Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180326plCC 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: 3/26/2018 Document dates: 3/7/2018 – 3/14/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:10 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 12:58 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal) Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Don't change the existing Wireless ordinance Dear Mayor Kniss,     Thank you for ensuring that United Neighbors was notified promptly that City Council will next be considering the proposed changes to the Wireless ordinance on Monday, March 19th. We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues at that meeting.     When you meet, I urge you, on behalf of United Neighbors, to vote against changing the Wireless ordinance. As the City Attorney wrote to City Council in her 4/29/15 report regarding what is now the existing ordinance, this ordinance requires—and “require” is her word—that no new or collocated cell towers may be installed in Palo Alto without both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings. Yet now Senior Staff are recommending you allow the Director of Planning, if she so chooses, to bypass ARB and PTC review of these cell towers.     The fact is, now more than ever, both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings are necessary to protect residents from the juggernaut that is the telecom industry as it seeks to install commercial facilities next to our homes. Now is not the time--when applications for new cell towers here are at 150 and counting--to make it easier for Verizon, AT&T et al. to come into Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and do as they please. In fact, most other California cities are currently in the process of making their Wireless ordinances tougher, not weakening them.     Please consider, what sense does it make to dispense with the experience, professionalism and depth of knowledge of the Architectural Review Board when dealing with this critical issue? And what possible virtue can there be in changing the ordinance so that, at the Director’s discretion, the only way residents would be able make their views heard in a public forum—or to go face-to-face with the telecom companies—would be to pay to appeal proposed cell towers?    Why, in short, should the power to review cell tower applications be taken out of the hands of experts, removed from public forums, and turned over to Senior City Staff? Why should these decisions be made behind closed doors? And where's the transparency Palo Alto residents are entitled to expect from the people running the City?     The fact that the proposed changes to the code do not dictate that the Director bypass the ARB and the PTC cannot disguise the fact that these changes would permit the Director to do so—with no explanation to the public, to City Council or to anyone else..     The changes Staff want you to make to the existing code may be good for them by, for example, allowing them to avoid time-consuming preparations for ARB and PTC hearings. But these changes are bad for residents. And they fly in the face of good governance.      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:10 PM 2 I am aware, of course, that you are generally sympathetic to the interests of developers in Palo Alto. And I am aware, as well, that developers always want more infrastructure, and cell towers are infrastructure. But I'm counting on you to also care about the residents of Palo Alto and to protect them against the invasion of unnecessarily ugly, noisy, bulky and hazardous cell towers that Verizon and others are currently proposing.     Thank you for your attention. Please let me know if you have any questions.      Sincerely,     Jeanne Fleming     Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Miriam Sedman <msedman@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 10:45 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Don't change the existing Wireless ordinance Dear City Council Members, I urge you, on behalf of Palo Alto residents, to vote against changing the Wireless ordinance. As the City Attorney wrote to City Council in her 4/29/15 report regarding what is now the existing ordinance, this ordinance requires—and “require” is her word—that no new or collocated cell towers may be installed in Palo Alto without both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings. Yet now Senior Staff are recommending you allow the Director of Planning, if she so chooses, to bypass ARB and PTC review of these cell towers. The fact is, now more than ever, both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings are necessary to protect residents. On a case-by-case basis it is absolutely necessary for the city to review requests to place cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods. For example, a sign proposing a Verizon cell phone tower has appeared in the Triple El neighborhood and it makes no sense to install a cell phone tower in this neighborhood for the following reasons. · The proposed location is central to homes where children, elderly and retirees are at home 24 hours a day and will be exposed to high levels of radiation (lots of data on this!) · Verizon is optimizing their plan for ease of access and NOT to minimize exposure of radiation to citizens (This is just wrong). · Our neighborhood has good Verizon coverage right now. Even the Verizon maps show that we are in good shape. · The houses in the triple El neighborhood that have poles and wires already bear the burden of additional radiation and maintenance for the neighborhood; let alone that the poles and wires are unsightly. Why penalize the same homeowners for phones? · There are just a whole lot better places to put these poles e.g. NOT in the middle of densely populated neighborhoods. It is essential that you continue to protect the safety of Palo Alto residents and push back on utility companies who’s primary concern is profit and who are not concerned with public safety or neighborhood well being. Regards, Miriam Sedman 915 Elsinore Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Janet Gu <janetlipingding1120@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:08 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board Subject:Vote against changing the ordinance please Dear Mayor Kniss, Thank you for ensuring that United Neighbors was notified promptly that City Council will next be considering the proposed changes to the Wireless ordinance on Monday, March 19th. We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues at that meeting. When you meet, I urge you, on behalf of United Neighbors, to vote against changing the Wireless ordinance. As the City Attorney wrote to City Council in her 4/29/15 report regarding what is now the existing ordinance, this ordinance requires—and “require” is her word—that no new or collocated cell towers may be installed in Palo Alto without both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings. Yet now Senior Staff are recommending you allow the Director of Planning, if she so chooses, to bypass ARB and PTC review of these cell towers. The fact is, now more than ever, both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings are necessary to protect residents from the juggernaut that is the telecom industry as it seeks to install commercial facilities next to our homes. Now is not the time--when applications for new cell towers here are at 150 and counting--to make it easier for Verizon, AT&T et al. to come into Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and do as they please. In fact, most other California cities are currently in the process of making their Wireless ordinances tougher, not weakening them. Please consider, what sense does it make to dispense with the experience, professionalism and depth of knowledge of the Architectural Review Board when dealing with this critical issue? And what possible virtue can there be in changing the ordinance so that, at the Director’s discretion, the only way residents would be able make their views heard in a public forum—or to go face-to-face with the telecom companies—would be to pay to appeal proposed cell towers? Why, in short, should the power to review cell tower applications be taken out of the hands of experts, removed from public forums, and turned over to Senior City Staff? Why should these decisions be made behind closed doors? And where's the transparency Palo Alto residents are entitled to expect from the people running the City? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 3 The fact that the proposed changes to the code do not dictate that the Director bypass the ARB and the PTC cannot disguise the fact that these changes would permit the Director to do so—with no explanation to the public, to City Council or to anyone else.. The changes Staff want you to make to the existing code may be good for them by, for example, allowing them to avoid time-consuming preparations for ARB and PTC hearings. But these changes are bad for residents. And they fly in the face of good governance. I am aware, of course, that you are generally sympathetic to the interests of developers in Palo Alto. And I am aware, as well, that developers always want more infrastructure, and cell towers are infrastructure. But I'm counting on you to also care about the residents of Palo Alto and to protect them against the invasion of unnecessarily ugly, noisy, bulky and hazardous cell towers that Verizon and others are currently proposing. Thank you for your attention. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Janet Ding City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Ding Janet <janetding318@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:10 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board Subject:vote against changing the ordinance! Dear Mayor Kniss, Thank you for ensuring that United Neighbors was notified promptly that City Council will next be considering the proposed changes to the Wireless ordinance on Monday, March 19th. We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues at that meeting. When you meet, I urge you, on behalf of United Neighbors, to vote against changing the Wireless ordinance. As the City Attorney wrote to City Council in her 4/29/15 report regarding what is now the existing ordinance, this ordinance requires—and “require” is her word—that no new or collocated cell towers may be installed in Palo Alto without both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings. Yet now Senior Staff are recommending you allow the Director of Planning, if she so chooses, to bypass ARB and PTC review of these cell towers. The fact is, now more than ever, both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings are necessary to protect residents from the juggernaut that is the telecom industry as it seeks to install commercial facilities next to our homes. Now is not the time--when applications for new cell towers here are at 150 and counting--to make it easier for Verizon, AT&T et al. to come into Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and do as they please. In fact, most other California cities are currently in the process of making their Wireless ordinances tougher, not weakening them. Please consider, what sense does it make to dispense with the experience, professionalism and depth of knowledge of the Architectural Review Board when dealing with this critical issue? And what possible virtue can there be in changing the ordinance so that, at the Director’s discretion, the only way residents would be able make their views heard in a public forum—or to go face-to-face with the telecom companies—would be to pay to appeal proposed cell towers? Why, in short, should the power to review cell tower applications be taken out of the hands of experts, removed from public forums, and turned over to Senior City Staff? Why should these decisions be City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 5 made behind closed doors? And where's the transparency Palo Alto residents are entitled to expect from the people running the City? The fact that the proposed changes to the code do not dictate that the Director bypass the ARB and the PTC cannot disguise the fact that these changes would permit the Director to do so—with no explanation to the public, to City Council or to anyone else.. The changes Staff want you to make to the existing code may be good for them by, for example, allowing them to avoid time-consuming preparations for ARB and PTC hearings. But these changes are bad for residents. And they fly in the face of good governance. I am aware, of course, that you are generally sympathetic to the interests of developers in Palo Alto. And I am aware, as well, that developers always want more infrastructure, and cell towers are infrastructure. But I'm counting on you to also care about the residents of Palo Alto and to protect them against the invasion of unnecessarily ugly, noisy, bulky and hazardous cell towers that Verizon and others are currently proposing. Thank you for your attention. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Liping Ding City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Liping Ding <ding.li@husky.neu.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:12 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board Subject:vote against changing the ordinance! Dear Mayor Kniss, Thank you for ensuring that United Neighbors was notified promptly that City Council will next be considering the proposed changes to the Wireless ordinance on Monday, March 19th. We look forward to seeing you and your colleagues at that meeting. When you meet, I urge you, on behalf of United Neighbors, to vote against changing the Wireless ordinance. As the City Attorney wrote to City Council in her 4/29/15 report regarding what is now the existing ordinance, this ordinance requires—and “require” is her word—that no new or collocated cell towers may be installed in Palo Alto without both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings. Yet now Senior Staff are recommending you allow the Director of Planning, if she so chooses, to bypass ARB and PTC review of these cell towers. The fact is, now more than ever, both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings are necessary to protect residents from the juggernaut that is the telecom industry as it seeks to install commercial facilities next to our homes. Now is not the time--when applications for new cell towers here are at 150 and counting--to make it easier for Verizon, AT&T et al. to come into Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods and do as they please. In fact, most other California cities are currently in the process of making their Wireless ordinances tougher, not weakening them. Please consider, what sense does it make to dispense with the experience, professionalism and depth of knowledge of the Architectural Review Board when dealing with this critical issue? And what possible virtue can there be in changing the ordinance so that, at the Director’s discretion, the only way residents would be able make their views heard in a public forum—or to go face-to-face with the telecom companies—would be to pay to appeal proposed cell towers? Why, in short, should the power to review cell tower applications be taken out of the hands of experts, removed from public forums, and turned over to Senior City Staff? Why should these decisions be made behind closed doors? And where's the transparency Palo Alto residents are entitled to expect from the people running the City? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 7 The fact that the proposed changes to the code do not dictate that the Director bypass the ARB and the PTC cannot disguise the fact that these changes would permit the Director to do so—with no explanation to the public, to City Council or to anyone else.. The changes Staff want you to make to the existing code may be good for them by, for example, allowing them to avoid time-consuming preparations for ARB and PTC hearings. But these changes are bad for residents. And they fly in the face of good governance. I am aware, of course, that you are generally sympathetic to the interests of developers in Palo Alto. And I am aware, as well, that developers always want more infrastructure, and cell towers are infrastructure. But I'm counting on you to also care about the residents of Palo Alto and to protect them against the invasion of unnecessarily ugly, noisy, bulky and hazardous cell towers that Verizon and others are currently proposing. Thank you for your attention. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Li Ding City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:00 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:27 AM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Do not change the existing Wireless ordinance Dear Council Members, I am a 50 year resident of Palo Alto, and am unhappy about the proliferation of cell towers in our residential neighborhoods. The towers are ugly, noisy and they emit radiation potentially affecting our health. I have a tower within a half block of my house and experience it every day. I understand you will vote soon to make the process easier for companies to install these devices by allowing the Director of Planning to bypass ARB and PTC review of these cell towers. I ask that you DO NOT approve the request by City Staff to take the ARB and PTC out of the approval process. The ARB and PTC are part of the public approval process to assure transparency and allow maximum expert and public input on controversial issues, such as "implanting" cell towers into our neighborhoods. Thank you, Alan Cooper 270 Kellogg Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Claudia <claudiaegriffin@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 8:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Wireless ordinance Hello,  I am writing to you to urge you to vote against the change in the wireless ordinance.    Best regards,  Claudia  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:19 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Atkinson, Rebecca; French, Amy Subject:A few more resources - Informative links on cell towers and more Attachments:NTP Partial Finding Report May 2016.pdf Dear All, I would like to share a few more resources on this topic. 1. Here is a link to the repository of studies about impacts on health due to (chronic) exposure to radiation from wireless technologies (cell towers, WiFi Cell phones, smart meters, etc) http://www.bioinitiative.org/ 2. In May 2016, the United States National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, released the results of an animal study on cell phone radiation. Please see the attachment of the NTP study below. Thanks, Amrutha About the National Toxicology Program (NTP): NTP is a federal, interagency program headquartered at NIEHS, whose goal is to safeguard the public by identifying substances in the environment that may affect human health. For more information about NTP and its programs, visit ntp.niehs.nih.gov. About the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS): NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit www.niehs.nih.gov. Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists (www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/newslist/index.cfm) to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications. On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 9:37:20 AM PDT, Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear All, I am sending the following links to articles/information/videos on cell towers for you to go through. 1. Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Limits for Those Who Work Near Wireless Towers Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Limits for Those Who Work Near Wireless Towers Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Li... 2. This is the link to the new and latest study on cell towers (Los Angeles was the study site in the United States) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:33 PM 2 Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequenc... Study finds cell towers are largest contributor to environmental radiofrequency radiation exposure. 3. CA Dept of Health issues warnings on Cell Phone usage California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation State health officials aren't saying that cellphones pose health risks, but "the science is evolving" 4. Julie Watts report on cell towers ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts on Health City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:33 PM 3 Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts ... Wireless carriers are installing millions of towers across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone te... 5. View four speakers from 1:46:38 through 2:01:15 using this slide presentation.View from 2:01:15 through 2:18:00 for Santa Rosa City Council members’ comments. City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018 Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018 City meeting agendas, packets, archives, and live stream are always available at https://santa-rosa.legistar.com Thanks, Amrutha Table of Contents Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Rationale ............................................................................................................................. 5 Description of the NTP Cell Phone RFR Program .................................................................... 6 Study Design .................................................................................................................................. 7 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Brain................................................................................................................................... 9 Heart................................................................................................................................. 10 Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 13 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 15 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A – Contributors ........................................................................................................ 17 Appendix B – Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................. 18 Appendix C - Pathology .............................................................................................................. 21 Appendix D – Historical Controls ............................................................................................. 26 Appendix E – Time on Study to Appearance of Tumors ........................................................ 27 Appendix F – Reviewer’s Comments ........................................................................................ 29 Appendix G – NIH Reviewer’s Comments .............................................................................. 32 Appendix G1: Reviewer’s Comments ........................................................................... 33 Appendix G2: NTP’s Responses to NIH Reviewer’s Comments ............................... 65 Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures) Draft 5-19-2016 1 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Abstract The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has carried out extensive rodent toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at frequencies and modulations used in the US telecommunications industry. This report presents partial findings from these studies. The occurrences of two tumor types in male Harlan Sprague Dawley rats exposed to RFR, malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, were considered of particular interest, and are the subject of this report. The findings in this report were reviewed by expert peer reviewers selected by the NTP and National Institutes of Health (NIH). These reviews and responses to comments are included as appendices to this report, and revisions to the current document have incorporated and addressed these comments. Supplemental information in the form of 4 additional manuscripts has or will soon be submitted for publication. These manuscripts describe in detail the designs and performance of the RFR exposure system, the dosimetry of RFR exposures in rats and mice, the results to a series of pilot studies establishing the ability of the animals to thermoregulate during RFR exposures, and studies of DNA damage. Capstick M, Kuster N, Kühn S, Berdinas-Torres V, Wilson P, Ladbury J, Koepke G, McCormick D, Gauger J, Melnick R. A radio frequency radiation reverberation chamber exposure system for rodents Yijian G, Capstick M, McCormick D, Gauger J, Horn T, Wilson P, Melnick RL and Kuster N. Life time dosimetric assessment for mice and rats exposed to cell phone radiation 2 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wyde ME, Horn TL, Capstick M, Ladbury J, Koepke G, Wilson P, Stout MD, Kuster N, Melnick R, Bucher JR, and McCormick D. Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s cell phone radiofrequency radiation reverberation chamber exposure system Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, Winters J, Hobbs CA, Shepard KG, Green A, Kissling GE, Tice RR, Bucher JR, Witt KL. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure 3 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; 1 Report of Partial Findings from the N ational Toxicology Program 2 Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in 3 Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures) 4 Draft 5-19-2016 5 6 SUMMARY 7 The purpose of this communication is to report partial findings from a series of radiofrequency 8 radiation (RFR) cancer studies in rats performed under the auspices of the U.S. National 9 Toxicology Program (NTP).1 This report contains peer-reviewed, neoplastic and hyperplastic 10 findings only in the brain and heart of Hsd:Sprague Dawley® SD® (HSD) rats exposed to RFR 11 starting in utero and continuing throughout their lifetimes. These studies found low incidences of 12 malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas in the heart of male rats exposed to RFR of the 13 two types [Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile 14 Communications (GSM)] currently used in U.S. wireless networks. Potentially preneoplastic 15 lesions were also observed in the brain and heart of male rats exposed to RFR. 16 17 The review of partial study data in this report has been prompted by several factors. Given the 18 widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small 19 increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad 20 implications for public health. There is a high level of public and media interest regarding the 21 safety of cell phone RFR and the specific results of these NTP studies. 1 NTP is a federal, interagency program, headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, whose goal is to safeguard the public by identifying substances in the environment that may affect human health. For more information about NTP and its programs, visit http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov 4 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; 1 Lastly, the tumors in the brain and heart observed at low incidence in male rats exposed to GSM- 2 and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR in this study are of a type similar to tumors observed in 3 some epidemiology studies of cell phone use. These findings appear to support the International 4 Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conclusions regarding the possible carcinogenic 5 potential of RFR.2 6 7 It is important to note that this document reviews only the findings from the brain and heart and 8 is not a complete report of all findings from the NTP’s studies. Additional data from these 9 studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley® SD® (Harlan) rats and similar studies conducted in B6C3F1/N 10 mice are currently under evaluation and will be reported together with the current findings in two 11 forthcoming NTP Technical Reports. 12 13 STUDY RATIONALE 14 Cell phones and other commonly used wireless communication devices transmit information via 15 non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR). In 2013, IARC classified RFR as a possible human 16 carcinogen based on “limited evidence” of an association between exposure to RFR from heavy 17 wireless phone use and glioma and acoustic neuroma (vestibular schwannoma) in human 18 epidemiology studies, and “limited evidence” for the carcinogenicity of RFR in experimental 19 animals. While ionizing radiation is a well-accepted human carcinogen, theoretical arguments 20 have been raised against the possibility that non-ionizing radiation could induce tumors 21 (discussed in IARC, 2013). Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless 2 IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2013. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Hum 102. Available: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf [accessed 26 May 2016]. 5 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; 1 communication devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from 2 exposure to the RFR generated by those devices could have broad implications for public health. 