Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170703plCC 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: 7/3/2017 Document dates: 6/14/2017 – 6/21/2017 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 | 6/15/2017 2:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:19 PM To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Cc:Cullen, Charles; Watson, Ron; Teixeira, Barbara; Pirnejad, Peter; Whitley, Katie; Gitelman, Hillary; Murillo-Garcia, Eloiza; Nickel, Eric; Henrikson, James; Cervantes, Yolanda; Nikzat, Sherry; Svendsen, Janice Subject:6/19 Council Questions for Agenda Items: 4,7,13,16 Attachments:Attachment B Criteria for Funding.pdf Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries by Council Member Tanaka regarding the June 19, 2017 council agenda items listed below: 4: Contract with Truepoint Solutions– CM Tanaka 7. Purchase of Police Radio Consoles – CM Tanaka 13. Weed Abatement – CM Tanaka 16. CDBG-Community Development Block Grant - CM Tanaka Item 4: Contract with Truepoint Solutions Q. 1: The other two bidders for the contract and their prices were not listed in the document. Can you fill us in on those details (both the two other bidders and how much they offered)? We’d like to have a better understanding of the market for these types of software. $400,000 dollars annually for software seems steep, especially for supplemental software. Are we paying an hourly rate, or is this price for a ‘service rate’? What exact rate are we paying? A. 1: The proposed contract with Truepoint is not for a new software product but for support and enhancement of the Accela permitting system. Accela is a widely used permitting system used by the building and planning departments of many jurisdictions. Truepoint will help to customize the system to the needs of this community and improve the functionality of the system given Palo Alto City processes. Truepoint charges at a rate of $145 per hour. The other two bidders either proposed $190 to $289 per hour (Accela) or proposed a flat fee of $273,040 annually (OfficeIQ). The proposal offering a flat fee did not demonstrate relevant experience. Use of the contract total of $1.2M or $400K per year will depend on the participating departments having adequate approved budgets and on the need for the contracted services. Item 7: Purchase of Police Radio Consoles Q.1.What is the impact of better communication for users of this radio console? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2017 2:21 PM 2 A.1. The radio consoles, base stations and digital recorder are all necessary components of the SVRCS radio system. Benefits include interoperability between all agencies and disciplines in the County and considerably more operational flexibility using talk groups. Interoperability means that police, fire and other personnel are able to communicate across different agencies. This functionality became an issue of focus after 9/11. Q.2. Does this radio console replace any current system? If so, what is it and why is this radio console better? A.2. The radio consoles replace our legacy consoles that are 16 years old. The new consoles support the SVRCS P25 Digital trunked radio system. The legacy console are at end of their lifecycle and cannot support the new system. Q.3. Since we already agreed to be a part the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System, is it mandatory to approve the purchase of the radio consoles? If the City of Palo Alto does not, will there be any consequences for the City of Palo Alto? A.3. Purchases over $85,000 require council approval even if the initial project was approved. Without the consoles Palo Alto will not be able to communicate on the system. The City has already invested $1.3 million in the SVRCS infrastructure. Q.4. Will these radio consoles be worth the $916,914.81? If so, why? A.4. The consoles and ancillary equipment will replace all of our legacy equipment for Police, Fire, OES, Public Works and Utilities. That equipment would have to be replaced regardless as our current consoles are outdated. The initial cost is the result of a competitive procurement conducted by SVRIA, and reflects a discount for all participating agencies that was negotiated with Motorola by SVRIA. Maintenance for the consoles will be coordinated by SVRIA going forward. Q.5. What is the likelihood of buying two more UCC consoles? A.5. The likelihood of purchasing the additional consoles is uncertain. Staffing levels in the UCC would need to stabilize before that could be considered. Q.6. What will be the impact on the other programs’ budget if the purchase of the radio consoles are passed? A.6. This project is budgeted through the Radio Infrastructure CIP, so no impact is anticipated. Item 13: Weed Abatement Q.1. Why is the lead department the fire department if it’s a weed abatement? A. 1. Under the Weed Abatement Program, nuisance weeds are considered to be a fire safety issue. As it is a fire prevention and community risk reduction program, fire is the lead. Q. 2. If weed was declared to be a nuisance in January by the council why is this item just coming back to council now? