. Reichental’s Statements of Economic Interest and the list of “appearances” he reported making on his personal website (www.reichental.com). Dr. Reichental has now removed the entire list of his appearances from his website. But I printed it out before he did, and you will find a copy of the list attached, labeled Exhibit M Page 1 through Exhibit M Page 3. - Discrepancies between Dr. Reichental’s Statements of Economic Interest and his correspondence obtained under a California Public Records Request Act request (Exhibit N). Here are the specific discrepancies on each Form 700: 1. Form 700 filing dated March 7, 2013, for the year 2012 (Exhibit C): a. In this filing, Dr. Reichental failed to report at least one trip he took in 2012, a trip paid for by the high-tech trade association TechAmerica and by technology media company eRepublic’s Center for Digital Government. In Exhibit N Page 1 through Exhibit N Page 3, you will find emails which indicate that Dr. Reichental attended the Center for Digital Government/TechAmerica “Beyond the Beltway” Conference at the Ritz Carlton in Falls Church, Virginia, in March of 2012. As this correspondence shows, the organizers paid for Dr. Reichental’s air travel, hotel room, meals and ground transportation. Yet Dr. Reichental’s Form 700, which he filed in 2013 for January 1, 2012-December 31, 2012, does not report this trip. b. Please note that this trip to the “Beyond the Beltway” Conference, though missing from Dr. Reichental’s Form 700, is included on the list of appearances he posted on his personal website (Exhibit M Page 3). c. The list of his travels Dr. Reichental posted on his personal website (again see Exhibit M Page 3) also reveals that he failed to report on his Form 700 filing three other out-of-the-Bay Area trips—two of them international—made in 2012: 1) in February, to New York City; 2) in September, to Paris, France; and 3) in October, to Dublin, Ireland. It would be instructive to learn who paid for these trips he chose not to report, instructive to learn whether Dr. Reichental was paid a fee, and instructive to learn the businesses/industries behind the conferences’ organizers. 6 2. Form 700 filing dated January 31, 2014, for the year 2013 (Exhibit D): a. In this Form 700, Dr. Reichental failed to report two out-of-the-area trips he made in 2013: 1) in September, to Indiana, presumably (Dr. Reichental describes his “appearance” as “Purdue University guest lectures”); and 2) in December, to San Diego. Each trip is included, however, on the list of appearances on his personal website (please see Exhibit M Page 2 and Exhibit M Page 3). b. Dr. Reichental also failed to report in this filing the income he received for employment at the University of San Francisco, employment that he says on his April 29, 2013, City of Palo Alto Outside Employment Statement (Exhibit H) was to begin on June 1, 2013, and would continue “indefinitely.” c. In this filing, Dr. Reichental reports that the Consulate General of France paid for him to spend a week in France in exchange for what he calls “consulate services on behalf of the French.” What does that mean? Probably not much. It appears this trip was in fact organized by and underwritten by the telecommunications industry and that it was a junket on which the industry sent Dr. Reichental and officials from other cities around the country (e.g., the Chief Technical Officer/Chief Information Officer of Philadelphia). I have correspondence obtained under the CPRA that discusses this trip, and I can send it to you, if you wish. 3. Form 700 filing dated February 19, 2015, for the year 2014 (Exhibit E): a. Dr. Reichental failed to report in this filing five out-of-the-area trips—three of them international—that he took in 2014, trips that are listed on his personal website. They are: 1) in January, to Ireland; 2) in February, to Las Vegas; 3) in April, to Denver; 4) in June, to Berlin, Germany; and 5) in December, to the Netherlands (see Exhibit M Page 2). b. Dr. Reichental also failed to report in this filing the income he received for employment at the University of San Francisco, employment that he says on his April 29, 2013, City of Palo Alto Outside Employment Statement (Exhibit H) was to begin on June 1, 2013 and would continue “indefinitely.” c. Dr. Reichental also traveled to Canada, a trip which he reports on his Form 700 was paid for by Techtriangle, an organization he characterizes as “Non- for-profit.” Techtriangle no longer exists. But it appears that in 2014, it was a 7 joint municipal/commercial technology development venture, not a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. d. As noted in point (a) above, Dr. Reichental took trips in 2014 to Ireland, Berlin and the Netherlands that he did not report on his Form 700 but listed on his personal website (again see Exhibit M Page 2 for documentation of this unreported travel). From the terse explanations he provides for these trips— “Code for Ireland,” “Ideas