3 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE NTP CELL PHONE RFR PROGRAM 5 RFR emitted by wireless communication devices, especially cell phones, was nominated to the 6 NTP for toxicology and carcinogenicity testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 7 (FDA). After careful and extensive evaluation of the published literature and experimental 8 efforts already underway at that time, the NTP concluded that additional studies were warranted 9 to more clearly define any potential health hazard to the U.S. population. Due to the technical 10 complexity of such studies, NTP staff worked closely with RFR experts from the National 11 Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). With support from NTP, engineers at NIST 12 evaluated various types of RFR exposure systems and demonstrated the feasibility of using a 13 specially designed exposure system (reverberation chambers), which resolved the inherent 14 limitations identified in existing systems. 15 In general, NTP chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies expose laboratory rodents to a test 16 article for up to 2 years and are designed to determine the potential for the agent tested to be 17 hazardous and/or carcinogenic to humans.3 For cell phone RFR, a program of study was 18 designed to evaluate potential, long-term health effects of whole-body exposures. These studies 19 were conducted in three phases: (1) a series of pilot studies to establish field strengths that do not 20 raise body temperature, (2) 28-day toxicology studies in rodents exposed to various low-level 21 field strengths, and (3) chronic toxicology and carcinogenicity studies. The studies were carried 22 out under contract at IIT Research Institute (IITRI) in Chicago, IL following Good Laboratory 3 Specifications for the Conduct of NTP Studies, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/test_info/finalntp_toxcarspecsjan2011.pdf 6 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Practices (GLP). These studies were conducted in rats and mice using a reverberation chamber exposure system with two signal modulations [Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)] at two frequencies (900 MHz for rats and 1900 MHz for mice), the modulations and frequency bands that are primarily used in the United States. STUDY DESIGN Hsd:Sprague Dawley® SD® (Harlan) rats were housed in custom-designed reverberation chambers and exposed to cell phone RFR. Experimentally generated 900 MHz RF fields with either GSM or CDMA modulation were continuously monitored in real-time during all exposure periods via RF sensors located in each exposure chamber that recorded RF field strength (V/m). Animal exposure levels are reported as whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR), a biological measure of exposure based on the deposition of RF energy into an absorbing organism or tissue. SAR is defined as the energy (watts) absorbed per mass of tissue (kilograms). Rats were exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR at 900 MHz with whole-body SAR exposures of 0, 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg. RFR field strengths were frequently adjusted based on changes in body weight to maintain desired SAR levels. Exposures to RFR were initiated in utero beginning with the exposure of pregnant dams (approximately 11-14 weeks of age) on Gestation Day (GD) 5 and continuing throughout gestation. After birth, dams and pups were exposed in the same cage through weaning on postnatal day (PND) 21, at which point the dams were removed and exposure of 90 pups per sex per group was continued for up to 106 weeks. Pups remained group-housed from PND 21 until they were individually housed on PND 35. Control and treatment groups were populated with no 7 . CC-BY 4.0 International licensepeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 26, 2016; City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 09, 2018 8:08 AM To:ctraboard@googlegroups.com; fbalin@gmail.com; schmitta@pacbell.net; madjensen@sbcglobal.net; Summa, Doria; rstolee@gmail.com; estolee@gmail.com; Keene, James; Council, City; mikez@siliconvalleybuilder.com Subject:A great thriving market Foothill Produce in Los Altos potential for 2100 El Camino Real Please pursue, invite, discuss, consider. Contact Saira 650-919-3459 daughter and father owners. she is a UCLA graduate. They own/operates 3 plus stores. Great produce from farm to town with great prices like milkPail de martini segona. Community will benefit from having fresh produce and lower prices to be affordable to renters students and stanford based foreign and visitors. Again, Foothill Produce, Phillipe markets; Nearest is one on Foothill expressway south Los Altos near cross section of Homestead and Foothill expressway shopping center next to chevron gas trader Joe’s. Regards SeReddy Innovation•Integrity•Inclusion. Walk the Talk 747 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto Ca 94306 Paloaltolife@gmail.com 650-465-3535 949-857-2000 Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:52 PM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Margaret Rosenbloom <margaret_rosenbloom@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:21 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Affordable housing for Palo Alto I am writing to express my support for the Affordable Housing Overlay as written, as this will make it possible  to develop the affordable housing our city so badly needs.  The proposed amendments re distance from  transit, amount of  parking, height, and low income eligibility levels may meet the interests of some in the city  but will cause delay and diminishment in what could be a major breakthrough in Palo Alto's housing impasse.    Palo Alto can not afford to remain stuck in a mindset of being a small town  but must face the reality and  demands of the current housing‐jobs crunch.  The Affordable Housing Overlay is a significant effort towards  this goal and I urge the PTC to refer the ordnance as written  to the City Council for their consideration and  action under guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.    Margaret J. Rosenbloom 650‐328‐1712   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:02 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 1:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; council@redwoodcity.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Perron, Zachary; dcbertini@menlopark.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron Subject:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18).pdf Attachments:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18).pdf FYI: > > Hi Minka, > > I would very much like the Palo Alto Human Relationship Commission to draft a letter, to Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, and to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, opposing the purchase and use of Tasers in our jails. Thanks so much. > > Best regards, > > Aram B. James > 415-370-5056 > > P.S. Please see our letter below setting forth our reasons for opposing the use of Tasers in our jails. I provided a hard copy of our letter to the HRC at Thursday’s meeting, and requested that the HRC consider writing a letter as suggested above. There was no response to my request. > > > > Sent from my iPhone tasered some 20 times by South ports 47% efficacy, but LAPD Boston, Virginia, police officers. far exceeds the size of SFPD. He died. There was substantial The OPD which is closer in evidence that the three officers involved ignored the manufac- turer's warning regarding the risk of repeatedly tasering vic- tims. In addition, the officers ig- nored other warnings issued by the manufacturer. Under oath at a deposition, one of three offi- cers involved, Corporal Tiffany Bratton, acknowledged that she was aware of the manufacturer's warnings. In a chilling statement, she said, "If I read and abided by every single warning ... I would not Taser anyone." Catch-22 More and more attention is being paid by commentators to the fact that the use of Tasers is a Catch-22. Failure by police de- partments to follow closely the ever growing restrictions on the use ofTasers issued by the manu- facturer has resulted in unneces- sary deaths and a huge increase in the costs of litigation borne by municipalities. On the other hand, where police departments are closely complying with the manufacturer's complex warn- ings, they are finding it increas- ingly impractical to use Tasers. The Oakland Police Department has over 700 police officers on their force, all are armed with Tasers. The Bar Association of San Francisco Criminal Jus- tice Task Force, Committee on size to the SFPD, reported that in 2015 Tasers were deployed on just 37 occasions and 32 times in 2016. Oakland reported for each year, the efficacy was 50%." Other studies have con- firmed that where warnings are complied with the use of Tasers drops dramatically. Similarly, numerous studies have con- firmed that Tasers have an unac- ceptably high failure rate putting both the officers and intended victim at risk. Moreover, Tasers are not effec- tive. Michael Leonesio, a retired Oakland peace officer, provided answers to questions posed by the Bar Association of San Fran- cisco. "Given the warnings is- sued by Taser International, does this diminish the weapon's effi- cacy and/or circumstances other- wise warranting Taser use[?] ... Answer: The latest manufacturer warnings and trainings, as well as the Courts and current case law decisions, have absolutely limited the circumstances when a TASER, can and/or, should be used. Combine this with the fact that the new generation weap- ons are generating only half the electrical output of the previous generations, and I question the current weapons' ability for con- sistent, reliable, subject incapac- itation." Tasers contacted the Oakland Worth the Cost? Police Department to determine how frequently Tasers were de- ployed. "To help answer some of the questions, the BASF also reached out to the Oakland Po- lice Department (OPD) to deter- mine how often Tasers are used, and how often they are effective. It is well known that LAPD re- In June 2017, Taser expert Mi- chael Leonesio, was called as an expert witness before the San Francisco Police Commission on the potential costs of outfitting all members of the SFPD with Tasers. ''During his testimony, he estimated the first year in costs to San Francisco at $8,000 to $10,000 per officer which in- eluded the purchase price, main- tenance, training and oversight. Assuming a department size of 2,200 officers, the cost is be- tween $17.6 million and $22 million." Clearly, the sheriff and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors need to consider the cost factors raised above before expending millions of tax payer dollars on a weapon that is in- creasingly seen as impractical to use. Final Argument Tasers kill on the average of one person per week in the Unit- ed States. According to the Re- uters series, nine out of 10 who die are unarmed. Tasers are un- safe to use in jails because of the substantial risk of injury or death to both inmates and correction officers. The strongest single piece of evidence of this lack of safety is the 1,005 Taser related deaths reported in the Reuters fivepart series on Tasers. Equally powerful evidence of why Tasers should be banned is the ever growing list of restrictions/warn- ings issued by the manufacturer themselves regarding the serious risks of injury and death related to the use of Tasers. The millions that would be spent in arming the correctional officers in the jails with Tasers would be better spent on hiring more and better trained correc- tional officers. Finally, given the recommendations of the Santa Clara County Blue Ribbon Com- mission on Improving Custody Operations, the purchase and use of Tasers in the jails runs counter to the community's loud and re- peated calls for a more humane approach to incarceration. Call to Action When your community is faced with a questionable police practice be it the use of Tasers, inhumane jail conditions, unconstitutional surveillance tactics, racially dis- criminatory police enforcement; be confident that there is a way to organize your community to ef- fectively challenge these issues. Meet early and often with the community and with your local elected officials. Provide them with the necessary information to fully educate them on the is- sues. Call on your local district attorney, who is the chief, law en- forcement officer in every com- munity, to support your efforts to challenge and end police practic- es that diminish public trust for local law enforcement. Remem- ber police practices are not some obscure body of knowledge that we the community need sit back and passively accept. We can in fact make a difference. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County deputy public de- fender, a member of CJA and a co-founder of the Albert Cobar- rubias Justice Project (ACJP), a grassroots legal advocacy orga- nization located in San Jose. Richard Konda is an attor- ney and executive director of the Asian Law Alliance and the Chairperson of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA). Konda and James have challenged the use of Tasers by law enforcement for more than a decade. Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. ©2018 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved Reprinted by ReprintPros 949-702-5390. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Debbie Nichols <debbiegailnichols@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 4:14 PM To:Kniss, Liz (external); Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject:Baptist Church CUP Request Dear Mayor Kniss, Palo Alto City Council, Jonathan Lait, Hillary Gitelman, and City Manager James Keene    I am writing to voice my opposition to the Community Center designation  for the Baptist Church, 305 N California Ave.,  Palo Alto.    The church is essentially operating as a “for profit” commercial building in Old Palo Alto.  On Sundays, the church has  less than 30 parishioners  attending services.      Out of curiosity,  I googled 305 N California Ave (the address of the church) and found 44 organizations and groups that  are currently or have recently operated out of the church on a weekly or multi weekly basis.  Below is a list of the  groups. I believe this list is only the tip of the iceberg of the multitude of activities at the church.   >>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>>> Tuesday Night Tango                    Dances with Latin Flair                  TH Tango                  Klezmer Dance Party                  Interlocked Square Dances  >>>>>>>>>>>> Justice in Palo Alto                 Dance Maven                 Joy Dance                 Meatless Monday Dinners  >>>>>>>>>>>> Community Childcare  >>>>>>>>>>>> Synapse School  >>>>>>>>>>>> Palo Alto Mens Group  >>>>>>>>>>>> Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Peninsula English   >>>>>>>>>>>> Country Dance Do the Bay Foursquare Concerts Raggazzi Boys   >>>>>>>>>>>> Chorus Dr Joellen Werne LIVE Silicon Valley Arts and   >>>>>>>>>>>> Entertainment Palo Alto New Church Lots of concerts from   >>>>>>>>>>>> all sorts of groups, such as Tangos for Piano Gourmet   >>>>>>>>>>>> Vegetarian Dinners Nordic Footnotes Scandinavian Dance   >>>>>>>>>>>> Parties Stanford International Folk Dances Dr Jill Cooper,   >>>>>>>>>>>> MFT Peninsula Macrobiotic Community Pacific Association of   >>>>>>>>>>>> Challenge Enthusiasts Battfield Without Borders                 Mozart Music School  >>>>>>>>>>>> Cities for CEDAW, the UN, and Women's Activism Globally   >>>>>>>>>>>> Multifaith Prayers for Peace Senior Book Club Benefit   >>>>>>>>>>>> Concert for Irans Quake Victims Dr John Smolowe Palo Alto   >>>>>>>>>>>> Philharmonic Fall Chamber Concert Baroque Music Concert   >>>>>>>>>>>> Peng Piano Academy Festival East European Folklife Center   >>>>>>>>>>>> Bay Choral Guild rehearsals Corey Head, Voice Teacher   >>>>>>>>>>>> rehearsal schedule Resounding Achord Productions The Happy   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:20 AM 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> Body                  ISing  >>>>>>>>>>>> Mosaic South Bay    The church has so many non‐church related activities that it has removed the pews from the chapel to essentially make  it a multipurpose room.   Also, no church staff member or private security person is at the church during evening events. The church is  unattended.     The church parking lot only has 5 parking spaces. The PA Planning Dept told a neighbor that the church sold off its  parking lot many years ago.  As a result, the church inconveniences the neighbors and creates hazardous conditions with  cars double parked in the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard lane, cars that are idling, and cars blocking homeowners  driveways.      If the church became a community center, especially with functions until 11 pm on weekends, who would monitor the  activities?  Who could neighbors call for noise infractions late at night?  No city staff employee is available after 5 pm.     I urge the City Council to deny the CUP request.  Thank you.     Debbie Nichols  Resident, Old Palo Alto            >>>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eric Nordman <eric.nordman12@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike and Pedestrian Project Funding Attachments:20180312_Letter to City Council.pdf City Council:  Attached is my letter in pdf form.  Sincerely,  Eric Nordman  1 of 2 20180312_Letter to City Council Letter to City Council: Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. March 12, 2018 Dear Council Members: The comprehensive plan states: “The key to a sustainable transportation system lies in providing more options and more convenience so that people will more readily choose not to drive.” Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are about as sustainable as one can get. With rising construction costs and new unbudgeted projects there is financial pressure to cut or delay implementation of projects. In the echo chamber of social media, the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard changes are being heavily criticized before they are even completed. The changes on Ross Road are more extensive than those on Bryant. Some of this is due to efforts to improve pedestrian safety. However, some is due to the direction by city council to not use diversions which were the key element on Bryant. Diversions are harder to implement in areas of the city that have few parallel streets and may not have been appropriate for Ross. However, to reduce costs for future Bike Boulevard projects, Council should lift this prohibition. I understand there is now a petition to stop the roundabouts with the claim that they are unsafe. That is not the situation elsewhere. Seattle has installed over 1000 mini-roundabouts or traffic circles in the last 30 years and has seen a crash reduction of more than 70%. To the right is statistics from the FHWA. From Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan: “Traffic circles have been shown to reduce collisions and are considered more bicycle- friendly than traditional two- or four- way stops controls.” Bryant was contentious when it was built, but has proven to be highly successful. On Bryant, bicyclists typically ride in a straight line to the left of parked cars. Cars, pass on the left as they would another car. It’s a safe and 2 of 2 20180312_Letter to City Council low stress situation for both bicyclists and drivers. While change is hard, I’m hopeful that in a year or so. the users of Ross Road will adopt similar habits. Another critical bike and pedestrian project is the Charleston/Arastradero corridor which was passed unanimously by council. It also has driver safety implications, especially to the neighborhoods south of Charleston. This project has been in development for well over a decade and should be implemented. Please continue implementation of the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Sincerely, Eric Nordman City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:13 AM To:Council, City Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org Subject:Bike Projects Funding Dear city councel,    My name is Arnout Boelens and my wife and I have been living in Palo Alto for slightly over a year. I commute daily from  Midtown to Stanford University by bike and my wife from Midtown to Downtown Palo Alto.    First of all I would like to thank you for your work to make Palo Alto a great biking city. My wife and I actually do not own  a car and only use our bikes to get around. Whenever I do drive around in a car I realize that thanks to the bike  boulevards biking is the quickest and least stressful way to get around town. Of course the weather helps too.    To get even more people on bikes and reduce traffic congestion I think it is essential that the Palo Alto moves forward  with the bike projects on Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis  Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road. I feel especially a good connection to the new Highway 101 over crossing is  important for people visiting the Baylands and people commuting to Google,  Intuit, and many more companies by bike.  If people do not feel safe during part of their commute because there are no traffic calming measures they might rather  go by car, adding to to already bad rush hour traffic. Also the connection of the Bryant bike boulevard to Mountain View  is currently a clear gap in the coverage of the cycling network and would help many commuters.     I hope that despite the gap in funding for infrastructure projects the city council will continue its commitment to keep  Palo Alto a gold level Bicycle Friendly Community. Last but not least because investment in bike infrastructure is so much more cost efficient than spending on car infrastructure.    Kind regards,    Arnout Boelens    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joanna Teubert <jmsteubert@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 7:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org Subject:Biking in Palo Alto To whom it may concern: I would like to voice my support for continuous improvement to the bicycle infrastructure in Palo Alto. I use my bicycle to commute to work in Palo Alto and have been for three years. I appreciate being able to use bicycle friendly roads and reduce overall congestion. Please continue to keep bicycle transportation in mind on road projects. Thank you very much. ================= Joanna Teubert jmsteubert@gmail.com Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:51 PM To:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Council, City; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; council@redwoodcity.org; Perron, Zachary; Keene, James; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; cbolanos@co.sanmateo.ca.us; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org Cc:rpichon@scscourt.org; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; mharris@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; sscott@scscourt.org; aflint@scscourt.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; dryan@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; jsylva@da.sccgov.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; myraw@smcba.org; 51swampdog@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; bos@smcgov.org; price@padailypost.com; allison@padailypost.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com Subject:Blacks leaving white evangelical churches —no one wants to seriously discuss racism - Trump their guy? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/blacks‐evangelical‐churches.amp.html      Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 10, 2018 7:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Calling your attention to a conflict of interest Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and Members of City Council: I am writing to more formally bring to your attention something I believe you will be as troubled by as I am, and it is this: When a local property owner called the City because he was concerned about the level of radiation being emitted by a cell phone tower adjacent to his property, the City hired Verizon’s engineering firm—the same firm Verizon has hired to persuade residents they have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to cell tower radiation—to conduct what was supposed to be an “independent” evaluation of whether the cell tower was in compliance with FCC guidelines. Here’s what occurred: In April of last year, the owner of the office building at 635 Bryant Street in Palo Alto contacted the City because he was concerned about the level of radiation being emitted by a nearby Verizon/Crown Castle cell tower. Specifically, he wrote to the Planning Department to request that the City obtain an “independent” (I am quoting from his email to the City) evaluation of radiation levels at the site. The Planning Department agreed to do so, and the work was carried out in May. But instead of getting an independent evaluation, the Planning Department hired Hammett & Edison—the same firm to whom Verizon is paying millions of dollars to support its applications to install over 100 new cell towers in Palo Alto. (By the way, Crown Castle is also a Hammett & Edison client.) Of course I’m not qualified to evaluate Hammett & Edison’s work. But what I do know is that Hammett & Edison had a massive conflict of interest in accepting this project, and one has to question the ethics of a company that would accept such an assignment. In addition, one also has to question the judgment of Hillary Gitelman and her staff, who commissioned Hammett & Edison to do the job. I realize that Hammett & Edison has government clients and, in particular, it has, I believe, worked for Palo Alto in the past. But there is no gray area here: Hammett & Edison is being well paid by Verizon—as it was in May, 2017—to support Verizon’s applications to install dozens and dozens of cell towers here. Moreover, its mission for Verizon includes assuaging any concerns Palo Altans may have that cell towers represent a health risk. How could the City possibly justify hiring this firm to look into whether any cell tower is emitting more radiation than the FCC permits? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:57 PM 2 I know you, as individuals, care a great deal about our city and its residents. I trust that you will be as appalled as I was to learn that a standard bearer for the telecom industry was hired to determine whether a Verizon cell tower is in compliance with FCC radiation standards. Sincerely, Jyotsna Nimkar Jyotsna Nimkar jnimkar@gmail.com 650-3419711 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:23 PM To:Tanaka, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Wolbach, Cory; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Keene, James; Council, City; French, Amy Subject:Castilleja mailers contain false information. Attachments:Castilleja-Myth-v-Fact.pdf Hello Palo Alto Councilmembers, City Manager, and Planning Department, Castilleja has mailed flyers to Palo Alto residents with false information. Please read the attached so that you may better understand some of the facts and Castilleja's long history of avoiding the truth. Regards, Jim Poppy 135 Melville Ave Setting the Record Straight: Myths vs Facts Castilleja School has mailed flyers to Palo Alto residents filled with misrepresentations about their expansion plans. Here are some facts which help illustrate Castilleja’s long history of avoiding the truth. MYTH “Head of School Nanci Kauffman came forward to report that the School was over-enrolled. Castilleja paid a fine of $265,000 and began reductions to achieve a new City- authorized 438-student cap...” FACT Castilleja begain violating the terms of their permit in 2001 with systematic increases in enrollment each year. In 2013, this was inadvertently exposed at a public meeting at the school. It was reported in the PA Daily Post the next day. The City directed the school to reduce enrollment to 415 but gave them a 1-year exemption in 2015 to keep enrollment at 438 as they explored the possibility of a garage entrance and exit on Embarcadero Road. In 2016, when the City informed the school that the entrance/exit on Embarcadero was not feasible, they failed to re-enforce the 415 statute. In 2017 City Manager Jim Keene instructed the school to continue the enrollment reduction to 415 starting in 2018-2019. The one-time fine of $265,000 is a tiny fraction of the $1.2 million PER YEAR that they receive from their over-enrollment. MYTH “After 100 years in its current location, these are not viable options, especially given today’s real estate climate. Splitting the campus is the least environmentally-sustainable option...” FACT Castilleja has always been fixated on being located near Stanford. Castilleja stated in one of the first neighborhood meetings (September 18, 2014) that the board would not consider moving or splitting the campus, because of its proximity to Stanford. There was no mention of cost or environmental concerns. The topic was never allowed to be considered in neighborhood meetings. “Reaffirmed, stay where we are, the value of the Stanford synergies, not move or split the school” (page 24 from the public document below published on the Palo Alto government website) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53964 Castilleja has wealthy donors who are standing by to donate funds for the garage construction. They could easily find a location in the Bay Area for the school. Many private schools have relocated in the recent past. Harker School has flourished with multiple campuses. If Castilleja truly wants to educate more women, they would find more space, instead of alienating the community for the sake of 115 more students. 