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2017 2:21 PM 3 A.2. Every year per California Health and Safety Code, the Council must declare weeds a nuisance. Then the commencement hearing is held for those property owners to get an opportunity to contest their parcel being on the program. The final phase, the assessment hearing which is where we are on June 19, 2017, the Council approves the assessment (lien) on any parcel in the program. This last public hearing is also another opportunity for property owners to contest their charges. Q. 3.What is the cost of removing the weeds for the property owners? A.3. Refer to the current City Fee Schedule and 2017 “notice to destroy” from the City of Palo Alto. Q. 4. Why does it cost so much to abate weeds? A. 4. The Weed Abatement Program is a 100 percent cost recovery program that is not funded from the General Fund. Inspection and administrative fees charged by the program are in addition to the fees charged by the contractors who remove the weeds. Q. 5. Do all of the property owners want to abate the weeds, or are they being forced into it? A.5. We cannot speak for the property owners but all are required under law to abate the nuisance (California Health and Safety Code Sections 14875-14922). Most property owners abate the nuisance themselves or hire a contractor without involving the Weed Abatement Program. The goal of the program is voluntary compliance. Q.6. Under policy implications it states “This procedure is consistent with existing City policies.” which city policy will this be consistent with? A.6. This is consistent with the City’s overarching policy of preserving public safety. This is also consistent with the City’s cost recovery policy. Q. 7. Why are weeds such a nuisance that it has to become a legal matter? Has there been injuries or complaints from the weeds in Palo Alto? A.7. Nuisance weeds become a legal matter when they threaten property or the community’s infrastructure. A small fire in overgrown patch of weeds on one property could extend into structures or a larger vegetation area resulting in a conflagration that could threaten many properties or entire neighborhoods. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries. There are frequent complaints from community members about weeds or other property issues that are routinely handled by fire and code enforcement. These complaints may or may not end up in the weed abatement program. Q. 8. Why are all written or oral protests or objections to said report and assessment list are overruled or denied? A. 8. First the Weed Abatement Program inspects parcels from either complaints or parcels that are already in the program. Then the inspectors document and photograph all evidence of noncompliance to be reviewed by the City. The City can then review the materials and make a decision if the evidence is sufficient to assess the charges during the assessment hearing. At that point the City will decide to assess or remove charges. The Weed Abatement Program is not City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2017 2:21 PM 4 aware of any objections or protests. The gentleman who spoke at the hearing earlier this year was not an official protest as no abatement, charges or liens had taken place on his property. His property in question was on a three year “watch” list as it had a previous non-compliance issue. Q. 9. Is the rest of the staff report that has not been approved waiting for the public hearing? A.9. The staff report is complete. It is at the public hearing that it is approved. Q. 10. What is the date of the public hearing? A.10. June 19, 2017 Q. 11. Does the report entail all weeds in Palo Alto be abated? A.11. All weeds were declared to be abated when the City Council declared weeds a nuisance. Our report only incudes the weeds the program is aware of. Q. 12. Why is there supposed to be another public hearing if there was already one in February and there was no objections? A.12. Refer to question 2. Q. 13. Why would the city tell the owners the cost after they do the work? A. 13. The actual cost is not known until the abatement has been completed due to different sized properties. The inspection and administrative work is also billed at the actual cost and there may be individual variations in the inspection time and administrative work for each unique property. Item 16: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Q.1: Are the 15% and 20% caps for public services and administration mandated by federal (HUD) regulations of CDBG funding? Why are they capped as so? A.1: These caps are in the HUD regulations and the City does not have the ability to modify them. Q.2: Page 5 of the Annual Action Plan discusses the appreciation, need, and desire for evaluations of past performances, however it does not actually include an evaluation. Is there one Council members could see? A.2: CDBG subrecipients are required to submit Semi-Annual and Year-End Reports that demonstrate their progress in meeting their goals and objectives. CDBG staff also conducts on- site monitoring visits of subrecipients. See attached to this email the Criteria for Funding that provides a summary of the currently funded CDBG subrecipients and their progress in meeting their FY17 Goals at mid-fiscal year. This information was reviewed by the HRC Selection Committee. Q.3: While I understand the breakdown of staff payment for the CDBG Palo alto Administrative costs (page 11 of Executive Summary), $74,295 still seems like a quite a lot… What is city staff doing City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2017 2:21 PM 5 in terms of administration of the CDBG funds, especially if the CDBG funds are given out to other groups? A.3: The administration of the CDBG program is on-going and requires staff time at all stages of the process. The CDBG program requires an extensive application