Camp” and “University-based Regional Development,” respectively—it does not appear that a 501(c)(3) nonprofit or a government agency underwrote the travel expenses for any of them. 4. Form 700 filing dated March 7, 2016, for the year 2015 (Exhibit F): a. Dr. Reichental failed to report on this filing two out-of-the-area trips—one of them international—that, he took in 2015, trips that are listed on his personal website. They are: 1) in October, to Los Angeles (“Substance Conference”); and 2) in November, to Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Telecomm and Technology Conference). (The trips are documented in Exhibit M Page 1.) Unanswered are the questions: What type of entity paid for these trips—in particular, who paid for the Telecomm Conference trip? What did the trips cost? Did he receive a fee? b. Dr. Reichental also failed to report on this filing the income he received for employment at the University of San Francisco, employment that he says on his December 29, 2015, City of Palo Alto Outside Employment Statement (page 2 of Exhibit I) began in April, 2013, and would continue “indefinitely.” c. Dr. Reichental failed to report on this filing the income he received for employment at UC Berkeley, employment that he says on his July 14, 2015, Outside Employment Statement (Exhibit J) began in Fall, 2015. d. Dr. Reichental also failed to report the income he received from four trips he took to Dubai in the employment of Peer Review, a United Arab Emirates- based company that stages conventions. According to Dr. Reichental’s December 29, 2015, Outside Employment Statement (page 4 (not page 1) of Exhibit I), he began working for Peer Review in Dubai in October, 2015. Unanswered here is the critical question, who are Peer Review’s clients? There is good reason to believe they include telecommunications companies 1) given the subjects of the conferences Peer Review stages (e.g., “smart cities”), and 2) given that Dr. Reichental regularly speaks about telecommunications issues—in particular, cell-tower-dense “smart cities.” 1 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Special dispensations for President Hotel conversion Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council members,             This is another potentially contentious city council meeting, where you are proposing to  accept changes to city ordinances that favor conversion of President Hotel (currently providing  high density housing for ~ 75 tenants) to a regular Hotel – with special dispensations, by making  changes to city ordinances ‐ such as allowing the conversion [ by planning to grant, grandfathered  facilities exception] in the first place, secondly granting exceptions to providing open space by  allowing the project to build a roof top “ garden “, thirdly planning to give parking exemptions [ AJ  capital even asking for more than $13 million in parking in‐lieu fees] and finally removing the cap  on downtown non‐residential development.             When one looks at the proposed changes, they are surprisingly generous – being given to  make the whole project very lucrative to AJ Capital and their investors. As Mr. Dave price of Daily  post pointed out this morning, AJ Capital might have made a big mistake not researching the  feasibility of the project in the first place and paying a premium price of $65 million for something  that he thinks might have been worth around half that sum.  Be that may, thanks to Mr. Jeff  Levinsky, who first alerted the city to zoning code restrictions that prevent the hotel conversion,  before the purchase of the property by AJ Captial – there was enough information for the city  staff to seriously question and not make recommendations to the City Council to go ahead.           As the detailed analyses and commentary [an editorial] in two recent editions (Nov 30th and  Dec 7th) of Palo Alto Weekly point out, there are many irregularities in this whole AJ Capital  related goings on. The changing of the position by the city staff is one of the big ones.  I wonder  whose interests are being served by these staff recommendations?  Might the prospects of  increased tax revenues from another potentially expensive Hotel, be clouding their judgment?  In  addition the large number of private meetings between city staff and AJ Capital representatives  [whose advisors include, senior ex‐city staff}, just one cursory meeting with the public is very  disturbing and highly irregular.  I wonder if it might be in the interest of open government to have  all city staff sign an agreement that they do not become lobbyists for a period of at least 5 years,  once they leave office. I believe President Obama had something similar requirement from his  staff (I believe the time period might have been shorter, I am not sure, exactly how short).  2         In terms of what the city staff and the majority in the Council are trying to do by speeding up  important decisions in the waning days of the present council, this is again a huge area of concern  to us the residents [we have been trying to hammer our points again and again with limited  success it appears!].  