75% of the student body does not live in Palo Alto. PA Weekly Editorial, June 2017: “Castilleja’s Unwise Stubbornness.” https://www.paloaltoonline.com/ news/2017/06/16/editorial-castillejas- unwise-stubbornness MYTH “Since 2012, the school has held more than 30 community meetings. This has provided neighbors the opportunity to learn about the plan and share feedback that has been incorporated into the school’s proposal.” FACT Because of their many years of permit violations, Castilleja is required by The City to hold public meetings twice a year with neighbors. Several neighbors met as a “small working group” to provide specific input and recommendations, none of which were incorporated into the plans presented in June 2016. In 2017 the school’s PR firm told local media that “neighbors have always insisted on a garage” which prompted 47 households within a two block radius of the school to sign petitions against the proposed garage. The school has since dropped this falsehood from their PR efforts. MYTH “Only 6 trees are being contemplated for removal. In fact, Castilleja’s plan was designed specifically to minimize the impact on trees on its property, and includes the addition of at least 20 net new trees.” FACT Castilleja’s original plan from June 2016 indicated that 156 trees would be affected, and 58 removed, including many heritage oaks and redwoods. After public outcry, the plans were modified. The school now only admits to removing 6 trees but they plan to transplant 45 trees, many of which are stands of trees with intertwined roots. A former City arborist has stated that any transplanted trees are unlikely to thrive. Residents would like to keep mature trees, and not have to live next to or in view of a large cement exit to the garage. Any new trees will take generations to replace those removed. MYTH “The number of car trips will stay the same due to the school’s strict Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan. This has reduced the number of car trips by nearly 20% since 2012. The underground garage features a driveway aligned with Melville Ave and is well-integrated with the surrounding landscape.” FACT Castilleja’s TDM program is self-administered and self-reported. Since it began, the only data provided has been data from the school. And it is only focused on “peak times” during the school day, conveniently omitting the 100+ events held by the school each year (more than allowed, another permit violation). The plan for the underground garage is severely flawed. Cars would be forced to enter in one location on Bryant, which is a bike boulevard and already a dangerous intersection. Cars would then be forced back onto Embarcadero Road heading east when exiting. More likely, the garage would be avoided and students would be dropped off and picked up on surrounding streets. The garage is Castilleja’s Trojan Horse. Once they have more parking, they can have larger events and enrollment and greater impacts to the neighborhood and surrounding community. Also, train electrification and the Stanford expansion are on the horizon, which will severely impact the area surrounding the school for years, possibly a decade or longer. The Castilleja project EIR is unlikely to incorporate these major impacts. EVENTS PER SCHOOL YEAR 2017-18 Castilleja 119 Pinewood 12 Stratford, Palo Alto 0 Stratford, Crestmoor 7 Hillbrook 11 PNQLnow.org is a grassroots organization of Palo Alto residents who oppose Castilleja’s expansion plans to remove homes and trees, and to add a massive concrete underground garage that would funnel all cars into the Bryant Bike Boulevard and empty into the neighborhood. We would like the school to engage in open and honest dialog with neighbors. The City has asked Castilleja and neighbors to enter into mediation. Here are our guiding principles as we enter into the mediation process: GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1. Retain the quiet enjoyment, appearance and livability of our R-1 zoned residential neighborhood 2. Establish an open, honest, and trusting relationship between Castilleja and its neighbors Please visit pnqlnow.org for more information. If you would like a yard sign or donate time/money, send us an email at info@pnqlnow.org. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:25 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Cell Towers in Residential Neighborhoods Please reject the request by Verizon to allow cell towers in residential neighborhoods. People currently aren't complaining that they can't get adequate wireless phone service from their homes, and the intrusion of an industrial product (which is what the cell tower equipment is) in residential areas is unnecessary and intrusive. If there is any expansion of the cell system any and all electrical equipment should be buried underground, not sitting on sidewalks and curbs. Verizon has admitted hat the towers aren't needed to serve homes in the areas, but will be mainly for visitors who are using cell phones locally. That attitude puts transients over residents, and it is the city's responsibility to prioritize protecting residents, not commercial interests.. Yours very sincerely, Bob Moss City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karin Thorne <karint32@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 9:05 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers March 12, 2018 TO: Architectural Review Board I am sending this email out of my concern for Verizon’s plans to locate cell towers in close proximity to our homes. With the increased need of 5G communication for our ever growing cellular appetite , we cannot rush into quick solutions that are eyesores and emit sounds that are objectionable. According to a New York Times article by Allan Holmes on March 2, 2018, “residents across the country are just now beginning to understand the harms that hasty and insensitive small cell developments can inflict on their communities.” To approve an antenna that emits noise and to construct a unit that is aesthetically objectionable would go against the sense of pride that neighbors share for our quiet tree lined streets. I urge the ARB to deny approval to the proposed cell towers unless Verizon’s designs a) call for all the equipment except the antenna to be located completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances. Thank you, Karin Thorne 625 Lowell Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:12 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Markevitch <pat@magic.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 1:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston Arastradero Plan Attachments:Terman Arastradero Plan Support Ltr 2015.pdf; Terman PTA letter Re Traffic Adaptive.pdf March 7, 2018      Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members,    Over many years, the Terman Middle School PTA has supported the Charleston‐Arastradero Plan. Please note the  attached letter that the Terman PTA wrote in support when Council approved the Charleston‐Arastradero project in  2015.  In addition, we also have attached the letter we sent in 2017 to support the city’s grant application for traffic  adaptive signal timing equipment funding for the project. The Terman Middle School PTA has repeatedly supported the  project through its various phases of development.    We are writing to affirm our strong support of the project as the city considers its infrastructure funding priorities.  Please move the project forward expediently this Spring as planned.  After more than a decade of working in partnership  with the City of Palo Alto and PAUSD on this project, we look forward to construction of the long‐awaited school  commute safety hardscape improvements.    Thank you for your ongoing support of Safe Routes to School.    Sincerely,  Terman PTA Executive Board      TERMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL PTA 655 ARASTRADERO ROAD PALO ALTO, CA 94306 Home of the Tigers April 15, 2015 Dear City Council and Planning & Transportation Commissioners, Terman Middle School directly abuts Charleston/Arastradero Roads. With very few exceptions, students who commute to this site must use this City of Palo Alto School Commute Corridor for some portion of their school commute. The Terman Middle School PTA actively encourages alternative commutes, so we consider the safety of this corridor to be a very high priority. Terman Middle School PTA Traffic Safety Representatives and administrators have participated on the Charleston/Arastradero Stakeholders Group and the City School Traffic Safety Committee, providing comment and support for the Charleston/Arastradero Plan for more than a decade. Paint striping was adequate for a restriping trial of road operations and it provided some safety improvements. It is time to put the hardscape improvements in place that will deliver the lion’s share of safety benefits to all users. We ask you to approve the Concept Plan Lines which fine tune the striping plan that exists now on the corridor. These plans provide planted medians, intersection and signal improvements, bulb- outs, multi-use paths, buffered bicycle lanes, a new dedicated auto right turn lane into the Terman Middle School campus from east bound Arastradero, and other built enhancements. The project is a key component of the south Palo Alto bike boulevard network, safely connecting PAUSD corridor schools to community residences and after-school destinations. We look forward to a safer street environment for all road users—people who drive, people who bike, and people who walk. Thank you for City of Palo Alto’s partnership in creating safer routes to school. Sincerely, Donna M. Pioppi, President Terman Middle School PTA Ms. Celeste Fiore February, 27, 2017 Valley Transportation Authority Programming & Grants 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 Dear Ms. Fiore, We are writing to offer support for the City of Palo Alto grant application for Charleston/Arastradero Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing. Terman Middle School directly abuts Charleston/Arastradero Road. With very few exceptions, students who commute to this site must use this City of Palo Alto School Commute Corridor for some portion of their school commute. One average, 279 students bicycle to Terman each day. Many also walk to school or ride a bus. Terman Middle School PTA actively encourages alternative commutes, so we consider the safety of this corridor for foot-powered student commuters to be a high priority. Adaptive Signal Timing is a key component of the City of Palo Alto’s multi-modal improvement plan for this sensitive arterial. Active traffic signal management supports safe and efficient roadways. The Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing on Charleston/Arastradero will improve traffic operations by improving travel time, reducing congestion, and reducing idling, especially during the morning peak hour when crosstown commuter traffic and school commute traffic converges, creating severe congestion. Traffic signal enhancements will minimize the number of drivers slowing down suddenly, which also causes pollution. In turn, air quality around our schools and in Palo Alto will be improved. Adaptive traffic signal timing would enable completion of the transformation of this school commute corridor that carries nearly 20,000 car trips per day and many hundreds of students on foot and on bicycles to nearby schools. Please approve the City of Palo Alto application for funding. We look forward to a safer street environment for all road users—people who drive, people who bike, and people who walk. Thank you. Sincerely, Cheryl Phillips 2016-17 Executive Vice President (acting president), Terman Middle School PTA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 4:21 AM To:Friend, Gil; Keene, James; Council, City Subject:Cities Emit 60% More Carbon Than Thought The carbon footprint of some of the world’s biggest cities is 60 percent larger than previously estimated when all the products and services a city consumes are included, according to a new analysis. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/city-consumption-greenhouse-gases- carbon-c40-spd/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Randy Mont-Reynaud <rmontreynaud@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:21 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Constructive Ideas for Affordable Housing Attachments:AFFORDABLE HOUSING.pdf Dear Planners and Council Members, Affordable housing? Let’s think about this. And think again. What sort of place is this, anyway? I’ve been living here for 38 years, raised 3 children, have been a student, a renter, a homeowner, then a renter again…Like many, I am now a working grandmother, and I’d surely hope there will be room for me to stay in our small city. Where do you stand? In my many classrooms, my goal has always been to educate the heart. I'll speak to that now. Our community, MOST of our community I should hope, is in favor of providing Affordable Housing - AND IN SHORT ORDER. Please don’t disappoint? No one on the council, committee or street should not be on board with the proposed relaxed standards that will promote construction (can we say, immediate construction?) of Affordable Housing so seniors, families with disabled children, low income workers, veterans and disabled young adults can remain where they have grown up or grown old. I hope not to be disappointed that our community, would want their legacy - or part of it - to be deployed to PAY IT FORWARD, and sustain us. Among the proposals are the relaxed standards (Relax! Just Do It!) greater square footage, flexibility on retail requirements, parking standards…But, no need to build us a Taj Mahal folks, just four walls and a roof, some indoor plumbing would be great… And, here’s a constructive idea (pun intended) Why not consider taking over some existing apartment complexes (whose landlord’s may be kvetching about their profit margins!) — Could the city consider BUYING up existing apartment complexes, and converting them into Affordable Housing? Having lived here for 38 years, I’ve seen many changes but I hope hearts and minds are still in the spirit of the Civl Rights Movement.…Facilitate provision for our diverse population. Keep Palo Alto diverse, and not divided. Please Build back better, more and soon! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:33 PM 2 r -- With warmest regards, Randy Mont-Reynaud, PhD ISAIAH 58: ""Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" 650 858 1558 (cell) Our 501 c-3 is "If Pigs Could Fly - Haiti" Visit us here: www.ifpigscouldflyhaiti.org And here is my blog: http://www.haitinextdoor.com/ Dear Planners and Council Members, Affordable housing? Let’s think about this.  And think again. What sort of place is this, anyway? I’ve been living here for 38 years, raised 3 children, have been a student, a renter, a homeowner, then a renter again…Like many, I am now a working grandmother, and I’d surely hope there will be room for me to stay in our small city.  Where do you stand?  
In my many classrooms, my goal has always been to educate the heart. I'll speak to that now. 
Our community, MOST of our community I should hope, is in favor of providing Affordable Housing - AND IN SHORT ORDER.  Please don’t disappoint?  No one on the council, committee or street should not be on board with the proposed relaxed standards that will promote construction (can we say, immediate construction?) of Affordable Housing so seniors, families with disabled children, low income workers, veterans and disabled young adults can remain where they have grown up or grown old. I hope not to be disappointed that our community, would want their legacy - or part of it - to be deployed to PAY IT FORWARD, and sustain us.
 Among the proposals are the relaxed standards (Relax!  Just Do It!) greater square footage, flexibility on retail requirements, parking standards…But, no need to build us a Taj Mahal folks, just four walls and a roof, some indoor plumbing would be great…
 And, here’s a constructive idea (pun intended) Why not consider taking over some existing apartment complexes (whose landlord’s may be kvetching about their profit margins!)  — Could the city consider BUYING up existing apartment complexes, and converting them into Affordable Housing?
 Having lived here for 38 years, I’ve seen many changes but I hope hearts and minds are still in the spirit of the Civl Rights Movement.…Facilitate provision for our diverse population.  Keep Palo Alto diverse, and not divided.  Please Build back better, more and soon! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Thomsen <susan@thomsenhome.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 4:00 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:FW: [CPNA] Cell towers in residential neighborhoods To whom it may concern:    I am writing to urge you not to approve the proposed cell towers in residential neighborhoods unless the mobile service  providers comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances, locate all equipment except the antennas completely underground,  and locate the antennas away from single family homes.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  Susan Thomsen  1701 Edgewood Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303    .  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:14 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Lily Huang Liao <lilyhuangliao@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:38 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Re: [CPNA] Cell towers in residential neighborhoods To whom it may concern. I’m wring to express my strong objections to approval to the proposed cell towers in residential neighborhoods. Period. Even if mobile service providers: a) locate all the equipment, except the antennas completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances.   The only exception I can support, is if a) providers locate all the equipment except the antennas completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances, AND c) antennas are located in a considerable distances from residential buildings, a. example would be parks b. bridges over creeks, etc.   Sincerely, Lily Huang 2330 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:14 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:From: BBRetiredNow@aol.com <bbretirednow@aol.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:31 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [CPNA] Cell towers in residential neighborhoods I am writing to plead with the board to deny Verizon's plans to install cell towers in Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods! My additional concern is that this is described as "its first wave" of towers, and I would like us to avoid the slippery slope. If their aim is to erect the towers cheaply, the towers would be larger and require more noisy supportive equipment, none of which would bring anything good to our residential areas. We are already dealing with the city council thinking of ways to bring more density and congestion to the area, and I hope we can stop the invasion of ugly towers and equipment threatening our neighborhoods. Thanks, Barbara Bogner City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:14 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Roman Kagarlitsky <rak@renderx.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:12 PM To:'ed ATT' Cc:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City; 'crescent-park' Subject:RE: [CPNA] Cell towers in residential neighborhoods Noise and possible electric influence on various subjects and objects.  I’m sorry. I don’t have time to get into lengthy discussion, but this is my position.  Obviously, Ed, of course, if you want to – you can support any equipment anywhere.  But I don’t.    Roman.    From: crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com [mailto:crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ed ATT Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:50 PM To: Roman Kagarlitsky Cc: arb@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org; crescent-park Subject: Re: [CPNA] Cell towers in residential neighborhoods Why? Ed On Mar 12, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Roman Kagarlitsky <rak@renderx.com> wrote: To whom it may concern. I’m wring to express my strong objections to approval to the proposed cell towers in residential  neighborhoods. Period. Even if mobile service providers: a) locate all the equipment, except the antennas completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances.   The only exception I can support, is if  a) providers locate all the equipment except the antennas completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances, AND c) antennas are located in a considerable distances from residential buildings, a. example would be parks b. bridges over creeks, etc.   Roman Kagarlitsky 641 Fulton Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:14 PM 5 -- 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. -- 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. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:54 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:seawaif1@aol.com Sent:Saturday, March 10, 2018 2:54 PM To:CSD Cc:Keene, James; Council, City Subject:Dog Training Areas in Palo Alto Re: Dog Training Areas We are a group of six responsible local residents who have highly trained dogs (a golden retriever, an Australian shepherd, two Weimaraners, two collies, and two pit bull mixes) that compete in American Kennel Club obedience competitions. The exercises we practice involve jumps, scent work, retrieves, heel work, response to hand signals, recalls - skills that are accomplished with the dog working at a distance from where we stand and can only be done off leash. One of our dogs is an extremely accomplished pit bull mix; this dog has won many ribbons and participated in the highly regarded AKC National Obedience Invitational Tournament, not once but twice. Another of our members has participated in this event with a previous dog. All of these dogs have been in intensive training for years. We are asking for permission to use a small area at local parks for training practice once or twice per week, starting around 9:00 am, finishing around 11:00 am. Our dogs need to be comfortable working in many different locations, so we try to rotate around various areas to give them that experience. We define our working space of 40 x 50 feet with posts and/or gates; the only time the dogs need to be off leash is within the confines of that area. We set up away from the children’s play areas. These dogs do not run out of the training area to visit passersby or other dogs, so they are not a bother to other park users. While waiting for their turn to practice, the dogs are confined in crates, or warming up on leash just outside the confines of the practice ring. Currently, there are no public locations where we can do this without the potential for a visit from Animal Control, yet local communities allow AKC obedience & agility competitive matches and trials from time to time where the off leash exercises take place within ring setups like these (Cuesta Park; Greer Park; Mitchell Park; De Anza College). Most of us are members of Deep Peninsula Dog Training Club, Inc., that holds dog training classes Monday evenings at Rengstorff Park. Dogs do work off leash in some of these classes, many of which we all have attended; two of us have actually taught these classes. It has become increasingly difficult to find areas in our local parks to train our dogs. Unfortunately, leash laws prohibit our mode of training even within the well-defined boundaries of our set-up. Dog parks are not suitable because there is no way we can prevent off-leash dogs from running into our training area, harassing our dogs, and at times, peeing on our equipment. We do need an area close to available parking because of the necessity of transporting ring gates and jumps. We are responsible dog owners and are extremely conscientious about “picking up after our dogs.” We even pick up after other dogs that have left their calling cards in the area. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:54 PM 2 There are benefits to the community to allowing us to practice in public. People walking by are amazed by the abilities of our dogs. They often stop to ask about them and their training. A couple of us carry business cards for Deep Peninsula DTC because so many people want to know where they can find classes for their own dogs. The demonstration of well-trained dogs responding to the quiet directions of their owners promotes responsible ownership in others. Surely, the positive publicity we offer the public on training days and information about training classes in the area would offset any inconvenience we might create. Mountain View used to have a permit system for just such training requirements. Can you help us? Sincerely, Anne Robinson (Menlo Park) seawaif1@aol.com Judy Cummings (Los Altos Hills) Linda Kirk (Los Altos Hills) Nan Daley (Woodside) Ferol Larsen (Palo Alto) Mara Wildfeuer (Mountain View) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Matt | Willow Glen Electric <matt@willowglenelectric.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:33 PM To:Hoyt, George Cc:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Virginia Neff Subject:Electrical Panel Upgrade permit price change Hi George,    I’m inquiring about the recent change to Residential Electrical Panel Upgrade pricing in Palo Alto. It recently came to our  attention that the City Council (CCed here w/ the Mayor) voted to approve the new fee schedule that came into effect  on 2/1/18. Based on our conversation w/ the Building Department today, previous panel upgrades were priced  according to amperage (0‐200 Amps, 201‐400 Amps, 401‐800 Amps.) On 2/1/18 this fee structure changed to lump all  upgrades from 0‐800 Amps together. This has caused the cost of simple residential panel upgrade permit to skyrocket  from $138 in January to $373, just for the panel upgrade line item alone.  Our most recent permit in Palo Alto for a  residential 200 Amp service upgrade w/ 50 Amp EV charger cost our company $622, which is the most we’ve ever paid  in 22+ jurisdictions for this type of project. If we did this same project just a few miles south in Los Altos, we’d only pay  $75 total for this permit.    Is there anything you can do to help fix this? We pass these permit costs on directly to our customers, but this revised  permit cost seems a bit excessive.    Best regards,    Matt Londre  Sr. Project Manager  Willow Glen Electric, Inc.  (408) 705‐3663 ‐ cell  (408) 289‐9725 ext. 1 ‐ office      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joan Zwiep <joan@hosterfamily.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 1:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:FBC Conditional Use Permit Dear City Council Members, This email is to let you know that I am opposed to allowing the First Baptist Church on California Avenue be turned into a Community Center. I hope that you deny their use of such a permit. Traffic and parking are the two top issues for Palo Alto citizens. Using a church as a full-time community center will only exacerbate the problems we have with cars and parking. There have already been two accidents due to the church. I live near California Avenue and I have noticed an increase traffic. We want our neighborhoods to be safe and to stay as neighborhoods. Thank you. Joan Zwiep 2345 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-322-1246 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:17 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject:FBC CUP Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council: I was unable to make the meeting at Jordan Middle School on March 7th regarding First Baptist Church’s request to become a Community Center, but I’ve been reading comments in both the Palo Alto Online & the PA Daily Post. Many are concerned with traffic & safety issues which was the focus of my February 1st letter to the Council. My concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area continues. The situation at Ross Road regarding safety for bikers/cars will be mirrored when the California Avenue/Bryant roundabout & Bryant Street bike path is completed. Since my earlier letter there has been an accident on Bryant, a situation that sadly the neighborhood had expected to see happen, though hoped would not. One car had just picked up children from the daycare. The car had two small girls in the back seat where the impact occurred & airbags went off! The car that hit them zipped around CA Ave down Bryant. I was told, though I don’t know for sure, that the car causing the accident was a parent picking up students from the church. To my knowledge nobody came over to help from the church & yet the back door closest to the accident was opened; students came out to look, but no adult. VERY scared little girls. I’ve included pictures below. If a community center, roundabout & bike path converge in that area it’s difficult to believe more accidents won’t occur — as they say “it’s an accident waiting to happen.” Please carefully consider what can be at FBC that does not impact child/bike safety & traffic. Thank you, Below are a few pictures: 1) accident on Bryant; car coming out of daycare hit by car coming down Bryant City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:14 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:14 AM 3 2) 3 large buses returning iSing students to FBC; a Thursday when students are biking home City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:14 AM 4 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:39 AM To:Council, City; Bobel, Phil; Friend, Gil Cc:Keith Bennett; Esther Nigenda Subject:Fw: Drought restrictions & Water rights Please see article link below....another reason NOT to extract and waste groundwater. Thank you “Officials from several irrigation and water agencies said the restrictions are reasonable, but not the plan to impose them under the state Constitution's prohibition on the waste or unreasonable use of water. That would create a slippery slope of allowing the board to repeatedly chip away at California's historic protection of water rights for landowners,” the AP reported, citing water officials. https://www.wateronline.com/doc/will-cali-bring-back-drought-era-water-cuts-0001 Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:23 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 9:47 AM To:Council, City; Bobel, Phil Cc:Keith Bennett; Esther Nigenda Subject:Fw: More of the Bay Area Could Be Underwater in 2100 Than Previously Expected - The New York Times Hello..please see fascinating article re sea level rise when combined with the effects of excessive groundwater extraction..please review, share and consider.. than you Show original message : https://nyti.ms/2D9Axvr Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:25 PM To:Council, City; Friend, Gil Cc:Keith Bennett; Esther Nigenda Subject:Fw: Researchers point to development as a major cause of basement flooding. Hello..more fascinating information about water, basements and flood risks. These people have data; fascinating information on costs of basement flooding. Applicable here as we continue to build and cover porous surfaces. That is why we of Save Palo Alto's Groundwater propose that all underground development mitigate for the increase risk of flooding by incorporating green infrastructure- cisterns, rain gardens, green roofs, etc. "Paving over porous paradise, or any absorbent ground, increases the risk of basement flooding, say researchers using City of Toronto data." Thank you Esther for another timely article. Thank you All for reading. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 Show original message City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:33 PM To:Council, City; Gold, Audrey; safercommutepta@googlegroups.com Subject:Fwd: School Commute Route Safety Project Funding PTA Council Letter Attachments:PTAC Charleston_ArasLetter 2015.pdf; PTACLetterVTAFeb2017 2.pdf; CityofPaloAltoMarch2018 1.pdf Date corrected on March 2018 letter. Regards, Audrey ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:18 PM Subject: School Commute Route Safety Project Funding PTA Council Letter To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com>, safercommutepta@googlegroups.com Dear Palo Alto City Council members, Please see our letters of support for the Charleston-Arastradero Plan including the most recent titled "CityofPaloAltoMarch2018." We know this project will make it safer for many children that walk and bike to school through this busy corridor. Our PTAs are committed to working with City staff to educate parents and community members of the importance of safe routes to schools that encourage children and adults to walk and roll to school. This can help to significantly reduce traffic congestion and create healthier communities. Sincerely, Audrey Gold Palo Alto PTA President https://ptac.paloaltopta.org/ • P•lo Alto Council ,.,,.~g .. --Al!i.~ -~l<)l:ita.org Palo Alto Council of P'TAs March 7. 201N Oe3I Pob Mo City Council Members. Tho Palo AAo Coonci of PTA$ (Pl AC) has been a steac!IO$i wpponer of !ho C°"'leSIOn-AtaS!Jadcro Plan over many y831'S Piease note the attached 1CttCt PTAC WfOt'e in $Upport when Council unanmous!y apprO'iCd the Ch.arteston·AmstrOOero pro,ec:t C'I 2015. We atso wrote more recentJy in 2017 to support the Clty"s grant ""'*"''°" for signol ;m;ng equ.,mcnt funding let the project (also o\10<l>ed) PTAC haS repeatedly supponed tt\e pro,ect through its various pflascs ot cScvclopment, and we look fQrw_,rd to 1t& expeditious 1mp1emct1tation now tt\31 ihe city h3s Cattrans approvD.ls. 100% plans, and has gone out for bids w e rue wrding to ;)ffirm our strong supl)O<l of the projcd as the city consider& l1s Infra.structure funding prionttes. Please move the protect forw.:lrd as plannc:xt. AftC( more than a decade of \vorklng In JX1rtnership v1ith the Cfly of Palo Alto und PAUSD on ;his pr()ject, we look forwo:itd to c.ons!tuchon ot lho 10ng~3,v3ited school commute oofcty hordscape improvements Th:1nk you ror your ongoing support of Safe Routes to Sd'looL we ~1c gratetf\.11 for the high piiority the city ploecs on the safety o f commuters of an oges ~ 00.litieS, CSl)CQally our commu.My'$ school commuting Cfllldren. Audrey Gold Preaident. P~10 Alto Councd of PT As City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:24 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Global Warming Constitutes an Existential Threat to Palo Alto and the World - Part 1 (Re April 2, 2018 Agenda, Item TBD (regarding previous City Council Staff Report ID # 8716)) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:24 PM 2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/07/climate/san-francisco-sinking-land-flooding-climate- change.html See also: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaap9234/tab-pdf http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/3/eaap9234.full.pdf https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63663 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Friday, March 09, 2018 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:High-Speed Rail Authority Releases Draft 2018 Business Plan, Solicits Public Comments To view this email as a web page, go here. News Release March 9, 2018 Lisa Marie Alley916-384-9026Lisa.Alley@hsr.ca.gov Annie Parker 916-403-6931Annie.Parker@hsr.ca.gov High-Speed Rail Authority Releases Draft 2018 Business Plan, Solicits Public Comments SACRAMENTO, Calif. – With new leadership in place, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) today released the Draft 2018 Business Plan that transparently acknowledges the project’s City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:52 PM 2 challenges and outlines a sensible path forward that will continue to put thousands of Californians to work building the nation’s first high-speed rail system. “The Draft 2018 Business Plan presents a strategy to implement the nation’s first truly high-speed rail system in the face of challenges that projects around the world of similar magnitude and complexity have faced and successfully overcome,” said Authority CEO Brian Kelly. “The plan reflects our commitment to apply lessons learned and make organizational improvements necessary to deliver this project to initiate high-speed rail service between the Silicon Valley and the Central Valley as soon as possible, while completing environmental work and making important investments in Southern California,” Kelly said. The draft business plan acknowledges cost increases affecting each segment of the project ranging from 20-35% and revised schedules that would push out delivery dates for the Silicon Valley to Central Valley Line and Phase 1 System. The draft plan acknowledges and responds to changed circumstances and emphasizes a new way of doing business moving forward. In the face of these challenges, the draft business plan proposes to continue an investment strategy that builds infrastructure, linked over time, to provide mobility, economic and environmental benefits to Californians and initiate high-speed rail service as soon as possible. Toward that end, the draft business plan identifies the following investment priorities: 1. Meet Our Commitments to Federal Funding Partner: The Authority will complete the 119- mile segment in the Central Valley and complete environmental review for the entire Phase 1 System between San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim by 2022, as required by the federal grant agreement. 2. Extend the Valley-to-Valley Service from San Francisco to Bakersfield: The draft business plan recognizes the high ridership and revenue potential of linking the Silicon Valley with the Central Valley between San Francisco and Bakersfield. 3. Deliver 224 Miles of High-Speed Rail Ready Infrastructure for Use by 2027: The draft business plan proposes to construct high-speed rail ready infrastructure in the Central Valley (Madera to Bakersfield) and in Silicon Valley (San Francisco to Gilroy) to reduce travel times for existing passenger rail systems, expand clean, electrified service, and prepare the corridors for testing and potential early high-speed rail operations. 4. Continue Bookend Investment in Southern and Northern California: The draft business plan continues to prioritize improving Los Angeles Union Station, the Burbank to Anaheim corridor and the electrification of the Caltrain corridor in the Bay Area. The draft business plan transparently identifies the project’s challenges, which include longer schedules and higher costs due in large part to inflation, increased contingencies and construction delays in the Central Valley. Although high-speed rail continues to face many challenges—major progress has been made on many fronts, including:  20 active construction sites with thousands of Californians working along 119 miles in the Central Valley  Completion of three structures  Hundreds of businesses planning, designing and building the system—including small businesses, disadvantaged businesses and disabled veteran businesses—with more than 1,699 craft laborers dispatched to work on Central Valley construction projects. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:52 PM 3 The positive economic benefits from the program are tremendous, including $6 billion in total economic activity in California to date. Once operational, high-speed rail will breathe new life into local economies by encouraging the movements of residents and visitors between the major regions of the state like never before, while at the same time, protecting California’s environment. “Building the nation’s first high-speed rail system, consistent with the will of the California voters, remains a tremendous challenge, but it is achievable if we remain committed to getting this transformative project done,” Kelly stated. With the release of today’s draft business plan, the Authority is now seeking public comment as part of a 60-day public comment period that starts March 9 and closes May 7, 2018. The Authority is providing the following options for submitting comments:  Online comment form through the Draft 2018 Business Plan website at: http://hsr.ca.gov/About/Business_Plans/Draft_2018_Business_Plan_Comments.html  By email at: 2018businessplancomments@hsr.ca.gov  By U.S. mail to the Authority: o California High-Speed Rail Authority Attn: Draft 2018 Business Plan 770 L Street, Suite 620 MS-1 Sacramento, CA 95814  Voicemail comment at: (916) 384-9516  Provide public comment at a Board of Directors Meeting being held on March 20 (Sacramento) and April 17 (Los Angeles). The Draft 2018 Business Plan, required by Assembly Bill 528 (Lowenthal, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2013), can be found online at: http://hsr.ca.gov/About/Business_Plans/Draft_2018_Business_Plan.htm SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov (916) 324-1541 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Honor Guards of America <honorguardsofamerica@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 11:49 AM To:Kniss, Liz (internal) Cc:Lisa.Crutch@honorguardsofamerica.com; Council, City; Fire; Perron, Zachary; Police Subject:Honor Guards of America presents 2018 Honor Guards Day Good Afternoon Honorable Liz Kniss, Honor Guards of America consists of former and retired members of the ceremonial units of the US military, military veterans, homeland security, first responder agencies (law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical service), and civilians wanting to render respect and honor. The mission of Honor Guards of America is to:  Educate the general public about honor guards.  Preserve the history and traditions relating to honor guards.  Recognize all honor guards nationwide each year during Honor Guards Day  Provide assistance to honor guards nationwide with or without honor guard units. Honor Guards of America is recognizing all honor guards nationwide on July 1st 2018 for Honor Guards Day. We are asking all Governors, mayors and council members to join the nation in observing these courageous men and women in your state or local city/county. Why we're recognizing all honor guards for Honor Guards Day? Honor Guards of America along with honor guards across the United States serve with honor, dignity and loyalty; and they demonstrate high regard for the traditions of the United States Military, public safety organizations, other agencies and honor the veterans who serve our country; and the Honor Guard is comprised of courageous men and women who have selflessly served in our military, law enforcement, fire service, public safety, emergency medical service, corrections, other agencies; and all those who wear the uniform of the honor guard understand the sacrifice and are an important part of the community; and the Honor Guard serves each community through participation in services for the fallen, presenting the colors with honor and involvement in community memorials; and the Honor Guard acts as the face of the organization they represent during solemn times of mourning and remembrance, and provide solace to families and communities during times of grief; and this is an opportunity to recognize their services and sacrifice, and show appreciation of Honor Guards who support our communities as we pay tribute and remember those who have selflessly served our cities, counties, state and nation; with honor, dignity and respect. Please feel free to join us in recognizing these men and women nationwide in Florida or in your State on Honor Guards Day July 1st. Please support our fundraising efforts for the new Museum of Honor Guards, Bagpipes & Drums and let us know if you’re interested in hosting our event next year Sincerely, Lisa A. Crutch Honor Guards of America Co-Founder City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:08 PM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:House Purchase Tax? There are now three houses within a block of my house that are sitting empty and are owned by foreign investors. Talk  about undermining community.    Has anybody considered imposing a surcharge on houses purchased by foreign nationals? I understand the Vancouver  BC is doing that.    Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St. (Evergreen Park), 06, 321‐7375  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tiffany Aubin <tmaubin@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of support for the Charleston-Arastradero Project Attachments:FairmeadowC-APacket2018.pdf To whom it may concern, Please find attached Fairmeadow Elementary School's letter of support for the Charleston-Arastradero Project. Regards, Tiffany Aubin PTA President Fairmeadow Elementary School March 8, 2018 Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fairmeadow .PTA® everychild. one voice.® Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Over many years, the Fairmeadow Elementary School PTA has supported the Charleston-Arastradero Plan. Please note the attached letter the Fairmeadow PTA wrote in support when Council approved the Charleston-Arastradero project in 2015. In addition, we also have attached the letter we sent in 2017 to support the City's grant application for traffic adaptive signal timing equipment funding for the project. Fairmeadow Elementary School PTA has repeatedly supported the project through its various phases of development. We are writing to affirm our strong support of the project as the City considers its infrastructure funding priorities. Please move the project forward expediently this Spring as planned. After more than a decade of working on this project in partnership with the City of Palo Alto and PAUSD, we look forward to construction of the long-awaited school commute safety hardscape improvements. Thank you for your ongoing support of Safe Routes to School. Sincerely, Tiffany Aubin President, Fairmeadow Elementary School PTA Fairmeadow Elementary School• 500 East Meadow Drive• Palo Alto, CA 94306 March 17, 2015 Fairmeadow PTA Fairmeadow Elementary School 500 East Meadow Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 856-0845 F irm dow .PTR f l't ') l h1 ld. I' llt\ City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission & City Council Members: Fairmeadow PTA continues to support this important school commute route project that will provide safer automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle connections to schools and after- school destinations for children others in our attendance boundary area: • Eleven public and private elementary, middle, and high schools (including Fairmeadow) • Preschools • Five city parks • Mitchell Park Library • Three community centers (Mitchell Park, Cubberley, TKCJL) • Charleston Shopping Center • Playing fields Please approve the Concept Plan Lines and move the permanent installation of the Charleston/Arastradero Plan forward as soon as possible. Thank you for your efforts to make Palo Alto's public streets safer for users of every age and ability. Sincerely, Jamey Boccio President Fairmeadow PTA Karrie Chen L___ Executive Vice President Fairmeadow PTA Adaptive traffic signal timing would enable completion of the transformation of this school commute corridor that carries nearly 20,000 car trips per day and many hundreds of students on foot and on bicycles to nearby schools, including Fairmeadow. Please support the City of Palo Alto application for funding. We look forward to a safer and more efficient Charleston-Arastradero School Commute corridor. Thank you. Sincerely, ~· Tiffany Aubin President, Fairmeadow Elementary School PT A City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeremy and Jessica <jermsica@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 6:56 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:'Palo Alto Forward Board' Subject:Letter to Council and PTC from Jessica Clark Attachments:March 14 PTC Meeting -Jessica Clark.docx Greetings to City Council and the PTC,  I have prepared a letter to you both in hopes to explain my family’s personal history in Palo Alto along with our 6 year  experience on the BMR Purchase Program waiting list with Palo Alto Housing.  I hope to attend the 3/14 meeting and say  these words to you personally, however it falls upon my oldest child’s 15th birthday.  I am trying to arrange our family  dinner around this meeting.   Although I know the project on the table will in no way help my family’s personal situation,  I still support any and every effort made towards the creation of low income/affordable housing in Palo Alto, whether it  be for seniors, disabled, veterans, teachers, first responders, etc.  I encourage any of you on the City Council and the PTC  and reach out to me to learn more about our daily lives, we cannot expect these struggling groups of citizens to show up  at city council meetings, sometimes you might need to go to them.  Thank you in advance for taking the time to read  this.    Respectfully,  Jessica Oakson Clark  March 12th, 2018 Dear PTC and City Council, I am a mother of 3 children in PAUSD at Gunn, JLS, and Palo Verde. My husband and I were both born and raised right here in Palo Alto. My children are the 4th generation of our family to live here. Our parents have chosen to age in place here along with my 102-year-old grandmother. It is something rare and special that one does not come across often in this day and age. We know we are fortunate to have been able to remain here as long as we have in order to help care for them. My brother and sister-in-law both work and teach in the special education department at Paly. However, just this month due to rental increases they have now had to move further away out of the area. In the past, they utilized public transportation or rode their bikes to work. Unfortunately, now they will have to commute by car and add to the traffic congestion. My husband is a respiratory therapist at a hospital and I was the owner of Clark Family Daycare for 7 years nestled in a cute house right behind Palo Verde Elementary. Six years ago, skyrocketing rental prices forced me to close my daycare, lose my income, move into a much smaller space for twice the rent, and become eligible for the BMR Purchase Program. We applied with Palo Alto Housing and were given a number on the waiting list. We were in the mid 300’s. In the six years since we have been on the list our family has struggled terribly to make ends meet, while our rents just keep rising. In one instance our rent was increased nearly $1000. Applying and qualifying for scholarships and assistance for our family is something we never imagined we would ever have to do, but sadly now it is our reality. Our current number on the BMR list is 184. This is not due to 120 families on the list receiving an opportunity to purchase a unit. This is because these people have given up and left. I do not blame them. If my husband and I did not have such strong family roots and support we would be gone as well. It is a completely stressful and hopeless feeling that we constantly deal with every day. Many days I too just want to give up, yet my connection to this community and my family gives me no other choice but to continue on and tell my story. Over these last few years I have become involved with the civic process by attending City Council meetings and speaking up about housing by sharing my family’s story. It is extremely difficult for families like mine or others in even more dire situations to stand up at City Council and share their most personal struggles and experience. This is one of the reasons you see so few of us. When given the right situation they will share their stories. For example, in January, County Supervisor Joe Simitian hosted a Teacher Town Hall at Gunn High School. It was there, in a safe setting, on their terms, over 100 teachers felt comfortable enough to share their personal family struggles. It was truly heartbreaking to hear how our lack of affordable housing and long commutes has affected our teachers and their families’ quality of life. I think it would have been very informative for any of the PTC or City Council members to of been in attendance. I strongly urge the PTC and City Council to remove needless barriers that stand in the way or delay the creation of 100% affordable/low-income housing. There are far too many families and people in our community who are truly struggling right now and are running out of time. It feels as though my family and many others are just holding on by a thread, while those opposed to the creation of low income/affordable housing are holding an open pair of scissors over it waiting to decide whether to simply cut our rope or to let us dangle a little bit longer until we are so worn out we let go. I don’t want to let go and I do not want my family’s rope to be cut. Thank you for listening to my story. Respectfully, Jessica Clark City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:13 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kenney Mencher <kenney.mencher@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 1:21 PM To:Council, City; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (internal); news@padailypost.com; price@padailypost.com; Vicki Vaughn Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear Council Members, On March 6th and then several weeks before I emailed the city council and used a form server on the Palo Alto website to contact the city council. I have not received a message back nor has there been any action taken on this. I know it seems like a little thing but it affects the quality of life in my neighborhood so I am writing again to see if you might have some empathy for my several of your neighbors concerns. I even messaged Mr. Scharff through Linkedin yesterday to ask for help with a growing problem in a several block radius in the area of Alma, High Street, Everett Streets. It seems like now many of the residences, especially those that have rental units where the landlord does not reside and where now commercial businesses reside don not clean up after themselves nor do they take there trash cans in. The trash cans re left in the streets taking up parking and it seems like many other neighbors seeing this feel like it's alright to follow there examples. I know that Eric feels very strongly about the condition of his property because while I was cleaning up after my dog on the edge of his lot he came out of his home to make sure that my wife and I had completely cleaned up my dogs' waste. Twice. I was wondering if you all might be able to take an interest in our neighborhood with the same enthusiasm? Below my signature is a copy of the messages that I've already sent out. Along with a message from my neighbor. Thank you in advance for your attention to this issue. Kenney Mencher Phone: (510) 390-3952 Kenney.Mencher@gmail.com http://www.kenney-mencher.com/ http://www.etsy.com/shop/kmencher http://www.youtube.com/user/kmencher Kenney Mencher <kenney.mencher@gmail.com> Mar 6 (6 days ago) to tom.dubois, eric.filseth, Adrian.Fine, karen.holman, Lydia.Kou, greg.tanaka, cory.wolbach, Vicki, JV City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:13 PM 2 Last week I used a formserver to report the following problem but I still haven't heard back from the city and it seems like the problem is growing. Can you please help with this? Hi, In the last couple of months many of my neighbors have been leaving their bins, cans, and loose garbage out either on the curb or in the street blocking parking and traffic. I asked the landlord at 183 Everett to take in his cans and he told me he would not. The businesses at the corner of High Street and Everett has left 6 cans out in across several parking spaces, this includes the businesses at Alma and Everett, and over on Hawthorn and High Street the apartment complex has all their bins, cans, bedframes and loose cardboard sitting on the street as well as many large cardboard boxes which are rotting on the curb. It seems like once one of the neighbors started doing it everyone is doing it. Is there a regulation about this? I thought we were supposed to bring the bins in every week? Thank you, Kenney Mencher 192 Everett Ave at Emerson St 510-390-3952 My Contact Info First Name: Kenney Last Name: Mencher Email Address kenney.mencher@gmail.com Please choose your neighborhood of residence. If you're not a resident, but work in Palo Alto, choose "Commuter". If you neither reside or work in Palo Alto, choose "Other". Your Neighborhood Downtown North If City Staff needs more information about your submission, and you consent to this contact, you MUST check "Yes" below. Okay to Contact Me? Yes My Reason For Contacting the City Select A Topic Garbage/Recycling Address and Cross Street are required. To indicate and intersection, type first street name in the "address" field and second street in the "Cross Street" field. If your message is not location-related type "none" in both fields. Address 192 Everett Avenue Cross Street Emerson My Message or Comments Hi, In the last couple of months many of my neighbors have been leaving their bins, cans, and loose garbage out either on the curb or in the street blocking parking and traffic. I asked the landlord at 183 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:13 PM 3 Everett to take in his cans and he told me he would not. The businesses at the corner of High Street and Everett has left 6 cans out in across several parking spaces, this includes the businesses at Alma and Everett, and over on Hawthorn and High Street the apartment complex has all their bins, cans, bedframes and loose cardboard sitting on the street as well as many large cardboard boxes which are rotting on the curb. It seems like once one of the neighbors started doing it everyone is doing it. Is there a regulation about this? I thought we were supposed to bring the bins in every week? Thank you, Kenney Mencher 192 Everett Ave at Emerson St 510-390-3952 When you email the City, your email address becomes a public record. If you do not wish your email address to become a public record, send your correspondence via postal mail to the City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Clerk. I accept the terms above. Yes Referring Page Kenney Mencher Phone: (510) 390-3952 Kenney.Mencher@gmail.com http://www.kenney-mencher.com/ http://www.etsy.com/shop/kmencher http://www.youtube.com/user/kmencher City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 8:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly; Gitelman, Hillary; City Mgr Subject:My Comments at Last Monday's (3/5) Item 16 Mayor Kniss; your fellow council members, Fred Balin of College Terrace. Your item Number 6 on Staff Report page 5, regarding the location of a garage or carport on an R-1 lot. The longstanding code, summarized: If the neighborhood pattern of the garage or carport location is in the rear half of the lot, then in your building plan, there can be no attached garage in the front half. But what about putting a carport in the front half? Not the intent of the code, only a small handful of such cases, so clarify the language, staff said when the very first annual code update came to the planning commission in September of two thousand and fifteen, with a matrix of 62 items deemed non controversial. At each of the three meetings, Commissioner Michael Alcheck argued that the clarifications on this item would be a policy change and should be discussed separately. He did not reveal that within the previous 10 weeks, applications for two abutting R-1 properties, in which he had economic interests were granted such an exception. By his failure to disclose, the commission and the public were not fully informed. And by his successful effort to scuttle any discussion, the question of whether a carport exception in the front could later be converted into an attached garage could not be raised. A legitimate concern, as signaled by one savvy and straight-on public servant, who wrote in large letters on one of the plans, "No conversion of carport to attached front garage." And last year, following final building approvals in May, on August the 28th, applications were indeed submitted for each property to convert the existing carport to a garage. And when the Planning Commission met two months later, on November the 29th, to start this next round of code updates, no permit for conversion had been issued. And once again, there was no disclosure by Commissioner Alcheck, or a recusal. Instead he participated in discussions, which could have had a direct relevance to his permits. Staff re-presented the same code clarifications as two years before, your Item 6. And they also included changes to the definitions of carport and garage, your item 7. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:05 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 3:55 PM To:roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Subject:PA PD Draft Policy on Body Cameras Hi Commissioner Lee, Thanks for the heads-up. I will do my best to attend this important meeting. 1. Please be aware that there is substantial controversy re allowing officers to review footage from body-worn cameras, and or in-vehicle camera footage, prior to officers writing their police reports. This proposed policy apparently allows officers to in fact review footage before drafting reports. This is much like allowing witnesses to an incident to compare recollections of any incident before testifying. Fact finders, the court sitting alone, or a jury, should be allowed to hear the independent testimony of each witness uncontaminated by the statements or recollections of other witnesses. It is for this reason that courts exclude witnesses from a courtroom while other witnesses to the proceedings are testifying. An officer should not be allowed to alter his or her independent recollection of events by viewing footage of the incident he or she may not have actually observed while the incident was occurring. 2. Although this policy allows for those arrested by the police to obtain the footage of the incident pursuant to criminal discovery practice, there is no similar right for a person, as an example, brutally beaten by the police, but not arrested, to obtain the same footage. We the public pay for the cameras and should be entitled to view the footage where we believe the police have acted inappropriately, whether we were arrested or not. Often the police will release body-worn footage, or footage captured by police car cameras, when the footage shows the police in a favorable light, while refusing to release footage police believe will expose police misconduct. Such a double standard erodes public trust in law enforcement and should not be tolerated. 3. Some body-worn camera policies allow police to turn off their cameras when taking with police informants aka snitches. The rationale often given is that police informants will be reluctant to talk with police out of fear of exposure if they are recorded. One of the leading causes of wrongful convictions is the false testimony of police informants. The better policy is to require that conversations between police and informants should be recorded, but not released to the defense or prosecution without appropriate protective orders. 4. The Police Executive Research Forum On Mar 4, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:05 PM 2 FYI for this Thursday's meeting. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63809 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63807 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 7:45 AM To:Stump, Molly; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Lum, Patty; Keene, James; Council, City Cc:acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com Subject:Palo Alto Police Photos Attachments:CPRA_Response_Letter1_-_MPP__W001103-021218_Promotion_Info_(2-22).pdf City Attorney Molly Stump: Re: California Public Records Request W001103-021218 CPRA mandates a detailed response on any delays. 1. Delay March 7th. No explanation / None cited. 2. Delay March 21st No explanation None cited. Please provide a detailed explanation as mandated... Thanks, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 Sent from my iPad POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2406 February 22, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mark Petersen-Perez public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com RE: California Public Records Act Request Dated February 12, 2018 – W001103-021218 Dear Mr. Mark Petersen-Perez, This letter is in response to your California Public Records Act Request dated February 12, 2018 in which you requested certain records of the City of Palo Alto relating to promotional information, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, (CPRA) Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 6250 et seq. Records Request: “recently announce Palo Alto Police Officer promotions by police chief Robert Jonsen, 1. Names 2. Promotion from and to (Rank) 3. Pictures and if declining to do so, please cite legal reasons for doing so as CPRA mandates. 4. Salaries” Response to Request: The names and ranks from and to are as follows: Name Previous Rank Promotional Rank Zach Perron Lieutenant Captain Patty Lum Lieutenant Captain Kara Apple Sergeant Lieutenant James Reifschneider Sergeant Lieutenant DuJuan Green Agent Sergeant Jesus Paneda Agent Sergeant Eric Bulatao Agent Sergeant Dave Pecoraro Officer Agent Carlos De Santiago Officer Agent Chris Moore Officer Agent Michael Foley Officer Agent Erin Goodell Officer Agent Brad Young Officer Agent Mark Chase Lead Public Safety Dispatcher Public Safety Communications Manager 1 City of Palo Alto Salary information is located at the following City of Palo Alto Website Open Data portal. Here is the Link: http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/search/?q=salaries&page=2 With regard to your request for pictures of officers, the City is in the process of gathering and reviewing those records. We anticipate a response to this specific records request will be released to you on or before Wednesday March 7, 2018. Thank you, Lisa Scheff Public Safety Program Manager/Records Palo Alto Police Department 650.329-2406/650.329- 2553 Lisa.scheff@cityofpaloalto.org 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:37 AM To:Palo Alto Free Press; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org Subject:Re: Pending Litigation - The People’s right to know     Sent from my iPhone    > On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:30 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:  >   >   >  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a57b24e01002738e0ef8e1e/t/5aa01f7a53450acab4d506b3/1520443268456/R edwood+City+Police+Photograph+Petition.pdf  >   >   > <Redwood+City+Police+Photograph+Petition.pdf>  >   >   > Mark Petersen‐Perez  > Editor: Palo Alto Free Press  > Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮   >   >   > Sent from my iPad    1 Abenicio Cisneros [SBN 302765] 268 Park View Terrace 2 Oakland, CA 94610 707-653-0438 3 acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com 4 Attorney for MARK PETERSEN-PEREZ 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 MARK PETERSEN-PEREZ 11 Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 REDWOOD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respondent. ) Case No.: ) ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ) PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ) ~ [California Constitution Article I § 3; Gov't ) Code§ 6250, et seq. Civ. Proc. Code§ 1085, ) seq.] ) ) ~ Department: ) ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 2 1. INTRODUCTION This is a suit to enforce the California Public Records Act ("CPRA") as it pertains to 3 the identity, in the form of photographs, of law enforcement officers involved in a shooting. In 4 response to a public records request, Respondent Redwood City Police Department ("Respondent") 5 provided the names of the seven officers involved in the December 30, 2017, shooting and killing of 6 Marco Antonio Carlos in Redwood City. However, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for "all 7 personnel photographs of all officers" involved. 8 2. In denying the request, Respondent cited the personnel records/privacy exemption in 9 Cal. Gov't Code§ 6254(c)1; the "otherwise prohibited by law" exemption in §6254(k); and the 10 "catch-all" exemption-claiming that the public interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the 11 public interest in disclosure-in§ 6255(a). 12 3. While Respondent claims it can lawfully withhold the records, two California 13 Supreme Court cases-Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court 14 (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, and Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 15 Cal.4th 59--establish that officer identity is presumptively public. Law enforcement officer 16 photographs, like names, are not exempt from disclosure as a personnel record, nor are they private; 17 no other law, including the Pitchess statutes, prohibits disclosure of officer photographs; and, 18 generally, the public interest in the disclosure of officer photographs outweighs the public interest in 19 non-disclosure, particularly if that officer has been involved in a shooting. While the precedent 20 considered the disclosure of identity in the form of names, the reasoning in those cases applies 21 directly to photographs and does not support withholding photographs where names must be 22 disclosed. 23 4. Further undermining Respondent's claim that it is entitled to withhold officer 24 photographs under the CPRA is the fact that Respondent routinely posts photographs of its officers 25 on its website and social media. Specifically, photographs of three of the officers involved in the 26 Carlos shooting are posted on Respondent's website. Respondent cannot have it both ways by 27 28 1 Unless otherwise stated, all references to code sections are to the Cal. Gov't Code. - I - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 distributing photographs of officers for positive publicity, while withholding photographs from 2 journalists and the public in response to CPRA requests. 3 5. Therefore, by this petition and pursuant to the Code of Civ. Procedure§§ 1085, et 4 seq. and Gov't Code§§ 6250, et seq., Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to enforce the CPRA by 5 compelling the Redwood City Police Department to produce the requested photographs of the seven 6 officers involved in the shooting and killing of Marco Antonio Carlos. 7 8 9 6. PARTIES Petitioner Mark Petersen-Perez is a member of the public within the meaning of 10 Gov't Code §§ 6252(b )-( c ). Petitioner is a journalist, activist, and government watchdog who 11 operates the Palo Alto Free Press and who actively opposes police misconduct, racial profiling, 12 police use of tasers, and police abuse of homeless individuals in and around Santa Clara County and 13 San Mateo County. 14 7. Respondent the Redwood City Police Department is located in San Mateo County, 15 California. Respondent is a local public agency within the meaning of§ 6252( d). 16 17 18 8. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This court has jurisdiction under Gov't Code §§ 6258, 6259, Code of Civ. Proc. 19 § 1085, and Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution. 20 9. Venue is proper in this Court. The records in question, or some portion of them, are 21 situated in the County of San Mateo, Gov't Code§ 6259; the acts or omissions complained of 22 occurred in the County of San Mateo, Code of Civ. Proc.§ 393; finally, Respondents are located in 23 the County of San Mateo, Code of Civ. Proc.§ 395. 24 25 26 10. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On December 30, 2018, Marco Antonio Carlos was shot and killed by law 27 enforcement in Redwood City. According to the Washington Post, Carlos was one of987 people 28 shot and killed by police in the United States in 2017. (See -2- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/). The shooting and 2 killing of individuals by police officers is a major issue of public concern and has prompted 3 numerous public demonstrations in the San Francisco Bay Area and across the United States. 4 11. On January 6, 2018, Petitioner submitted a CPRA request for all personnel 5 photographs of all officers involved in the shooting and killing of Carlos. Respondent, in a January 6 17, 2018, response to a different CPRA request, disclosed the names of seven Redwood City Police 7 Department officers involved in the shooting. Those officers' names are Sergeant Nick Perna, 8 Sergeant Ed Conover, Officer Junsun Lee, Officer Richard Santiago, Officer Mark Alifano, Officer 9 Dave Denning, and Officer Ryan Kimber. A true and correct copy of Respondent's January 17, 10 2018, CPRA response disclosing the names of the officers is attached as Exhibit A. 11 12. On January 17, 2018, Respondent also replied to Petitioner's CPRA request. 12 Respondent denied Petitioner's request and withheld all requested photographs. In supporting its 13 denial, Respondent cited the following three exemptions under the heading "Authority:" 14 15 16 17 18 19 1. California Government Code § 6254( c ): Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 2. California Government Code§ 6254 (k): Records, the disclosure of which is exempt or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege. 3. California Government Code§ 6255 (a): "The public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." 20 A true and correct copy of Respondent's January 17, 2018, letter denying Petitioner's CPRA 21 request is attached as Exhibit B. 22 13. Despite Respondent's refusal to provide photographs to Petitioner in this instance, 23 Respondent publicizes the photographs of many of its officers on its website at 24 https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/police-department and on its social media. Specifically, 25 Respondent's website contains photographs of three of the officers involved in the Carlos shooting- 26 Sergeant Nick Perna, Officer Junsun Lee, and Officer Richard Santiago-whose photographs appear 27 as part of a .pdf memorializing the 2016 annual Redwood City Police Department Awards 28 Ceremony. Find a true and correct copy of the officers' photographs as they appeared on - 3 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 Respondent's website attached as Exhibit C. Find photographs Respondent has posted of other 2 officers on its social media attached as Exhibit D. 3 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3(b) 6 14. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 13 7 above, as if set forth in full. 8 15. The California Constitution provides an independent right of access to government 9 records: "The People have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's 10 business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and 11 agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." Cal. Constitution, Art. 1 § 3(b)(l). This provision was 12 adopted by the voters in 2004 because, as the ballot argument supporting the measure states, when 13 Californians asked questions of their government they increasingly found "that answers are hard to 14 get." The constitutional provision is intended to reverse that trend. 15 16. Respondent's failure to provide records in response to Petitioner's public records 16 request violated Article 1, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution. 17 18 19 20 21 17. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOV'T CODE § 6250, et seq. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 16 22 above, as if set forth in full. 23 General principles of the California Public Records Act 24 18. Under the California Public Records Act,§ 6250 et seq., all records that are 25 prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency, and that are not subject to the CPRA' s 26 statutory exemptions to disclosure, must be made publicly available for inspection and copying 27 upon request. § 6253. 28 19. Under the CPRA, the term "public record" includes any "writing" containing -4- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 information relating to the conduct of the people's business. § 6252(e). Photographs are "writings" 2 subject to the CPRA. § 6252(g). 3 20. Where an agency withholds responsive records on the basis of a statutory exemption, 4 "the agency ... must disclose that fact." Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1061, 1072 5 (citing§ 6255). The agency bears the burden of justifying nondisclosure.§ 6255(a). Even if parts of 6 a particular document are exempt, the agency must disclose the remainder of the document. § 7 6253(a). 8 21. If an agency discloses a public record that is otherwise exempt, the disclosure shall 9 constitute a waiver of the exemptions specified in§ 6254, §6254.7, or other similar provisions of 10 law. § 6254.5. 11 22. If an agency fails to comply with these statutory provisions, the CPRA authorizes a 12 person to file a petition for writ of mandate to enforce their right to inspect or to receive a copy of 13 the record. § 6258. 14 23. Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition to the superior court of the county 15 where the records or some part thereof are situated that certain public records are being improperly 16 withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or person charged with 1 7 withholding the records to disclose the public record or show cause why he or she should not do so. 18 The court shall decide the case after examining the record in camera (if permitted by the Evidence 19 Code), papers filed by the parties, and any oral argument and additional evidence as the court may 20 allow. § 6259(a). 21 24. The CPRA contains a mandatory attorney's fee provision for the prevailing plaintiff. 22 § 6259(d). The purpose of the attorney's fee provision is to provide "protections and incentives for 23 members of the public to seek judicial enforcement of their right to inspect public records subject to 24 disclosure." Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 427. 25 26 27 The Redwood City Police Department violated the CPRA when it withheld photographs of officers involved in the Carlos shooting. 25. Photographs of police officers are presumptively disclosable public records, and 28 Respondent cannot meet its burden to justify non-disclosure. The public interest in the identities of -5 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 officers, including their photographs, outweighs the officers' privacy interest in those records. No 2 law, including the Pit chess statues, prohibits disclosure of officer photographs. Respondent's 3 disclosure of the names of the officers involved in the shooting establishes that there is no 4 particularized threat sufficient to withhold the officer's photographs under the catch-all exemption. 5 Finally, even assuming, arguendo, the officers' photographs may have been exempt, Respondent 6 waived any exemption as to the three officers whose photographs appear on Respondent's website. 7 26. Respondent cannot lawfully withhold the records on the basis of§ 6254( c) because 8 disclosure of officers' photographs does not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 9 Courts have found that the public has a strong interest in the identity of law enforcement officers, 10 while officers typically have only a weak privacy interest in protecting their identity from 11 disclosure. See Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 12 Cal.4th 278 (Commission on Peace Officer Standards); Long Beach Police Officers Association v. 13 City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59 (City of Long Beach). The Legislature's enactment of 14 Penal Code § 830.10, which requires uniformed officers to display their names or identification 15 number, demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend to protect officers' identities. City of Long 16 Beach, supra, at 72. The California Supreme Court, in finding that no well-established social norm 17 protects the identity of law enforcement officers, recognized that officers "operate in the public 18 realm on a daily basis and identify themselves to the members of the public with whom they deal." 19 Commission on Peace Officer Standards, supra, at 301. Further, the Legislature did not intend to 20 classify official service photographs as "personal data" protected from disclosure under the Pitchess 21 statutes and an officer's appearance, as disclosed in an official service photograph, is information 22 that ordinarily is known to persons that the officer comes into contact with. Ibarra v. Superior 23 Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 695, 704 (Ibarra). Thus, Respondent cannot establish that§ 6254(c) 24 permits it to withhold officer photographs. 25 27. Respondent cannot lawfully withhold the records on the basis of § 6254(k) because 26 no other law, including the Pit chess statutes, prohibits disclosure. In denying Petitioner's request, 27 Respondent cited to§ 6254(k), which permits withholding records by incorporating other disclosure 28 prohibitions established by law. Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1283. - 6 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDA TE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 Here, in citing § 6254(k), Respondent did not cite to any specific statute under which it claimed it 2 could withhold records. However, it is clear that the so-called Pitchess statutes contained in Penal 3 Code § 832. 7 and § 832.8 do not prohibit disclosure of the photographs because the photographs are 4 not personnel records as described by Penal Code§ 832.8. Ibarra, supra, at 704. 5 28. Respondent cannot lawfully withhold the records on the basis of the catchall 6 exemption in§ 6255(a) because the public interest in non-disclosure does not clearly outweigh the 7 public interest in disclosure. The balancing done under§ 6255(a) often mirrors that under §6254(c) 8 and, just as Respondent cannot support its withholding under § 6254( c) it cannot do so under § 9 6255(a). The public's significant interest in the conduct of its peace officers "diminishes and 10 counterbalances" an officer's privacy interest in keeping their name confidential. Commission on 11 Peace Officer Standards, supra, at 299. When officers are involved in a shooting, the balance tips 12 strongly in favor of "identity disclosure" and against the personal privacy interests of the officers 13 involved. City of Long Beach, supra, at 7 4. The fact that Respondent already released the names of 14 its officers involved in the Carlos shooting shows that there is no legitimate reason to shield the 15 identities of those particular officers. The fact that Respondent regularly posts photographs of its 16 officers on its website and via its social media shows that, generally, it believes there is no strong 17 public interest in non-disclosure of officer photographs. Thus, Respondent cannot meet its burden to 18 show that the public interest in non-disclosure "clearly outweighs" the public interest in disclosure 19 as required by § 6255(a). Rather, it is clear that, as it pertains to photographs of officers involved in 20 shootings, the balance tilts heavily in favor of disclosure. 21 29. Finally, assuming, arguendo, some exemption did apply to permit non-disclosure of 22 the requested photographs, Respondent waived that exemption as it applies to the three officers 23 whose photographs appear on Respondent's website. An agency's disclosure of records waives its 24 ability to withhold those records subject to an exemption to the CPRA. § 6254.5. Here, Respondent 25 posted photographs on its website of three of the officers involved in the Carlos shooting. See 26 Exhibit C. Thus, as to those officers, Respondent has waived any exemptions to the CPRA which 27 may apply. 28 30. As such, Respondent's refusal to provide the requested photographs violates the -7- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1 CPRA. Law enforcement agencies cannot publicize photographs of officers to increase goodwill 2 while refusing to provide photographs of officers to journalists and the public upon request. Neither 3 can law enforcement agencies decline to "put a face to the name" of officers, particularly when 4 those officers shoot and kill a member of the public. 5 6 A WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS 7 APPROPRIATE 8 31. Respondents have a clear, present, ministerial duty to comply with the California 9 Constitution and Gov't Code§ 6250, et seq. 10 32. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to filing this petition. There are no 11 administrative exhaustion requirements under Gov't Code § 6250, et seq. 12 33. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other 13 than the relief sought in this petition. 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 15 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays as follows: 16 1. That after a trial on this action, to be held on notice, this Court issue a declaration that 17 Respondent violated the California Public Records Act by withholding the disclosable 18 records Petitioner requested. 19 2. That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondent to provide 20 Petitioner with all requested records, except records that the Court determines may 21 lawfully be withheld. 22 3. That Petitioner be awarded attorney's fees and costs; and 23 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 24 25 26 27 28 - 8 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:05 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 3:59 PM To:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; dcbertini@menlopark.org; HRC; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; council@redwoodcity.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Subject:PERF on implementation of body worn camera policy http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Technology/implementing%20a%20body-worn%20camera%20program.pdf Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 5:21 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Please deny Verizon's call for cell towers Dear Board, I am asking that you deny approval to the proposed cell towers in Palo Alto residential neighborhoods, unless Verizon’s designs a) call for all the equipment except the antenna to be located completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances, for the safety of our neighborhoods and our children. thank you! Prerana Jayakumar Do not be dismayed by the brokenness of the world. All things break. And all things can be mended. Not with time, as they say, but with intention. So go. Love intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally. The broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you. - L.R.Knost http://www.karnatik.com http://www.transitionpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:bharat bhushan <22bhushan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 8:16 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:PLEASE KEEP CELL TOWERS AWAY FROM PALO ALTO Dear Sir/Mdam, I Bharat Bhushan, MD, ask YOU to deny approval to the proposed cell towers unless Verizon’s designs a) call for all the equipment except the antenna to be located completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances. There is enough evidence of enough bodily, and mind injury by elctro-magnetic radiation especially to our children. This is the link for this info. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html Thanks, No cell towers again. Bharat Bhushan, MD 2928 CLARA DR PALO ALTO, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 7:21 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Proposed cell towers in Palo Alto To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to ask you to deny approval to the proposed cell towers in Palo Alto unless Verizon's designs call for all equipment except the antennas be put completely underground and for the cell towers to comply with Palo Alto's noise ordinances. Sincerely, Mary Thomas 249 Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 9:45 PM To:Palo Alto Free Press Cc:Cullen, Charles; Perron, Zachary; HRC; Jonsen, Robert; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; bos@smcgov.org Subject:Re: BART police Body worn cameras Mark,  Thanks for the research. Will read with great interest     Sent from my iPhone    > On Mar 11, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:  >   > Page 18 of the Gennaco Chronicles No mention of CPRA coming into play but suggests recommends video review by  both parties victim / complaintant on the issue of transparency accountability..  >   > I would classify Gennaco as a paid snitch.  Nevertheless, I found his comments interesting despite my vehement dislike  for this person....   >   > https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/d85a96_bd5e82d868a345f496e60706536533ad.pdf  >   >   > <d85a96_bd5e82d868a345f496e60706536533ad.pdf>  >   >   > Mark  >   >   > Sent from my iPad    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 10:36 PM To:Mark Petersen-Perez Cc:PD Gary Kirby; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; council@redwoodcity.org; HRC; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Steven D. Lee; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Abenicio Cisneros; sdremann@paweekly.com; jaythor@well.com; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Bertini, David C; Dave Price; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Richard Wilson; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; allison@padailypost.com; Emily Mibach; Watson, Ron; Roberta Ahlquist; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; bos@smcgov.org; jose.guzman@pdo.scc.gov.org; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Lewis. james; Seelam Reddy; Sean James; Keene, James; Cullen, Charles Subject:Re: California Public Records Request & discussion Re: PERF on implementation of body worn camera policy 3/12/18 Hi Mark, Thanks so much for your detailed and thoughtful comments re the critical importance of having a fully transparent‐community friendly‐ body‐worn camera policy. We must continue to push the Palo Alto Police Department, and other local law enforcement agencies, to allow the alleged victims of police brutality, community activists, and other interested members of the public, as well as the press, to view body‐worn camera footage, without undue delay, police bureaucratic obfuscation, and other nefarious maneuvers designed to frustrate the public’s right to know. Let me end with the following quote: Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its [52 Cal. App. 4th 105] peace officers. (Bradbury v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1108, 1116 Regards, Aram Aram thanks for including me in on this important exchange. As you know video from Body- Worn cameras including MAV feed play’s a critical role in building community trust, accountability and transparency. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 2 Body-Worn Cameras http://www.theiacp.org/model-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/07/BodyWornCamerasPaper.pdf Citizen complaints of officer misconduct in one city fell by 87.5 percent. Their is nothing more compelling to a judge or jury in viewing actual events in analyzing alleged irrefutable testimony. However, police have the upper hand in all cases in disallowing the complainant / victim(s) the unfettered opportunity to review video first or simultaneously for potential exculpatory evidence. All policy’s I have read to date, have this much needed provision exclude. Any police policy impacting the interaction of its citizens should be fair and impartial and developed jointly, involving members of the community and not, not by a body of police bureaucrats looking to gain the legal upper of the citizens it serves.. Lastly, I look forward to the release of the remaining photo’s of the officers involved in the killing of Marcos Antonio Carlos Sincerely, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 Sent from my iPad On Mar 12, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Gary, Thanks for your detailed response re your background ( and your command staff’s) with the 2014 PERF report- on the various perspectives re how individual police departments might implement policy regarding the use and implementation of this important technology. I have read the report several times, since its release, and still could benefit from a reread. I’m most definitely a slow learner! I am embarrassed to say that I have not recently kept up with when or if our department ( Redwood City Police Department) has yet rolled out body-worn cameras. I recall attending one RWC council meeting, where you attended as well, where the subject was addressed. I recall personally addressing the subject, and voicing my support for body-worn cameras, depending on the policy our department ultimately adopts. Can you update me re the proposed timing, re the roll-out for body-worn cameras here in RWC? Can you send me the policy, or proposed policy for their use? Please consider this request, for this information, a California Public Records Act City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 3 request. I understand you are always very busy, so if you need more then 10 days to respond, no problem, just let me know. By the way, in addition to copying in the powers that be in RWC, I have also copied in Mark Petersen Perez, the owner and publisher of the Palo Alto Free Press. I’m sure you remember Mark. Mark and I used to attend meetings of the San Jose City Council, mostly around Taser issues, and other police practices issues, when you were almost the Chief in San Jose. Of course, you were always very gracious with the two of us, when we had questions and concerns with the taser issue, and related policy. Just this last Thursday, the two of us attended the monthly meeting of the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. The PAPD’s command staff presented a draft policy, re body-worn cameras, to members of the HRC and the community. Both Mark and I addressed the commission with our concerns that the proposed PAPD policy lacks transparency is several regards. We are hopeful that some of the issues and concerns re their policy, raised by the two of us, in additions to questions posed by several members of the HRC, will be taken seriously by the PAPD command staff. In other words, we are hopeful the policy ultimately adopted by the PAPD reflects critical input from the community and is not simply a policy dictated to us by the department. I look forward to an on going discussion with you regarding all of the above issues. Best regards, Aram On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Gary, Thanks for responding, hope you are well. Mark Peyersen Sent from my iPhone On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:37 AM, PD Gary Kirby <GKirby@redwoodcity.org> wrote: Aram, Thank you for thinking to forward the PERF report on  Body‐Worn Cameras. I am quite versed in the contents  of the document as well as all of my command staff  who were provided a copy of the study when it first  came out. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:52 AM 4   Regards, Gary   Gary L. Kirby | Deputy Chief of Police Redwood City Police Department 1301 Maple St. Redwood City, CA 94063 gkirby@redwoodcity.org (650) 780‐7123 Office      From: Aram James [mailto:abjpd1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 3:59 PM To: minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org; PD Gary Kirby; zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; hrc@cityofpaloalto.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@menlopark.org; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Subject: PERF on implementation of body worn camera policy http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Onlin e_Documents/Technology/implementing%20a%20b ody-worn%20camera%20program.pdf Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:redress.of.grievance@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:46 AM To:sdremann@paweekly.com; Council, City; HRC; Dave Price; dangel@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Keene, James; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; allison@padailypost.com; Lum, Patty; Scheff, Lisa; bjohnson@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; Jonsen, Robert; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Stump, Molly; bajadrew911@aol.com; Binder, Andrew; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg Subject:Re: Commission questions police-video transparency policy | News | Palo Alto Online | Ciampi videos reveal profanity-laced exchange - Written by: Sue Dremann Just as the Ciampi video was laced with profanity the above mentioned story was written by the same irresponsible fake news media reporter and equally laced with f**** words metaphorically. Her story is media bull shit forced unknowingly down the throats of Palo Alto citizens and beyond only to have your objections, your objections in the public comments field, to be censored by her. The facts are clearly documented and supported. She is one of the Weekly’s TOP censors...... This reporter discredits the entire profession of journalism by spinning the the citizens of Palo Alto on theirs heads with half baked news. We strongly, suggest all her stories be throughly researched or attend city council meetings to confirm the accuracy and truths to her story telling.... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:21 AM 2 Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 Sent from my iPad On Mar 13, 2018, at 8:39 PM, redress.of.grievance@gmail.com wrote: Fake News Media prevails once more.... This fake news media reporter was read the following city response to my California Public Records Request... Despite CPRA case law, the city can and will do as it pleases as in the release of the Tony Ciampi video all the while this case was on-going in Federal Court https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/01/19/ciampi-videos-reveal-profanity-laced- exchange https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/13/commission-questions-police-video- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:21 AM 3 transparency-policy Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:11 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal) Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:RE: Follow-up on your comments on Tuesday night Dear Mayor Kniss, Thank you for your prompt response with respect to when the proposed changes to the Wireless ordinance will again appear on Council’s agenda. United Neighbors and I are most appreciative of your courtesy in promising that the City will notify me as soon as that date has been set. I trust you will let me know what the City’s rules, if any, are with respect to residents commenting on the same issue at Council meetings on two different dates.   Sincerely,    Jeanne Fleming    Jeanne Fleming PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151      From: Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 2:53 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Re: Follow‐up on your comments on Tuesday night    When the City manager find a slot on our agenda is to continue the discussion you will be notified.        On Mar 7, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> wrote:  Dear Mayor Kniss,    I am your neighbor and also part of the group, the United Neighbors of Palo Alto, that on Tuesday night urged City Council to vote against approving the modifications City Staff seeks to make to Palo Alto’s Wireless ordinance.    At the conclusion of the evening, you decided Council would not vote on this issue, and you asked Staff to place it on Council’s Agenda at a later date. City Manager Jim Keene then indicated that the date would probably be in early April.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:15 PM 2 I would appreciate it if you could answer two questions regarding Council’s further consideration of this issue:    1. On what date will City Council continue its consideration of Staff’s proposed changes to the Wireless Code?     2. Is there a City rule that prohibits us—by us, I mean the same individuals who spoke on Tuesday—from speaking about this issue when it is next considered by Council? We did not understand what you said on this point.    Thank you for your help. I look forward to hearing from you.    Sincerely,    Jeanne Fleming    Jeanne Fleming PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:04 AM To:Amrutha Kattamuri Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Scharff, Gregory (internal) Subject:Re: Informative links on cell towers cell towers and more Wow, Amrutha, thanks so much for sending all this information! Particularly interesting is #4 - Julie Watts report on cell towers and #5 - City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018. There are a lot of people up in arms about having small cells shoved in our neighborhoods. Francesca On Mar 13, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear All, I am sending the following links to articles/information/videos on cell towers for you to go through. 1. Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Limits for Those Who Work Near Wireless Towers Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Limits for Those Who Work Near Wireless Towers Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Li... 2. This is the link to the new and latest study on cell towers (Los Angeles was the study site in the United States) Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:56 AM 2 Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequenc... Study finds cell towers are largest contributor to environmental radiofrequency radiation exposure. 3. CA Dept of Health issues warnings on Cell Phone usage California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation State health officials aren't saying that cellphones pose health risks, but "the science is evolving" 4. Julie Watts report on cell towers ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts on Health ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts ... Wireless carriers are installing millions of towers across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone te... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:56 AM 3 5. View four speakers from 1:46:38 through 2:01:15 using this slide presentation.View from 2:01:15 through 2:18:00 for Santa Rosa City Council members’ comments. City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018 City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018 City meeting agendas, packets, archives, and live stream are always available at https://santa-rosa.legistar.com Thanks, Amrutha City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:M. Gallagher <writing2win@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 10:54 AM To:Stephanie Munoz Cc:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Ruth Chippendale; Council, City; hilarygitelman@cityofpaloalto.org; epatoday; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; senator.hill@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember berman; NeighborsHelping Neighbors Subject:Re: Mary Gallegher's memo on housing, Chuck's comments and a plea for more nuanced understanding of density. Dear Stephanie and Affordable Housing Advocates: Stephanie: I appreciate your thoughtful responses to propose solutions to house the homeless and lower income folks of all ages. Each solution has its benefits, costs, risks or advantages and disadvantages. Please be aware I speak with decades of experience as a renter, a property owner, and a professional property manager. To manage property, I held a Nevada broker's real estate license and Massachusetts salesperson's license. Housing and the lack of housing is a public health issue with no silver bullet to solve the problem. Each proposed solution must be evaluated against certain criteria. What are we trying to achieve for whom, how (resources), and when (the time line)? Personally, I prefer the solution/notion of intentional communities, so people who have the same values and life practices can co-exist more peaceably than if those living in community do not have the same values and life practices. I say this after years of living in conflict with others who have opposing ideologies and practices in apartment communities and single family homes. Often, the homeless prefer life on the streets and on benches precisely because the homeless do not have to negotiate shared spaces, personal differences, the sight of a ceiling rather than beauty of a starry, starry night, and other conflict-prone domestic situations. May anyone in this email list know how I may bring my housing expertise and our affordable housing ideas to the negotiating table in a paid position? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:00 PM 2 Respectfully, Mary Gallagher, B.S. Affordable Housing Advocate 650-683-7102 Mary Gallagher, B.S. Content Strategist 650-683-7102 Copyright 2018 Security Alert Notice The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer. Thank you. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote: WILPF is very lucky to have Mary's ideas because they are enough different from mine to provide a base for discussion of complexities. To me, the housing complexity that is not being discussed is the difference in the needs of the to-be-housed,which differ as they age, the difference in advantages and drawbacks of the sites, and the need to match up as many as possible tenants with appropriate sites. Chuck is taking the motto of the handicapped vis-a vis-authority: "Nothing about us without us" but homelessness isn't necessarily a condition, but also overlaps with situational; that is, it might be a veteran with PTSD who can't get along with people, including his family, his boss or coworkers, or it might be an ordinary, emotionally stable family whose earners have simply been priced out of the market. I have to agree with Chuck that you get more complete and reliable guidelines when you ask people who have some experience with the need, but in a disaster of the proportions we have, it's any port in a storm. 6,000 Santa Clara County Homeless--get them off the streets any which way you can! For instance, I believe we should work to demand that the federal government provide appropriate housing for every veteran on unused military bases, and invent some housing, however small and humble, which can be rented, on the open market, by minimum wage social security workers and SSI recipients. Some kind of basic safe sleeping space should be provided by our society for all who need it, including those newly released from jail--I suggest it be rented at minimum wage for an hour's work each night, and the hour's work provided for the penniless. There should be some room somewhere for the sick poor to exist during the day, and children and their families should be provided with some place to continue living through all 24 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:00 PM 3 hours. Cities should religiously preserve all existing affordable housing, including mobile homes, and provide rental space for mobile homes, RVs and automobiles used for car camping, with bathrooms for the latter. By the same token, although I believe PAHC's work is wasteful of the existing resources, I have to appreciate that they have done a phenomenal job of adding to the housing stock while following Palo Alto's sacred guidelines, which are, basically, only to increase property values, never decrease them. A shining example is in Barron Park, roughly the same area as the failed Maybell project, where they quietly placed half-a-dozen small projects which cannot be identified as subsidized. And remember, they worked under the handicap of a city Rule against high density seen as not just number of cars, not just size of building footprint, or amount of square footage undercover but arbitrrarily limiting number of units per acre. It was only in suggesting that the city could tolerate higher density if it were in the form of high value mansions that they stumbled. I maintain that the neighbors could have been persuaded that as many as three hundred retired poor elderly could have been housed in a building of the same dimensions as the Tan apartments directly adjacent to the site; if these residents did not have cars--and because they were retired (jobless) and without families to take to school, etc, they would not have needed cars, or, at least, out of 2,000 elderly homeless, at least 300 would not have needed cars. They could have had a shuttle bus, leaving the street unencumbered. (Note that the city, in its pacification efforts, did not offer to return Maybell street to its previous role as a street unencumbered by cast-off Arastradero traffic.) I agree with Mary that the building would be more acceptable to open space advocates if the same number of square feet were spread up to six stories (because higher than that requires a more substantial investment in the foundation), and the open space necessary to comply with the FAR were placed between the building and any adjacent single story or two story homes, possibly with the upper stories stepped back to so as to preserve the daylight plane for them. This would, of course, be the case if the multi-story building were combined with park open space, and its parking lot if it had one, as the buffer of open space would have been even better validated on a property containing an orchard. As for the residents having an equity share in the property, I'd like to see some affordable housing in private ownership. This could come about if the city were to permit the same profit to be made from many tiny units as could be made from few expensive units. This could only happen with the city's cooperation in modifying the zoning law, and rent control to guarantee that the conditions under which the city relinquished control did not revert to the previous ethic of all that the traffic would bear, and, of course, the profit to be made from large units at market rate changes daily. The city would have to make it clear that they had in mind some base point not constantly rising. We need to borrow PAHC's expertise to know what the market rate for 600 square foot rentals was in 2016, when they sold the Maybell acreage they had acquired for more than they paid for it. I also see a possibility of a non-profit association formed to amass small--($1,000 to $2,000) shares in affordable housing, loaned at no interest for a number of years, but with the stipulation that the owner's money could be returned on a day's notice, and a cadre of philanthropists formed who could guarantee that return policy. Once the mortgage was paid off, there could be interest paid. Sadly, I see equity share as a naive belief that our capitalistic system offers more in property rights than Communism, when if fact we have a cruel, mendacious and exploitative system of forcing property owners off property which has substantially appreciated, so that it may add to the valuable product to be sold to add to the capital stock and render taxes in a backlash of Prop 13., through the estate tax, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Uniform Building Code, and I also mistrust City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:00 PM 4 condominium ownership because of the possibility of majoritarian tyranny to force out poorer owners. In a condominium where I am an owner, for instance, the Board has obtained legislation empowering it to sell individual owners' property without a court order; they have decreed that owners must give up parking spaces previously earned by years of seniority, and demanded thousands of dollars worth of plumbing upgrades, ostensibly to save water, although the owner was not even living in the unit for most of the time, and they have forbidden smoking in the owner's own private non-shared property. Worst of all, they have forbidden rentals to new owners, which of course limits the sale value, and is probably not acceptable to the city, in view of the great shortage of rental units. Stephanie Munoz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:David Lin <dcflin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 10, 2018 7:37 PM To:McKernan, Gregory Cc:UTL-Customer Service; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Alinda Liu; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:Re: Notification for Underground Substructure Work and Utility Improvements Attachments:McKernan 03102018 Notification for Underground Substructure Work and Utility Improvements.pdf [cc City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, City Council, Vice Mayor, and Mayor ] Mr. McKernan, We live in 571 Glenbrook Drive, Palo Alto. Just today, 03/10/2018, we received the notification letter (attached) from you about the underground substructure work in mail. Can you please let us know more about the work? In particular, 1. When was this Above Ground Improvement proposal being announced to public (especially to the neighborhood getting impacted), reviewed, and agreed/approved? 2. When was the environmental evaluation/report being done for this Above Ground Improvement? Please share that report. 