It looks like Mr. Wolbach and Mr. Scharff want to get these changes done in  a hurry, before they leave.  The comments of Mr. Fine in the council meeting of the 3rd also  appear to push this growth agenda with urgency that doesn’t seem to be warranted – given that  the changes sought by AJ Capital and being pushed by the pro‐growth part of the city council, do  not, I repeat, do not increase housing in the city, while simultaneously eliminating 75 moderate  housing units from the city’s existing stock, if the President Hotel conversion is allowed to go  through.  Threats of lawsuits, etc, by AJ Capital should not be allowed to dictate city priorities and  decisions under the present circumstances.            In addition, the Dec 10th and 17th deadlines that AJ Capital is pushing with the threat of  withdrawing from their agreement with some of the unfortunate tenants to provide material  support by extending their stay to Amy of next year and also, helping them with subsidized rents  (by buying their silence) – is a hard ball tactic that should not go unchallenged. When you  estimate the amount of money (~ $1 million atmost) that AJ Capital has to spend on this  diversionary tactic, it is really peanuts, in the scheme of what’s at stake!        Shouldn’t the priorities be to help encourage housing projects, especially moderate, below  market rate units?  The price points for these moderate and BMR units should strive to make  available housing options for people who really are desperate and to bring some balance.  Having  people commute over vast distances to serve our community is not particularly “ green “ and we  should be helping to reverse this trend to the extent possible.        Rhetorically I would like to pose this question, “ Having dropped the ball on due diligence in  the first place and having paid a huge premium for the property, what other choices [besides  threatening lawsuits] do they have ? “.  The city council should not be intimidated and acquiesce  to AJ Capital’s demands and reward them and their investors. This sets a very bad precedent to  what will surely follow in terms of development proposals and projects by various financial  interests.          I believe all the council members are aware of the above arguments and points I have raised  and I hope you don’t buckle under and screw up this decision.  The residents will clearly be  watching what you do and then may have to decide on the course of action that may be available  for redress.  Thanks for listening,  Ranganath,   3 (Resident, greater Ventura neighborhood)  1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:53 AM To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney Subject:Thank you for saving the "Resident" Hotel Dear Mayor Kniss, Jonathan, Jim and Council Members: Thank you very much for saving the President Hotel as a Resident Hotel. I experienced such a sense of relief and gratitude that we residents have influence at City Hall, that you are listening to us. Last night, I heard your words, Mayor Kniss, Jim and others, of surprise and dismay as to community attitudes surrounding recent actions by staff and council. I apologize for the uncharitable tone that I have been exercising lately toward your efforts to lead our city. Please know that there is nothing personal in it. What you are witnessing is community frustration at the directions this town has been taking. And yes, that’s a shot across the bow of city leadership. No doubt about it. But it didn’t start with you all. It’s a pattern, long in the making. Still, I know it’s gotta hurt, when you feel you are doing your hardest to serve. Liken us, if you would, to the hypothetical faithful wife whose hypothetical husband has cheated on her and even though he says it was over years ago and is bending over backwards to prove it, she’s still looking for lipstick stains everywhere. City leadership hasn’t always been straight with the residents, nor gone out of its way to secure our good faith. It’s hard to repair that trust. It can be done, but it takes time. I heard Adrian when he said that he wants those of us who spoke to preserve housing last night to come and support new housing proposals as they come forward. And I promise to do so as long as new projects are balanced with the interests and needs of the people that currently live here, and not unfairly shouldered by one community, namely Ventura. That seems fair. How we define fair, however, has different connotations, and therein lies the rub. However, I will be open. And I’ll take what I learn back to my fellow Venturans. That I promise. Also I’ll take Jim up on his offer for staff to meet with residents and educate us to foster more openness. In the new year, we residents can confab with Ed and Jonathan, if they are receptive, to work up some kind of “rap” sessions where a group of us come in and see how you guys think and how you work - and you can understand what “makes us tick.” That would be a great way to build a bridge between residents and staff. And how about reinvigorating town hall meetings? That will add more work to staff’s already full plates. However, If we make more of an effort to empathize and understand, then I think all sides will be more open to compromise. We will all save time in the long run and finally put paid to these marathon council meetings that last until all hours. I love living in Ventura which is why I can’t help but come downtown and give you all the business when I get the impression that you are not listening to us. Please take this as a compliment — that I I care so much about everything you do. Again, my apologies for being a party to causing undue stress on the dais and giving you grief. I’m looking forward to 2019. Thank you all for your service to this city, and best wishes to those of you who are stepping down at the end of the year. Kind regards, Becky Sanders 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 5:58 PM To:Council, City; O'Kane, Kristen Cc:Carol Macpherson Subject:Thank you! -- re Rinconada Masters   Dear City Council and Ms. O'Kane,    I'd like to express my appreciation for the contract Tim Sheeper signed with Carol McPherson today to extend the  Rinconada Master Swim club 6 more months.   I appreciate all that you did to make this happen, especially the extra  effort to retain the Swim4Fitness program.    Many Thanks and Happy Holidays!  Ann Protter          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:51 AM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City; Jeanne Fleming Subject:Update: Cell Towers in Residential Neighborhoods TIME SENSITIVE Dear City Council,  We are concerned about the situation with installation of the new cell towers in our neighborhood and are asking you  please:  1. To reverse your May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its cheap, ugly and potentially hazardous equipment aboveground next to people’s homes;   2. To direct City Staff to vigorously enforce Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances with respect to the siting and installation of cell towers near residences; and, more specifically,   3. To direct City Staff to stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the FCC’s aggressively pro-telecommunications-industry October order into our municipal ordinances.    Sincerely,  Leo Povolotsky,  Palo Alto resident of 27 years,  HOA Board Member  1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net> Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 4:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Work to retain housing this evening December 10, 2018    Dear City Council,    I understand that measures to help enable the conversion of the President Hotel from housing to a hotel is on the  agenda this evening.    I am disappointed to see staff leaving out the main reason for their urgency.    It is in the city's comprehensive plan that we need to add housing, and the target is much higher than we have achieved  in the past few years.    Losing the residences at the President Hotel would be a big step backwards.    First, I urge you to stand up for Palo Alto's interests.  Do not pass ordinances to change development rules, and enable  this conversion.    Work to keep this building residential.  At least leave this for the next council to decide.    Second, how is it that this purchase and conversion was such an attractive deal?  If we want housing, instead of hotels  being developed around downtown, we do have to change the rules, so that a housing development can be the most  attractive investment.  I think you have worked on this in the past month, and I hope you will keep working to improve  the financial incentives for more and denser housing.  In the best case, the developers would go back to the drawing  board and figure out how to operate the President Hotel as residences.    Thank you for your service to Palo Alto,    Robert Neff  Emerson Street / Loma Verde  \' - Ruhika, Maya, Karan, and Aiden Room D4 Eleanor Murray Fallon Middle School 3601 Kohnen Way Dublin, CA 94568 December 6th, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 To Whom It May Concern, CITY OF PALO AUO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I 8 DEC f 2 AH IO: 4 O Greetings, we are seventh graders from Eleanor Murray Fallon Middle School in Dublin, California, and we are here to tell you about a cause that is occuring in the ocean. We have seen your amazing city in our own eyes . We think it is absolutely gorgeous. We love your city and how they work. We have seen your city and we would love to have you help us out. In the Bay Area, there is plastic that is going into our oceans. Sea creatures sometimes ar being massacred from the deadly plastic. The design that cities are using don't filter out the micro-sized plastic