3. Exactly how many conduit and utility boxes will be installed in Glenbrook area?4. Exactly the locations of conduit and utility boxes to be installed? Please note that we would certainly like to know the details before the work gets started. It's obviously extremely inappropriate to notify us on the weekend and plan to start the construction work on Monday (03/12/2018) right away. Please make sure DO NOT start the construction work until this project is fully communicated with the neighborhood and agreed by the neighborhood. Meantime, we are in progress to engage lawyers and review this case if there is any wrongdoing from City of Palo Alto. Sincerely, - David Lin and Alinda Liu 571 Glenbrook Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:28 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Frankie Farhat <farhat_101@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 1:18 AM To:McKernan, Gregory Cc:City of Palo Alto Utilities; utilitiesCustomerService@citryofpalotoalto.com; Council, City; editor@paweekly.com; news@padailypost.com Subject:Letter re. Notification for Underground Substructure Work and Utility Improvements Attachments:PA Utilities letter.pdf Dear Mr. McKernan, I received today, Saturday March 10, the letter attached to this email. It notifies me of work that will start on Monday March 12 in my street. This gives me and my neighbors no time to react and to get factual and reliable information on the actual work that wil be done and the equipment that will be installed. I find these tactics appalling. You are trying to put us in front of a "fait accompli", and I think that you and whoever collaborated with you on this project and decided to give us this last minute notice should be put to shame! The letter lacks very important information, in particular what equipment will be installed where. All I know is that a very large number of orange markings appeared on the sidewalk of my street (the 500-block of Glenbrook) on Friday March 9. The letter shares how big the equipment will be: their size is equivalent to 2 large mail boxes (!!), in other words an eye sore and a guaranty to reduce the homes' curb appeal, ruin expensive landscaping investments, and dramatically reduce home values. Your project will have a great negative impact on our neighborhood, and you knew it. Or is the City going to compensate the unlucky homeowners and provide them with landscaping funds, given your anticipated savings? The letter states the intended benefits of this "upgrade", namely serviceability and extended lifespan. These benefits are solely for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. I have not experienced a single issue related to serviceability or reliability of your equipment in the 14 years I have lived here. I cannot think of any single upside for us, homeowners and residents. What concerns me more is safety: Having a huge electrical piece of equipment installed over-ground close to the sidewalk does not sound safe to me, certainly not as safe as having it under-ground. May I ask you how you and the City weigh your cost savings against our safety? Did you know that the 14 houses in the 500-block of Glenbrook Drive are all 15 years old, since they were all built around the same time? Based on this, I doubt that the underground equipment has actually reached its end of life and needs to be replaced. Signs indicate that no car can park on one side of the 500-block of Glenbrook drive for an entire month (3/10 through 4/6) due to your project. Did you know that the other side of that block is a "No Parking" zone? Where are we all supposed to park? Did anyone ever this of us, residents? Did you know that the Green Acres 1 streets were recently repaved (summer 2017) to give them a consistent and seamless appearance? I can only imagine the effect that your drilling will have onto this less-than-1-year- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:28 PM 3 old surface. If the city is looking for cost savings, may I suggest to look into communication between departments, planning and coordination? Last but not least, we need to review the legal aspect of your project and your communications (or lack thereof, until the very last minute). For now, I would like to urge you to hold off your project, and to answer these questions and any other questions you will receive from other Green Acres 1 residents, before anything happens. Sincerely, Frankie Farhat 566 Glenbrook Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Cell: 650-898-9585 email: farhat_101@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:28 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Dennis Kwok <dennis.kwok@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 8:42 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:McKernan, Gregory; UTL-Customer Service; UtilitiesCommunications; Council, City; Dennis Kwok; Frankie Farhat Subject:Re: Your Notification for Underground Substructure Work and Utility Improvements Dear Ed, Thanks for your quick response. In Gregory Mckernan's letter, he stated the said work will start tomorrow. Will such work be stopped now when you're addressing the issues? Dennis Kwok From: "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Dennis Kwok <dennis.kwok@sbcglobal.net> Cc: "McKernan, Gregory" <Gregory.McKernan@CityofPaloAlto.org>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@CityofPaloAlto.org>; UtilitiesCommunications <UtilitiesCommunications@CityofPaloAlto.org>; "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dennis Kwok <dkwok@comptia.org> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 8:24 PM Subject: Re: Your Notification for Underground Substructure Work and Utility Improvements Dear Mr. Kwok - My apology for the anxiety obviously caused by this letter. I will be discussing the issues with staff tomorrow morning and will respond with additional information as soon as available. Best regards, —Ed Shikada Assistant City Manager & General Manager of Utilities On Mar 11, 2018, at 8:07 PM, Dennis Kwok <dennis.kwok@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Mr. McKerman, On March 10, 2018, I received a letter, dated March 7, 2018 with mail stamp dated March 8, 2018, notifying me of utilities work that is scheduled to begin on Monday, March 12, 2018. In addition to a complete lack of notification for the neighborhood of such substantive work, there are a number of outstanding issues that have not been adequately addressed. 1. In this letter, it states that phase one of the underground substructure work and utility improvements would take one week, with phase two beginning in August. Why has parking in the 500 block of Glenbrook Drive been arbitrarily blocked off for an entire month? 2. Please provide reports substantiating the underground transformers are less effective and safe compared to above-ground equipment. 3. Please advise as to the exact number of aboveground transformers and switches and their exact locations. 4. Please advise on the useful life of the current underground equipment and provide substantiation for 50-year lifespan of the new equipment. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:28 PM 5 5. Please provide a detailed report on the work that is to be done, the interruption it may have to electric services, and other day-to day interruptions residents may face as a result of such work (ie. Including repaving streets). 6. Please advise why the Utilities department is determining to move underground utilities aboveground when the Utilities department has adopted RR17- Conversion of Electric and Communications Facilities Underground. Such substantive work, especially as it pertains to moving electrical equipment from below ground to above ground should allow for a thirty (30) day notification period to the residents of the neighborhoods affected and public hearings for feedback on the project. I strongly urge a delay of this work until all issues and concerns are adequately addressed. If work is to begin without further explanation, a preliminary injunction maybe sought collectively by the neighborhood. I, and the neighborhood, look forward to further communication from you and the Utilities Department. Best regards, Dennis Kwok 567 Glenbrook Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ ~ UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Engineering CI T Y OF .._•C,7 = , . PALO :: ,, .... 1. r _ ~·..; · ALTO S'"~- March 7, 2018 Re: Notification for Underground Substructure Work and Utility Improvements To Utility Customers: In the late 1970's the City of Palo Alto Utilities department (CPAU) undergrounded the overhead lines in the area east of Arastradero Rd, with the boundary streets of Los Palos Ave, Pomona Ave, and Glenbrook Dr, identified as Underground Utility District 15 (UUD15). The current equipment is reaching the end of its serviceable life and the utility, in order to continue to provide reliable service is rebuilding the electric system and bringing it up to current design standards. These improvements will include substructure work (new conduits, underground boxes, and equipment pads) and new electric equipment (cable, transformers and switches). With these system improvements the utility expects the new equipment to be in service for another 50 years. This project will take place in two phases. The first phase involves installing conduit and utility boxes along Glenbrook, north of Los Palos Ave to the end of the cul-de-sac. The second phase will entail installing additional utility substructures on Los Palos Ave, Pomona Ave, Fairmede Ave, and Los Palos Pl , replacing existing sidewalk vault covers, and installing new cable and padmount equipment,. Currently the transformers are located below ground in vaults under the sidewalk. In order to improve reliability, safety and capacity, it is necessary to bring this equipment above ground. Padmount equipment is safer to operate, and is more reliable. When the equipment is underground it is prone to reduced ventilation, chemical spills, and water, all of which contribute to a reduced lifespan of the equipment. Attached with this letter is a drawing showing the approximate size of the proposed equipment. The first phase of the project is expected to start March 12'h and last about one week while the second phase is projected to begin in August with an expected construction time of two-three weeks. If you have any questions or concerns about the project, or how it may impact you, please contact me. Thank you, Gregory McKernan PE Power Engineer 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 566-4575 Gregory.McKernan@cityofpaloalto.org c I tyOf Pa lo Al to .org I I' 1 '• • I , 11 • f i I f • rj • •h t1 I ( City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 7:01 AM To:Aram James Cc:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; timothygray@sbcglobal.net; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; stb_discussion@googlegroups.com; Council, City; Keene, James; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Rick Toker; HRC; Holman, Karen (external); tom.dubois@gmail.com; Kniss, Liz (internal); sdremann@paweekly.com; GSheyner@paweekly.com; dprice@padailypost.com; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com; hansen@bayareanewsgroup.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com Subject:Re: Palo Alto ( no surprise here) one the worse records in the county re providing affordable housing First off this illustrate the cursory research by fake news media like the Daily Post and its reporters... including the Weekly “The 2010 United States Census reported that Palo Alto had a population of 64,403” 30,500 vs 64,403 is one huge jump in numbers... So the entire article is questionable.... It’s....BTW....News you can get of the internet... Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 Sent from my iPad On Mar 12, 2018, at 11:33 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: State statistics show the cozy bedroom community, with a population of 30,500 and a median home value of $1.9 million, is one of the hardest Silicon Valley communities to build in. Overall, Los Gatos met about 41 percent of the state-determined housing need allocation goals between 2007 and 2014, trailing all but Saratoga and Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. See the link to the full article below mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=2c55c0b4e City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Leland Wiesner <lwiesner@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:33 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Request to Deny Cell towers in residential neighborhoods Dear City Council et. al. We are opposed to allowing Verizon and othetr telecom companies to install 109s of unsightly mini cell towers strapped to poles in our beautiful neighborhood. Please deny their request or recommend it to be underground. Thank you. Leland Wiesner 1144 Fife Ave Pa 650 248 1144 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 17:17 Subject: Update: Cell towers in residential neighborhoods To: <JFLEMING@metricus.net> Cc: <jnimkar@gmail.com>, <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Dear Neighbors, As you know, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) will be holding a hearing this Thursday morning, March 15th , to consider Verizon’s latest plans to install its first wave of cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. If you haven’t already done so, we hope you will email the ARB (arb@cityofpaloalto.org) and ask them to deny approval to the proposed cell towers unless Verizon’s designs a) call for all the equipment except the antenna to be located completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances. Please send a copy of your email to City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) and the City Clerk (city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org). City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 1:34 PM 2 Also, we hope you will, if you possibly can, attend the March 15th hearing. We will be meeting in the lobby of City Hall (250 Hamilton Avenue) at 8:15 a.m., and we can assure you that your presence will make a difference (at public hearings like this, we are told, the depth of support really matters). By the way, cell towers are the first item on the ARB’s agenda, so we expect to get started at 8:30 (i.e., no waiting). Finally: According to an article in the March 3rd New York Times, “telecommunications companies— hoping to cash in on what is predicted to be 250 billion in annual service revenue from 5G [the current massive deployment of cell towers in cities and towns] by 2025—are pushing to build the system as quickly and cheaply as possible.” (The bolding is ours.) “Cheaply” is exactly how Verizon is proposing to build out its network in Palo Alto: with big antennas that are cheaper for them than smaller ones, and with hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy ancillary equipment that is cheaper for them to place above ground than below. Littering our residential neighborhoods with unsightly, cheap and hazardous equipment is what we are fighting against. (If you’re interested, you can find the entire New York Times article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html .) Thank you very much for your consideration. We hope you will email the ARB in the next few days, and we hope you can join us on the morning of March 15th. Thanks again, Jeanne, Jerry & Jyo for United Neighbors City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Morton <jwalmort@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Rd. The traffic calming plan for Ross Rd. may have looked good on paper, but as it has been built out it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. Was this a lot of money spent on a soution to a problem that did't exist ? Jeff Morton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:23 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Samuel Chang <changsn@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Roundabout Ross/E Meadow Just wanted to find out your response to the petition to stop the roundabout at Ross/E Meadow. Seems like  overwhelming neighborhood response to what appears to be a poorly designed project. As a biker and resident, I think  this is a huge waste of money. Hopefully you are listening to your constituents and doing something about this  catastrophe.    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    Virus-free. www.avast.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:03 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 3:32 PM To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Perron, Zachary; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; council@redwoodcity.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; cbolanos@co.sanmateo.ca.us; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Social Justice and Public Interest Happenings: March 12 - 16, 2018 Click here Having trouble viewing this email? March 12 ‐ 16, 2018 HENDERSON CENTER  Henderson Center Workshop   ENDING HABITS OF WHITE SUPREMACY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION   w/Dia Penning, Racial Equity & Diversity Workshop Facilitator, World Trust  Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 4:00 ‐ 6:30 PM in 215‐B Boalt Hall (Dean's Seminar Room)    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:03 PM 2 No matter our race, politics, or intentions, everyone in the legal community is exposed to white  supremacy. What do we do with this exposure? Ignore it? Internalize it? Check out? Together  we'll practice seeing, naming, and responding to (sometimes unconscious) habits of white  supremacy in law, law school, and lawyering. Using the mind, body, heart, dialogue,  storytelling, and analysis, we'll dive (or dip toes) into personalized, transformational race work.  Join us. All are welcome. Co‐sponsored by Coalition for Diversity at Berkeley Law, Berkeley Law  Muslim Student Association, Law Students of African Descent, and Women of Color Collective  at Berkeley Law. Dinner will be served. RSVP here.     Henderson Center Co‐sponsored Event  CITY OF INMATES: CONQUEST, REBELLION, AND THE RISE OF HUMAN CAGING  IN LOS ANGELES, 1771‐196   w/Kelly Lytle Hernández, Professor of History and African American Studies, UCLA  Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 4:00 ‐ 5:30 PM in 290 Hearst Memorial Mining Building     Come and hear Professor Kelly Lytle Hernández share from her latest book, City of Inmates:  Conquest, Rebellion, and the Rise of Human Caging in Los Angeles, 1771‐1965. Los Angeles  incarcerates more people than any other city in the United States, which imprisons more people  than any other nation on Earth. City of Inmates explains how the City of Angels became the  capital city of the world's leading incarcerator. Marshaling more than two centuries of evidence,  historian Hernández unmasks how histories of native elimination, immigrant exclusion, and  black disappearance drove the rise of incarceration in Los Angeles. In this telling, which spans  from the Spanish colonial era to the outbreak of the 1965 Watts Rebellion, Hernández  documents the persistent historical bond between the racial fantasies of conquest, namely its  settler colonial form, and the eliminatory capacities of incarceration. Hosted by the Center for  Research on Social Change, part of the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues and co‐ sponsored with Department of History, Townsend Center for the Humanities, and Division of  Equity and Inclusion, UC Berkeley.     Henderson Center Ruth Chance Lecture Series  BEYOND INCARCERATION: A LAWYER'S ROLE IN DISRUPTING THE CARCERAL  STATE    w/Sonja Tonnesen '13, Deputy Director of Program Innovation & Strategic  Partnerships, Root & Rebound   Thursday, March 15, 2018, 12:45 ‐ 2:00 PM in 134 Boalt Hall     Sonja Tonnesen (Class of 2013, Berkeley Law) is deputy director of Root & Rebound, an  Oakland organization increasing access to justice and opportunity for people in reentry from  prison and jail. Her goal is to elevate voices, shine light in dark places, and democratize the law  for people, families, and communities impacted by what she calls "America's criminally unjust  systems." She'll outline the biggest challenges to successful reentry, and she'll talk about how  she became a social entrepreneur right after law school (including what she needed to learn and  unlearn). RSVP here.       Henderson Center Co‐sponsored Event  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:03 PM 3 A SYMPOSIUM HONORING PROFESSOR FRANKLIN ZIMRING   Friday, March 16, 2018, 8:00 AM ‐ 4:00 PM at the Bancroft Hotel    The Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law invites you to attend a symposium in honor of Franklin E.  Zimring's 75th birthday. The symposium will feature speakers who have worked with and been  influenced by Professor Zimring over the course of his career. They will be present on a variety  of criminal justice issues, including capital punishment, mass incarceration, gun control, and  juvenile justice. Breakfast and lunch will be provided. The symposium will be followed by a  reception. RSVP here.       20TH ANNUAL TRINA GRILLO PUBLIC INTEREST AND SOCIAL JUSTICE RETREAT  "Advocating for Change: The Different Roles We Each Play to Improve Our Communities"  Friday, March 16, 2018 & Saturday, March 17, 2018 at USF School of Law (San Francisco,  CA)     The Trina Grillo Retreat is a unique opportunity for public interest and social justice‐oriented  law students, faculty, and practitioners to forge an alliance by exchanging viewpoints, exploring  career opportunities, and formulating strategies for social justice. This year's theme,  "Advocating for Change: The Different Roles We Each Play to Improve Our Communities."  Berkeley Law has been allocated ten registration spots for this retreat.    EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION  BIG WEEK presents: IMMIGRATION DETENTION 101   Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 1:00 ‐ 2:00 PM in 130 Boalt Hall      Come learn about the immigration detention system from attorneys and advocates from  Pangea Legal Services in San Francisco. This panel is a part of Berkeley Immigration Group's  week of fundraising to launch a new immigration bond fund. Donate to the bond fund directly  on Venmo (@BerkeleyBIG) or pledge to donate a day of pay here. BIG Week is sponsored  by: Berkeley Immigration Group, Asian American Law Journal (AALJ), Asian Pacific American  Law Student Association (APALSA), Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law (BJCL), California Asylum  Representation Clinic (CARC), International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), La Raza Law  Students Association, Post‐Conviction Advocacy Project (PCAP), Women of Berkeley Law  (WOBL), and Café Zeb.    IRAP ON THE GROUND: REPORT ON REFUGEES IN JORDAN  Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 12:45 ‐ 2:00 pm in 170 Boalt Hall    Join IRAP to hear about students' experiences on their recent trip to Jordan with IRAP National.  There will be a short panel discussion, followed by a Q&A. IRAP Berkeley will also be releasing  our annual report on the chapter and trip. Lunch provided on a first come, first served basis.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:03 PM 4 Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, UC Berkeley School of Law, 897 Simon Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 SafeUnsubscribe™ abjpd1@gmail.com Forward This Email to a Friend | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by henderson.center@law.berkeley.edu in collaboration with Try it free today City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Lum <rlum.mail@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:19 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Stop VERIZON CELL TOWERS Dear ARB,    Please stop the deployment of the VERIZON CELL TOWERS.  Unfortunately, I cannot attend the March 15, 2018 meeting,  as I do have to work so I can live in this great city.  Please keep it great and the aesthetics do matter!!  Verizon can  underground the boxes eliminating noise and unsightly boxes.  As a long time resident of Barron Park, we want to  underground ALL utilities and it would be a short sighted decision to allow VERIZON to put towers and antennas up.   Stop this nonsense and keep Palo Alto a place that people WANT to live and work.    Robert Lum  Barron Park   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Foster <susan.foster04@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 1:02 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Strongly Oppose Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 Attachments:Palo Alto Wireless Project 17PLN 031018.docx; FCC Comments Firefighter Study 2013.pdf Please see attached letter and FCC filing.    Thank you,    Susan Foster    1 FCC 13-39 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Reassessment of Federal Communications ) ET Docket No. 13-84 Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and ) Policies ) ) Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules ) ET Docket No. 03-137 Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency ) Electromagnetic Fields ) ) To: Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 Comment Filed by: Susan D. Foster, MSW 15957 Avenida Calma Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091 susan.foster04@gmail.com 858 756-3532 September 2, 2013 2 AFFIDAVIT OF Susan D. Foster, MSW State of California ] San Diego County ] I, Susan D. Foster, MSW, attest that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge. Comment round for FCC ET Docket No. 13-84 and ET Docket No. 03-137 1. My name is Susan D. Foster, MSW. My address is 15957 Avenida Calma, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091. 2. I am a medical writer and the organizer of a brain study of California firefighters exposed to RF radiation from a cell tower adjacent to their fire station of over 5 years. 3. In 2004 I organized a pilot study of California firefighters who worked up to ninety (90) hours per week in fire stations with cell towers in close proximity to the two (2) stations where the firefighters work, eat, and sleep. The men were experiencing profound neurological symptoms following activation of the towers in 1999. 4. The symptoms experienced by the firefighters, all of whom had passed rigorous physical and cognitive exams prior to being hired by the fire department, included but were not limited to the following: headaches, extreme fatigue, sleep disruption, anesthesia-like sleep where the men woke up for 911 calls “as if they were drugged”, inability to sleep, depression, anxiety, unexplained anger, getting lost on 911 calls in the town they grew up in, a twenty (20) year medic forgetting basic CPR in the midst of resuscitating a coronary victim, immune-suppression manifest in frequent colds and flu-like symptoms. 5. The neurological testing and SPECT scans [single-photon emission computed tomography] of the brain were conducted by Gunnar Heuser, MD, PhD and J. Michael Uszler, MD. All six (6) firefighters were found to have brain abnormalities on SPECT scan. The doctors thought they would find areas of limited function in the brain based on the 3 symptomatology. Instead, they found a pervasive, hyper-excitability of the neurons which suggested the exposure to RF (microwave) radiation was causing the neurons to continually fire, without rest. RF radiation appeared to act as a constant stimulant even when the men were away from the station, and in repose. The SPECT scans were considered abnormal in all 6 firefighters. 6. Cognitive function, reaction time, and impulse control were measured objectively using T.O.V.A. testing [Test of Variables of Attention]. In all six (6) firefighters, impairment was found with cognitive function, reaction time and impulse control. Three (3) of the six (6) firefighters were captains. The captain on each shift is in charge of making life altering decisions for all firefighters and potential victims. They order firefighters into a burning building, and conversely, they order them out before a roof may collapse, for example. Impairment of all three critical functions could cost firefighters and the community they serve either life or limb. 7. The testing was conducted in 2004. The cell towers are in place at the two (2) fire stations where the test subjects work for the duration of a twenty-two (22) year lease. The men we tested have remained at the stations as this is the only work they know in the only community they have ever lived in. One (1) of the six (6) men tested did move to another department after his wife gave birth to to a boy who was diagnosed with Autism at age 2. This was the first live birth experienced by the “firefighter family” at this department since activation of the tower three (3) years earlier. 8. I have followed up with the firefighters who report continued symptoms as described in paragraph 4. Additionally, all firefighters report profound memory loss. 9. Two (2) of the firefighters, men we did not test in the pilot study but men who were exposed to RF radiation from the cell tower since their installation and activation in 1999, have gone out on psychiatric disability. This is almost unheard of among firefighters. The diagnosis was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for one firefighter; he went out on an emergency run, and simply stopped talking after he returned to the station. The second 4 firefighter suffered an apparent break with reality. This occurred in the fire station when he returned following a short term disability for an unrelated injury. This break with reality was followed by an abrupt collapse and loss of consciousness. Because two (2) women have suffered strokes while in the fire station with the towers fully activated, Vascular Spasm Stroke (VSS) is suspected as a possible cause by Dr. Heuser and myself of having caused not only the strokes, but it is suspected in the potentially inaccurate diagnoses of the two (2) “psychiatric” cases among the firefighters. If not treated with rest and supplemental oxygen, it is possible for some VSS patients to have difficulty regaining speech and full cognitive abilities. This may be a case of misdiagnosis by the treating physicians who were unfamiliar with the potential of cell towers to create thermal effects well under the FCC limit of 1,000 uW/cm2, thus heating blood in the brain and inducing VSS. Further study of these men is imperative. 10. What is particularly germane to the critical decisions the FCC is currently facing regarding RF safety guidelines is the fact the FCC currently allows 1,000 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2) as an emission standard from cell towers. Yet all the symptoms attributed by the firefighters, as well as measurable brain and central nervous system abnormalities described above, occurred within close proximity to a cell tower measured at between 1 - 2 uW/cm2 by Peter Sierck, BBEC, CEO of Environmental Testing & Technology in Encinitas, CA. Thus the emissions from towers were measured at approximately 1/1000th to 1/500th of the FCC’s allowable limit. “Hot spots” of reflected radiation were measured at 15 and 30 uW/cm2, yet these “hot spots” were still a fraction of what the FCC allows. Therefore, I strongly suggest the FCC is not basing its standards on biological effects by taking into consideration non-thermal effects, but rather physics with respect to the belief only thermal effects can be deleterious. The FCC must recognized the principles of physics do not protect the brains and central nervous systems of the strongest among us, our firefighters. 11. The failure to protect our populations based on biological effects of exposure to RF (microwave) radiation at non-thermal levels is an inherent shortcoming of the current FCC policy with respect to cell tower emissions and cell phone absorption. The adverse biological 5 impact of these exposures are grossly underestimated. The FCC does not have independent science that can justify the massive exposure to RF radiation that currently exists from cell towers and cell phones. The story told by our small pilot study of firefighters in California should be a warning with respect to the current failure to recognize harmful neurological impact of non-thermal levels of RF radiation. 