bits, and that is one of the main things that sea creatures are consuming. To start off with, animals think that plastic is their everyday food.1 Also, sea creatures are having a hard time eating plastic and they are slowly suffering. The estimated amount of animals that are dying are 100,000.2 To add on, the chemicals in the plastic are very harmful to the sea creature, and the smaller the pieces are, the more dangerous the plastic is for their body. 3 Finally, sea creature populations are being decimated by the unending stream of plastic microfibers, caused by us humans.4 All in all, sea creatures are dying every single day from plastic in our ocean which could ultimately cause them to become extinct. We decided to create a draining system in the pipes to the ocean. Our design is cheap, small, and it uses a micro-grid filter to filter out microplastics which travels through the pipes. We would like for you guys to look at our design idea that is clipped to this letter so that you get a better idea of our plan. We hope you will concern with our suggestion and take action soon. The work that you guys have done to your city helps make it what it is today, I we are thankful for that. Our ocean is now drowning in plastic and is taking a closer look to what is occurring daily to natures marine wildlife. We would like for you guys to contact us via mail about what you think about our plan.Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sfn Aiden, ~fia=;, and Maya Citations 21 . Rochman et al., Chelsea. "Effects of Micro-Plastics on Fish and and Invertebrates ." Sixth International Marine Debris Conference, intemationalmarinedebrisconference.org/index.php/effects-of-microplastics-on-fish-and-invertebrates/. 22. Querm, Claire Le. "When The Mermaids Cry: The Great Plastic Tide." Plastic Pollution, Mar. 2018, plastic-pollution.org/. 23. University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong. "How Microplastics Are Affecting Marine Organisms." ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Mar. 2018, www.scjencedajly.com/releases/2018/03/180305101644,htm. 24. "Deep-Sea Creatures 'Feeding on Plastic for Decades'." BBC News, BBC, 23 Oct. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-hiqhlands-islands-45952205?intlink from url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. bbc,com%2Fnews%2ftopjcs%2Fcnegp3jvj32t%2Focean-pollution&ljnk locatjon=ljye-reportjng-story. ..... December 2, 2018 Todd Seeley Manager of Maintenance Operations Public Works Service Division 3201 East Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Street Sweeping Dear Mr. Seeley: CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DEC -7 AH IQ: f 5 WE have now arrived in the rainy season and parts of Palo Alto Avenue between Seneca and Hale still have not been swept. The parts that are ,are poorly swept at least on my area of the street. There are no posted signs to say no parking because of sweeping on a certain day. How easy it would be. The problem is not just due to vegetation but in large part to parked cars which do not belong to the residents. The vegetation that you seem to think is the problem, is still there since your letter of October 10. Your plans not to post NO PARKING signs is absolutely ridiculous. Here we are as taxpayers, on the creek which overflows here and needs cleared streets and you have some arbitrary "plan" not to put up signs. It is bad enough that we have the commuter parking that we dol. Yours truly, Caroline Knopf 960 Palo Alto Ave. Palo Alto cc: Palo Alto City Manager Palo Alto City Council Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 December 10, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 By Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery UNCil MEETING 1?}u2)1V laced Before Meeting Received at Meeting DECEMBER 10, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #16 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.18.120 CROSS REFERENCE: 488 UNIVERSITY AVENUE (PRESIDENT HOTEL) Dear City Council: I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because the proposed ordinance violates the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, the proposed ordinance is an ordinance that increases property owners development rights, requires two readings, and is subject to referendum, while the findings and declarations in the proposed ordinance includes language that is copied from California Government Code Section 65858 that exists to authorize interim ordinances to prohibit a property owner from using his or her property to protect the planning process so that the property owner could not introduce potentially nonconforming land uses that could defeat a later adopted Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Further, the staff report for this agenda item (ID # 9910) at Page 3 says, "The proposed ordinance seeks to revert the Downtown non-complying facilities regulations back to the pre- 2016 standard", and at Page 2 says, "The change may have been unintentional and occurred in January 2016", but do cuments available in the City Clerk's office and online demonstrate that the language has existed in the Palo Alto Municipal Code since at least 2006, and I believe records available elsewhere will show that the language has been in the Zoning Ordinance even earlier than that. Brown Act Violation The primary purpose of this proposed ordinance is to enable the conversion of the property at 488 University Avenue from rental apartments to a hotel. The failure to include that fact in the agenda description is a violation of the Brown Act. CEQA Violation CEQA Regulation 15378(a) defines "project" as the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment", including "(1) An activity undertaken by any public agency." CEQA Regulation 15378(d) says, "Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under subdivision (a) (1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental approvals .. the Lead Agency shall describe the project as the development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis .1> Therefore, the CEQA project is the proposed conversion of 488 University Avenue from apartments to a hotel, and the regulation in the subject agenda item is part of that CEQA project. Segmenting this agenda item from the CEQA analysis of the development project is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion. ~ The project is not exempt from CEQA under either of~sons given in the agenda description and staff report. The reasons why the project is not exempt are included in the arguments in July 27, 2018, letter from Heather Minner of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP that appears in the Public Letters to Council in the August 13, 2018, City Council Agenda Packet on pages 90-96 at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t =45470.91&BlobID=66185 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.120(b) (2). The proposed ordinance seeks to delete language in PAMC Section 18.18.120 that the Planning Director claims was added to the Municipal Code inadvertently in error by means of cutting and pasting the language from someplace else, although he is careful in not citing the source of the "cut-and-paste" language because there is none. The language in question has been part of the Municipal Code continuously since at least 2006 when the Council adopted Ordinance No. 4923, and I believe that the same language has been in the Municipal Code continuously longer than that, but due to a gap in the City Clerk's records I was unable to verify that fact today, but I believe there are other records that confirm my belief and I will let you know that as soon as I am able to access those records. The language that staff proposes to delete is at Page 64 of Ordinance No. 4923 introduced October 16, 2006, adopted November 6, 2006, and effective December 7, 2006, or twelve years ago, and is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19591. I realize that there may be further actions on the subject of this agenda item in other forums. " fa " ,· d \ ':'.1 Therefore, I will be ~re-rv·i~ a copy of this letter to the City Clerk with a certified copy attached of Ordinance No. 4923 for inclusion in the Public Letters to Council in the next City Council Agenda Packet, and for the Administrative Record of these proceedings and other proceedings regarding 488 University Avenue. Sincerely, ~ Herb Borock Attachment: (Hand Delivered Copy Only) Certified Copy of Ordinance No. 4923 follows: ORDINANCE NO. 4923 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO AL TO DELETING CHAPTERS 18.41 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL), 18.44 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING DISTRICT (CC(2)), 18.45 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL, AND 18.49 (COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN), ADDING PORTIONS OF A NEW CHAPTER 18-.16 (NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS), ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.18 (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT), AND AMENDING SECTION 18.94.970 (NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCOMPLYING FACILITIES) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), AND AMENDING SECTION 16.20.120(a) (FREESTANDING SIGNS) OF TITLE 16 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as (a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC), including the update of existing land use chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters for new and revised land uses; (b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and policies related to commercial and mixed use development. The Zoning Ordinance Update was initiated in part to accomplish these programs and policies. ( c) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto Zoning Code took place in 1978. Provisions for commercial and mixed use development in that update do not respond to