12. Based on the neurological abnormalities Dr. Heuser and I found in the firefighters, including hyper-excitability of the neurons which can results in cell death and consequent neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s Disease and ALS, I urge the FCC to reflect on the gravity of the decision facing you now, and I implore all Commissioners to reduce the allowable level of RF radiation immediately, and to not only recognize the adverse health effects from non-thermal levels of RF radiation, but to actively and aggressively protect and education the general public through policy change and PSAs. 13. Finally, the FCC is not a health agency, yet it is entrusted with making decisions that impact the health of every American, including the unborn and those who cannot – through inability or lack of knowledge of the issues and dangers at hand – speak for themselves. Many consumers are encouraged through industry advertising to believe that their children will be disadvantaged if they do not have the latest wireless technology. Given the most recent culling of science in the BioInitiative Report 2012, this reckless promotion without any proof of safety puts them and their progeny at risk for neurological, immunological and reproductive harm. Furthermore, the “revolving door”-culture between the FCC and the telecommunications industry works against the best interest of consumers’ health and safety. Both the FCC and the industry reach for a common refrain to hang on to their egregiously high regulatory limits which the FCC tries to pass off as “safety limits”, but clearly they are not. That refrain tells the public time and again that “there is a lack of scientific consensus about the adverse health effects” at exposure levels at or below the existing FCC limits. No, there is not a true lack of consensus. There is a flagrant disregard by the FCC for excellent, peer review science showing adverse health effects at less than 1% of what the FCC allows. Even if this were not the case, when have we determined everyone must be on the same side, the same page, before precautionary approaches are implemented? Did we 6 wait for this 100% accord on the science regarding DDT? No, if we had done that, Dow Chemical would never have agreed their product was dangerous and the world would be a less safe place than it is now. The same argument can be used for tobacco. It is past time for the FCC to lean toward the side of protecting human life rather than telecommunications industry profits. I contend a true Precautionary Approach would be both efficient and practical. It would protect human life, the quality of those lives, prevent disease, enhance the opportunity for human potential by not insidiously eroding our greatest natural resource – the human brain, and it would keep health care costs down. I implore the FCC to recognize that six (6) out of six (6) SPECT brain scans were abnormal for the firefighter subjects, and they are the strongest of the strong among us. Respectfully submitted by Susan D. Foster, MSW 15957 Avenida Calma Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091 September 2, 2013 Susan D. Foster, MSW (Electronically submitted) Susan D. Foster _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15957 Avenida Calma Rancho Santa Fe, California 92091 susan.foster04@gmail.com March 11, 2018 City Council of Palo Alto Re: Strongly Oppose Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org City.Clerk@cityofpaloalto.org arb@cityofpaloalto.org Dear City Council Members: I respectfully oppose Verizon’s proposal for in excess of 90 small cell installations in the public right of way, known as Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 and scheduled for hearings on March 15, 2018. You will have the opportunity to evaluate the potential costs and benefits to the City of Palo Alto and its residents. I have great concern about the health and safety of your residents if this project goes forward. This concern is based on my experience organizing a brain study of firefighters exposed to a 2G cell tower on their station in Central California for over five (5) years. This was a pilot study of six (6) firefighters. We found brain damage in all six firefighters consistent with RF exposure. As a result of this study, as well as adverse neurological symptoms experienced by a number of firefighters throughout the state who have lived and worked in the shadow of cell towers, the firefighters of California were granted an exemption from having these small cells on their fire stations. This exemption was written into both AB 57 and SB 649, bills designed to bypass local control with respect to small cell expansion. SB 649 was vetoed by Gov. Brown on October 15, 2017, amidst growing concern from citizens as well as the League of Cities. BACKGROUND RE. FIREFIGHTER EXEMPTION In 2001 I was asked by San Diego firefighters to write appeals when cell towers were permitted for their stations. I began hearing more and more stories of firefighters who literally could not function in the job that clearly establishes firefighters as the guardians of society. Once cell towers were activated on or adjacent to their stations, the affected firefighters could no longer function without severe headaches, inability to sleep, and foggy thinking. These are not symptoms we wish to see in our First Responders. In 2004 I organized a SPECT brain scan pilot study of firefighters who has been exposed to a cell tower on their station for over five years. As stated above, we found brain abnormalities in all firefighters tested. Attached is my filing with the FCC detailing this study. In 2004 I co-authored Resolution 15 which was passed overwhelmingly by the International Association of Firefighters. Res. 15 urging a moratorium on the placement of cell towers on fire stations in the US and Canada. I then helped the Los Angeles IAFF locals as they aligned with law enforcement unions to fight FirstNET cell towers on their stations. I am currently aware of a brain tumor cluster in a California fire station with a wireless hub next door to their station. There is a solid history of these men and women becoming ill in close proximity to cell towers. There are human and financial costs associated, and the Palo Alto City Council needs to hear their story. The symptoms experienced by the firefighters who participated in the SPECT brain scan study were similar to firefighters in other stations who live in the shadow of cell towers. Yet specific to the men we studied, it is important to note all the men had passed rigorous physical and cognitive exams prior to being hired by the fire department. Their symptoms included: • headaches • extreme fatigue • cognitive impairment • anesthesia-like sleep where the men woke up for 911 calls “as if they were drugged” • inability to sleep • depression • anxiety • unexplained anger • immune-suppression manifest in frequent colds and flu-like symptoms Real life examples of these symptoms are best briefly characterized by: 1) Firefighters got lost on 911 calls in the town they grew up on several occasions. 2) In one instance, four firefighters sat in the rig in a stupor with the alarm sounding in the background, unable to remember how to start the engine. 3) A medic with 20 years of experience who had never made a mistake forgot basic CPR in the midst of resuscitating a coronary victim. The brain scans of these six men revealed both an over-stimulation in some areas of the brain, and a lack of perfusion, or blood flow, in others. The over-stimulation or “hyper-excitability” of the neurons suggested the exposure to RF (microwave) radiation was causing the neurons to continually fire without benefit of rest. When neurons cannot rest, they ultimately die. Alternately, there were other areas of the brain that should have been active, yet there was evidence of diminished blood flow suggesting impaired function. A MESSAGE FROM FIREFIGHTERS FOR LOCALITIES The firefighters’ most important lesson to us may be that if we allow a buildout of small cell aimed at facilitating 5G such that they are as commonplace in front of homes and schools as they are now on fire stations, we may be facing not only an immediate risk of impairment to some degree, but later a tsunami of Alzheimer’s and dementia. The rate of people dying from Alzheimer's disease in the United States rose by 55% over a 15-year period according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control. Clearly the state legislators honored the sacrifice of California’s firefighters and were concerned about the health risks they face from cell towers, having granted an exemption to them from small cells through AB 57 and SB 649. Yet firefighters are the strongest of the strong. What does that imply for the rest of us? The firefighters with their fire station exemption from AB 57 and SB 649 are here to remind us your local decision is not just about cell towers. It is about our future. Are we going to be persuaded by 5G propelled driverless cars and appliances being connected to our smartphones? Please understand this is an immense gamble. 5G has never been tested on humans. Respectfully, /s/ Susan Foster SUSAN FOSTER U.S. Adviser, Radiation Research Trust Honorary Firefighter, San Diego Fire Department Medical Writer Attachment City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:DP Purchases <orders.dp@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 9:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support Bike Blvd and Bike Safety projects - DO NOT CUT funding Dear Palo Alto City Council, As you consider financial cuts necessary to balance the budget please stay committed to Palo Alto’s commitment as a Bike-friendly 🚲 city and continue to prioritize the important bicycle and safety projects we all hold so dear. Our future depends on cleaner, healthier ways to commute! I strongly support bike boulevard funding and improvements to bicycle infrastructure. Thank you for all you do, Daja Phillips - 450 Sequoia Ave 650.485.3252 Carefully pecked out on my handheld. This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential and proprietary information and is intended for a specific purpose for specific recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, kindly advise me of the inadvertent error. In addition, please delete this message. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Morse <rsmorse@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org Subject:Support for Bike Infrastructure Hello ‐    My name is Richard Morse, I live with my wife and three children (16, 14 and 8 years old) at the southern edge of Palo  Alto. Having moved here 6 years ago, and as an avid cyclist, I have been extremely impressed with the bike  infrastructure here and delighted by the recognition of the city as a Gold Status Bike Friendly Community. As a council  you should be pleased with your efforts!    I am writing to support the 2018 plans for additional build out of bike lanes and improvements for bike (and pedestrian)  safety. Two of my children ride their bikes every day to school (Terman and Gunn). Both also ride all over the city to visit  friends, get to Palo Alto Children’s Theater, shop, and work. I ride at least 100 miles per week for fitness, and my wife  and youngest child ride recreationally. We are situated a block from the Miller/Wilkie bike route, and we enjoy easy  access to all the rest of Palo Alto from our home. Many weekends we rarely use our cars; we bike to eat, to the  California Ave farmer’s market, to the library, and to the pool.    As a family, we all welcome any and all ongoing efforts to continue to improve bike infrastructure and safety. Efforts to  enhance Bryant, East Meadow and Louis Rd in particular will ease our bike travel to some of the places we want to ride  to most. In addition, I urge you to review the Charleston/Arastradero and El Camino intersection. This is a major  intersection on a hugely popular school bike route, and not only do all bike lanes end and dump riders into traffic at the  intersection, but also the road is in terrible condition. This is one place where some additional efforts to improve the  infrastructure would have, I believe, a disproportionate positive impact. Check it out for yourself!    Thank you for your attention.     Richard Morse  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:27 PM Subject:The April issue of the Palo Alto VOTER Attachments:April 2018 VOTER .pdf The Palo Alto VOTER  The April 2018 issue is attached as a PDF. Please save this to your desktop and enjoy! -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 LWVPA !2 April, 2018 Message from our President Jeannie Lythcott Voter Services Megan Swezey Fogarty & Lynne Russell Membership Lisa Ratner Advocacy Maureen O’Kicki Program/Events Organizer Sue Hermsen VOTER Editor David Springer Voter’s Edge Ellen Smith Board Development Chair Bonnie Packer President president@lwvpaloalto.org Aisha Piracha-Zakariya 1st Vice President Ellen Forbes 2nd Vice President, Communications, Webmaster Karen Kalinsky Secretary, Collaborations Co-chair Steve Levy Treasurer, Housing and Transportation Chair Diane Rolfe Edu. Co-chair and Collaborations Co-Chair Sigrid Pinsky Edu. Co-chair Veronica Tincher New Voices for Youth Valerie Stinger Budget Chair Mindy Anderson Facebook Admin. Mary Jo Levy League Presentations Liza Taft Voter Reg., VOTER Distribution Mary Alice Thornton Fundraising Chair Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Civic Savvy Chair Kathy Miller Voter Services Co-Chair Tory Bers Publicity/Media Paula Collins Auditor Nominating Committee Chris Logan, Chair Nancy Smith Ellen Springer Lynne Russell Ellen Smith LWV of Palo Alto: Officers, Directors, Off-Board Roster (650) 903-0600, www.lwvpaloalto.org OFF-BOARDDIRECTORSOFFICERS Our community is fortunate to have such an amazing League of Women Voters. I am constantly being inspired by the energy, creativity, thoughtfulness and dedication of the members of your board and off- board. They are the ones, with your help, who make our League so strong. We do so much because so much needs to be done. Voter Services – the core of our League - is busy at the high schools registering teens to vote. They are also beginning to gear up for the June primary; getting ready for pros and cons on ballot measures, candidates forums, and learning how to use Voters’ Edge. There is a lot to do and your help is always appreciated. Advocacy – our other important arm – is busy locally following and commenting on the actions of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission as they review various important proposals and ordinances to help increase the supply of affordable housing. We have also been before the Human Relations Commission supporting a proposed ordinance to address discrimination against women – inspired by CEDAW (United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women). Advocacy is also busy helping with the all-important effort to collect signatures for the Prop 13 Reform initiative for the Schools and Communities First Campaign. Please see p.6 for info on how you can help. Our League also participated in the annual Legislative Interviews with Assemblyman Marc Berman and Senator Jerry Hill. See p.4 for a summary of the Marc Berman interview. Programs and Events: These are amazing in their scope and impact. Recently, Julie Lythcott -Haims gave a most moving talk from her recent book, What it Means to Be Black and American, on February 20. Then Chris Field, Director of the Stanford Woods Institute, hosted a fascinating webinar on Food Production and Carbon Emissions. (See pictures on p.3) Upcoming is an event with Berkeley Law School Dean Chemerinsky on the First Amendment, at the Media Center on March 27 and a not-to-be missed panel, co-sponsored with the Palo Alto Council of PTAs at Paly on April 9, titled How Do We Know What Is True Anymore?– put together by our Civic Savvy Committee. See front page for more info. Thanks to those of you who attended a productive Program Planning event in January. This event helps us plan how to focus our energies in the next League year. You will vote on the issues for emphasis recommended by the Board at our Annual Meeting on May 12, where you will also vote on next year’s leadership and the budget. Please be sure this is on your calendar. As our League grows in membership, we are working to ensure that our Board and Off-Board are organized effectively to do what needs to be done. We also are dependent on your generosity, so please respond with a donation during our LAT campaign. Thanks again for all you do, for our community, our nation, and our world. Bonnie Packer LWVPA !3 April, 2018 Your Board •Ratified an email vote to approve a letter to City Council in support of the Housing Work Plan, sent on 2/5/18 •Ratified an email vote to approve a letter to Planning & Transportation Commission in support of an Affordable Housing zoning overlay, sent on 2/10/18 •Ratified an email vote to approve a letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors asking them to support a proposal to create and fund a plan to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment (women’s right to vote), sent via email on 2/22/18 •Ratified an email vote to have Packer delegate Lisa Ratner read a letter at the Human Relations Commission on behalf of LWVPA in support of an ordinance reflecting the intent of CEDAW (UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) on 2/8/18 •Approved a Motion to add additional faith-based organizations to the list of potential “publicity only” co-sponsors of our events, which would be vetted by the Collaborations and Community Outreach Committee and contacted as appropriate on an event-by-event basis •Approved a Motion to refer to County Council the question of what the Santa Clara County Leagues should consider doing as an educational event regarding the recall of Judge Persky •Approved a Motion to join the LWV of California campaign to gather signatures to get the “California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2018” (reform of Prop. 13) on the November ballot •Accepted the Program Planning report: i. to be sent to the LWVUS; ii. to be sent to the Bay Area LWV; and iii. issues for emphasis to be submitted to the LWVPA membership for approval at the Annual Meeting. Discussed •A reminder from the Board Development Committee about League rules for board members regarding political or partisan activity •Ideas from the Board Development Committee on reorganizing our board’s structure, which will be presented as a proposal at the March board meeting •Planning for an LWVPA 80th anniversary event and a social event for new board/old board members after the Annual Meeting. Learned •About an April 9th event organized by our Civic Savvy Committee and co-sponsored by the Palo Alto PTA Council about practical tips on how to evaluate the integrity of information •That the Education Committee will be looking for volunteers to help gather signatures for the “California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2018” •About the continuing efforts of the Voter Services team to register teens at Palo Alto and Gunn High Schools and local independent schools, as well as our unhoused citizens. Karen Kalinsky, Secretary Board Meeting Highlights - February, 2018 LWVPA Hosts a Variety of Speakers LWVPA hosted two more thought-provoking and informative events in recent weeks. Author Julie Lythcott-Haims spoke to a full room at the Palo Alto Art Center in February about race in America. In March, Director Chris Field of the Stanford Woods Insitute spoke on Food Production and the Environment at a lunchtime event at the PCC. Special thanks to Maureen O’Kicki for arranging for such engaging speakers. Left: Julie Lythcott-Haims at the PA Art Center Above: Chris Field at the PCC City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 11, 2018 11:49 AM To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; council@redwoodcity.org; dpine@smcgov.org; dprice@padailypost.com; bos@smcgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; stephanie@dslextreme.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Perron, Zachary; HRC; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; stephenedwardjessen@gmail.com; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; dryan@scscourt.org; aflint@scscourt.org; Keene, James; mharris@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; grchippendale@yahoo.com; seanchiba650@gmail.com; paloaltolife@gmail.com; cbolanos@co.sanmateo.ca.us; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); Arcelia.Gutierrez@pdo.sccgov.org; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; jsylva@da.sccgov.org Subject:The Race-Based Mortgage Penalty https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/mortage-minority-income.html Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 7:55 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:redress.of.grievance@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:06 AM To:Dave Price; allison@padailypost.com; Council, City; Keith, Claudia; gsheyner@paweekly.com; sdremann@paweekly.com; Stump, Molly; Watson, Ron; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; timothygray@sbcglobal.net; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; jeramygordon@me.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; Keene, James; Reifschneider, James; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; HRC; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; James Aram; Jonsen, Robert Subject:The Russians have landed in Palo Alto Mr. Price:     Why did you not play by the Federal rules of court conduct when you shut our site down PaloAltoFreePress.com for  alleged copyright infringement under title 17 Digital Millennial Copy Right Act.     You failed by not filing an order of cease and desist.      You proved your false claims by not doing so Mr. Price.  It drives the point home and illustrates trueness of your Fake  News Media and your vindictiveness to shut down a minority newspaper..    Mark Petersen‐Perez  Editor: Palo Alto Free Press  Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮     Sent from my iPad    > On Mar 13, 2018, at 8:40 AM, redress.of.grievance@gmail.com wrote:  >   >   > And Putin will be picketing your Fake News Media offices in the near future...  >   > <image1.jpeg>  >   >   >   >   > Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 6:37 AM To:vinnyraylarkin@yahoo.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; bwarchangelmichael@gmail.com; Council, City; edmeko@gmail.com; jspradling@yahoo.com; seelam22@yahoo.com; williamfok86@gmail.com; nravi.desai@gmail.com; leila_reddy@hotmail.com; andrewreddy6@gmail.com; Marshall Childs; skundurs@gmail.com Subject:Tweet by Sea-Seelam Reddy on Twitter Sea-Seelam Reddy (@SealamReddy) 3/8/18, 06:22 Palo Alto inspiring women Liz Niss Condi Rice Karen Holman Gail Price @cityofpaloalto @SenFeinstein @KamalaHarris @ABCPolitics @CNNPolitics @NBCPolitics @SFGate @mercnews @JerryBrownGov #WomensDay2018 pic.twitter.com/0xvfuY7Aau Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Claudia <claudiaegriffin@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 8:16 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon   Dear ARB,  I am writing to you to request that you deny approval of the Verizon cell towers in Palo Alto residential neighborhoods ,  due to their appearance, noise and possible harmful effects.  Please keep our city a place where we want to live.  Best regards,  Claudia  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:59 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, March 10, 2018 10:07 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon cell nodes Dear Architectural Review Board, My name is Francesca Kautz and I have lived for over 50 years in Palo Alto, the last 32 of which have been in the same house in the cluster 1 neighborhood. I am very concerned about the ugliness of the cell nodes, the noise, safety and impossibility of under grounding our utilities. If Verizon wants to increase their network coverage and capacity by locating their wireless communication facilities closer to the user, they must put their cellular networks underground. Putting them on the telephone poles will make under grounding our utilities impossible. There is nothing small about the 200 pound small cells and they do not minimize visual impact to the existing surroundings. They do not blend in the neighborhood, but stick out like sore thumbs, make noise and may negatively impact public health, safety and welfare. Once a site is erected, Verizon can go back and increase its size provided that the changes do not exceed federal standards. There are many city-owned structures, commercial and industrial buildings in Palo Alto where Verizon can rent space for their nodes and not destroy our neighborhoods. Verizon has demonstrated a lack of consideration for the surrounding environment and will make our neighborhoods aesthetically unpleasing. The cell nodes are visually intrusive and not architecturally compatible in any way with the neighborhood. It is not fair that while Verizon is generating $60 billion in profit per quarter, we homeowners get to foot the bill to have our neighborhoods destroyed and are liable should a telephone pole with a cell node on it cause damage or hurt someone in an earthquake or fire. I don’t think that Verizon should scare us into believing that we need these small cells in case of an emergency. The systems we currently have in place work fine and cell phone coverage in our neighborhood is good. Many of the benefits the wireless industry extols can be obtained using current LTE-based technologies and the primary use of small cells is mobile video. I am also concerned that in an earthquake the bayonet placed on the top of the telephone pole may fall down and spear someone. (See photos below.) Has the seismic performance of these configurations been tested on earthquake shaking tables? Please deny Verizon’s request to put the cell nodes in our residential neighborhoods, as they are ugly, noisy, dangerous and threaten under grounding of our utilities in the future. Thank you, Francesca Kautz P.S. Top 10 Things the Wireless Industry Doesn’t Tell You about Small Cells: http://www.steelintheair.com/Blog/2017/04/top-10-things-the-wireless-industry-doesnt-tell-you-about-small-cells.html City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:59 PM 2 Photos taken in front of 179 Lincoln Ave.: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:59 PM 3 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/14/2018 8:01 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:07 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon cell tower review by ARB Dear Architectural Review Board members:         I am aware of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) upcoming hearing this Thursday morning, March 15th, to  consider Verizon’s latest plans to install its first wave of cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods.  It is out of  concern for neighborhood aesthetics, home values and noise in Palo Alto that I am asking you to deny approval to the  proposed cell towers unless Verizon’s designs call for all the equipment except the antenna to be located completely  underground and comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances.     Thank you for your consideration.    Regards,    ‐Phil Coulson    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 4:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gina Craig <gcraigx@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 12, 2018 3:56 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon cell towers To whom it may concern, I am writing out of concern regarding Verizon's plsn to install cell towers in our neighborhoods. Please, please deny approval to the proposed cell towers unless Verizon’s design calls for all of the equipment (except the antenna) to be located completely underground and complies with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances. thank you! Sincerely, Gina Craig Old Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:23 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Video of the type of near-miss happening every day https://stoprossroadchanges.wordpress.com/ -- George Jaquette email: jaquette@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/12/2018 3:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:ken3lee@gmail.com Sent:Friday, March 09, 2018 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:yes to bicycle boulevards I am a 30 year resident and homeowner in Midtown. We badly need safer and more direct bicycle routes across the Caltrain tracks to the California Ave train station and business district and also across Hwy 101 to the employers near Google. Existing routes are convoluted and often involve intimidating "no bicycle riding" signs or closures for months every year. Please do everything you can to make bicycling around town more efficient and convenient so we can rely on bicycling as a safe and reliable alternative to driving. Surely, bicycle route improvements are much cheaper than new parking garages or new freeway lanes. Thank you. K. Lee Waverley Street