current Comprehensive Plan goals and highly constrain and create a cumbersome review process for mixed use development. II II II II II 1 061204 syn 0120176 SECTION 2. Chapters 18.41 (Neighborhood Commercial), 18.44 (Community Commercial Combining District), 18.45 (Service Commercial), and 18.49 (Commercial Downtown) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their entirety: SECTION 3. Portions of Chapter 18.16 of Title 18 (Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows (shaded areas are not included in this ordinance): Chapter 18.16 NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SERVICE Sections: 18.16.010 18.16.020 18.16.030 18.16.040 18.16.050 18.16.060 18.16.070 18.16.080 18.16.090 18.16.100 18.16.010 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Purposes Applicable Regulations Definitions Land Uses Office Use Restrictions Development Standards Parking and Loading Performance Standards Context-Based Design Criteria Grandfathered Uses Purposes The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for retail, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, hotels and other business uses in a manner that balances the needs of those uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. (a) Neighborhood Commercial [CN] The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. 2 061204 syn 0120176 (c) Community Commercial (2) Subdistrict [CC(2)] The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community commercial uses and development requirements in the CC district. (d) Service Commercial [CS] The CS service commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. 18.16.020 Applicable Regulations (a) Applicable Chapters The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by other relevant Chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the CN, CS, and CC districts, and the subdistrict designated as CC(2), as shown on the City's Zoning Map. The term "abutting residential zones," where used in this Chapter, includes the Rl, R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned Community (PC) districts, unless otherwise specifically noted. (b) Applicable Combining Districts The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS,. and CC(2) districts shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following districts: (1) The retail shopping (R) combining d~lations, as specified in Chapter 18.46, shall apply to the area of the CN, CS-districts designated as "R" combining district as shown on the City's Zoning Map. (2) The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter 18.47, shall apply to the area of the CN, CS,. and CC(2) districts designated "P" combining district as shown on the City's Zoning Map. 18.16.030 Definitions For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined: (a) "Charleston Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded by East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley Community Center. (b) "Midtown Shopping District" is defined as all properties zoned CN in the vicinity of the intersection of Colorado A venue and Middlefield Road which border Moreno A venue, Bryson Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and San Carlos Court, or which border Middlefield Road in the area extending from Moreno A venue to San Carlos Court. 3 061204 syn 0120176 (e) "Neighborhood-serving offices" are medical offices, professional offices, travel agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving use. (f) A "Neighborhood Serving Use" is a use that primarily serves individual consumers and households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian oriented in design, and does not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for uses with a local customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which a significant number of customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the goods or services traveling off-site. (g) "Ground Floor" shall mean the first floor that is above grade. (h) "Mixed Use Development" shall mean a combination of nonresidential and residential uses arranged on a site. The uses may be combined in a vertical configuration (within a building) or in a horizontal configuration (separate buildings). 18.16.040 Land Uses The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well. (a) Commercial Zones and Land Uses Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercial zone are shown in Table 1: Table 1: CN, CC(2) and CS Permitted and Conditional Uses c~4> • cs<4> Subject to LAND USE CC(2) Regulations in: ·~ -....... •. j . ----''·· .. AC~S~ORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and p p p 18.88 operated incidental to the principal use. Drive-in services or take-out services associated CUP CUP CUP 18.88 with permitted uses<3> _Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities, when operated incidental to a permitted retail CUP 18.88 service or shopping center having a gross floor area of more than 30,000 square feet. 4 061204 syn 0120176 c~4> • cs<4> Subject to LAND USE CC(2) Regulations in: •.'lo:~•....,. ,J «"I-..• ,..., .!.'>·'¥•';" ' ~ '. ,. y.. ,_ , . :~p,p~~llQN~, .lUl!Ll(?IOVS, AfW ...... ' t ' .~' \ .. •. ~~$~~:!JY VSES : . _ I· .. ... .. Business and Trade Schools p p Churches and Religious Institutions p p p Private Educational Facilities CUP p p Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations CUP p p ::MANUF:AcTuRiNG ANi>. .. .. ; .. I'• 1'~ t ·~-:. I ,, ;. . .. ;. .... .. ·. '· . •' . "':'\{/1'·'1 ·."(":e';~~;.~~, • !1 •• , • . ,. ~. r .. ~ 1 .! ' -' ;{>,..Q~$S.ING USES .... : • . . . ' ·• Recycling Centers CUP CUP CUP Warehousing and Distribution CUP ·~~7:"~·;~ :! . ? -\~ "(--~.. • ~ . .. ·. ' ' . ,, ' '· ) ' ,nmcEiUSES ' " ; " ' ... .. ,, ~, ..... t •• .... ~ ... -- Administrative Office Services p 18.16.050 Medical Offices CUP CUP CUP 18.16.050 Professional and General Business Offices p p p 18.16.050 ·'• • -, ••• _, .. 1 .. • .. :• .. f PBLIC/!JUASI-~UBLIC USES Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excl.uding construction or storage CUP CUP CUP yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. ·::; .. • :_..;{ ;,.~_:,rl,' I,' )f ';, . .. -U~ . .\'.OON.U$ES ,· - Commercial Recreation CUP CUP CUP Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP CUP \! >~t~1· :-t .. ·'~-... };.; ~ ..... ' . . .. .,. : ' ·-·;· . ' ·M.S~J~ USES .. .. ., Multiple-Family p(I) p<•> p<•> 18.16.060(b) Ho~e Occupations p p p 18.88 Residential Care Homes p p p :;tJffe'!."':~~-~~~.:;; ~·-"..~~.::, .. ~I-.:.··; j O ,. ·-..•. ' ">• -.. ,, ' ' : -·~-' .. . . - ~P.T~;US.t;S : .:· . I·· ' - Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in p p p and take-out services Retail Services, excluding liquor stores p p p Liquor stores CUP p p Shopping Centers p 18.16.060(e) r~.1~ ~~-\:'~ .... · !::&~.?,~~;'.~ .. ··~. . . . -,:!' • . , ,:SERVIcE.USES .. .. •' .. .. ' ...... ~ . • . t· •.. . • . . . . Ambulance Services CUP CUP CUP 5 061204 syn 0120176 c~4> • cs<4> Subject to LAND USE CC(2) Regulations in: Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels p p p Boarding and Kennels CUP Automobile Service Stations CUP CUP CUP 18.82 Automotive Services CUP Convalescent Facilities CUP p p Day Care Centers p p p Small Family Day Care Homes p p p Large Family Day Care Homes p p p Small Adult Day Care Homes p p p Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP p p Banks and Financial Services CUP pC2l pC2) General Business Services CUP p Hotels p p 18.16.060(d) Mortuaries CUP p p Neighborhood Business Services p 18.16.060(£) Personal Services p p p 18.16.060(£) Reverse Vending Machines p p p 18.88 ·.,...',. ,i_··~ .. .. ., " ·l:F;MJ»Q~Y USES Farmer's Markets CUP CUP CUP Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such CUP CUP CUP facilities shall remain no more than five years. ;~; . .-~,;, I'~\::. f-: f'·' I' I . ' .. " .. .. ~Sl'ORTA'flON USES. ' ·.' ., Parking as a principal use CUP CUP Transportation Terminals CUP CUP P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required <1> Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(b ), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(c). <2> Except drive-in services. <3> So long as drive up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and bicyclists. A maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet, and each use shall not be less than 150 feet from one another. <4> For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use permit. 6 061204 syn 0120176 (b) Late Night Use and Activities The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties. (1) Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours. (2) For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property. (c) CN District: Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers The following regulations shall apply to areas of Charleston Center and the Midtown Shopping Center as defined in Section 18.16.030. Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of the applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers. Permitted and conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall only apply to the ground floor of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers as listed in Table 2. Uses lawfully existing on January 16, 2001 may be continued as non-conforming uses but may only be replaced with uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this subsection. Table 2: Charleston and Midtown Sho in ;:~~Jt.~:~:.:~~t--~!¢:;~·~.:':· ~.~ ""'.:'".t; • ~ : • 1;.• r•, , t69~~S~9RY~i\Nl> S~fQRT USES Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses. =j:~)'.t.¢Aiio~A.J:;;·~LiGIOUS, AND. ··ASSl~LVV.~s.:-~-•; · . . Churches and Religious Institutions Private Educational Facilities 1~~~~·:,~ P.~Q~SSll\{G·ys~s . Recycling Centers Neighborhood-serving offices that do not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area. 061204 syn 0120176 p CUP CUP CUP p 7 . p 18.88 CUP CUP ... .. . . CUP -·~:·;. ·~ . • . . .. 18.16.050