process which begins with the issuance of a Notice of Funding Availability for the following fiscal year of funding. This process includes preproposal workshops, application review and meeting with the HRC Selection Committee to formulate recommendations. The recommendations are then presented to the HRC and a draft Annual Action Plan is prepared for public review. The recommendations are also typically presented to the Finance Committee and finally Council, who gives their final approval. The Annual Action Plan is then submitted to HUD for their review and approval. After preparing environmental reviews for each project, the City enters into a contract with each public service and economic development subrecipient. This requires ongoing contract administration, including invoice review and processing and technical assistance to the nonprofits. For capital projects, the City enters into loan agreements with the nonprofit. City staff work with the non-profit on the bid process and procurement requirements. Staff also monitor the projects for prevailing wage requirements both through on-site visits and desk reviews. The City also monitors subrecipients by conducting desk reviews and conducting on-site monitoring visits as needed. Another important component of administering the program is the financial management of the grant, which involves coordination with Accounting to prepare quarterly drawdowns to HUD and the preparation of documentation for the annual single audit, which is conducting by outside auditors. Thank you, Janice Svendsen Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B – CRITERIA FOR FUNDING CONSIDERATION & CONSOLIDATED PLAN GOALS FISCAL YEAR 2018 CDBG ALLOCATION PROCESS Criteria for Funding Consideration x Continued need for the program. x The six-month performance report from the first year of funding shows the program met the original objectives. If it did not, is there a reasonable explanation and is improvement anticipated? x Palo Alto residents were served and are expected to continue to be served. x Capacity of the organization to continue to offer their proposed services. x Services are still not duplicated by other agencies. Agency Annual Goal Semi-Annual Report Palo Alto Housing Corp. – SRO Resident Support Services 131 137 Catholic Charities – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program 236 323 LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network) – OSC Drop 400 361 YWCA/Support Network – Domestic Violence Services 45 25 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – I&R 17 31 Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services 15 12 Downtown Streets, Inc. – Workforce Development Program 30 15 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:11 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request Approval of Boulevard & Charleston-Arastradero Projects Dear City Council, I‘m not sure I can attend your meeting on Monday night, but I am writing to thank city staff for their collaboration with the schools and PTAs on the Safe Routes to School Five Year Work Plan. I have volunteered as a Safe Routes to School Champion. I have helped at bike rodeos. I know that we are doing a great job building bicycle and pedestrian skills and culture in our schools. Safe Routes to School led me, as a mom with lots of meetings, errands and activities, to choose bicycling to get around town. Safe Routes to School programs and projects are very important to me. Thank you for your approval of the Bike Boulevard and Charleston- Arastradero projects. It is time to fund them now. Please make sure they are included in the budget. We have worked hard with city staff on the plans and have waited a very long time for these improvements. My family and I bike everywhere—to shop, to schools, to social events, and to work. I look forward to seeing the vision of the city’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan become a reality. Thank you for previously approving these projects. Please fund them this year! Sincerely, Sonya Bradski Nelson Dr. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 4:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:6/27 Safe Routes and Bicycle Network Consent Item Please honor considerable staff and community efforts. Consent to the next phase of improving Safe Routes to Schools and the bicycle network. I have reviewed and am enthusiastic about Staff Report # 7885. Approval of the $8.6+ million dollar contract to construct AMBLUR including contingencies. These improvements have been developed consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan of 2012. I’m sure each of you is aware of the amazing adoption of bicycle use by our students. Safety rises for all citizens whether motorized or not.. Sincerely, William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo Alto since 2005 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:32 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Daja Phillips <daja.phillips@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 5:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Leave budget for Safe Routes to School Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Thank you for all you do, and the progress on funding for Safe Routes to School. I have lived with my family in The Southgate neighborhood of Palo Alto for over 20 years. In that time, the population of our area has increased, and parking has not. I live, work, study, and bike in this area everyday- so does every member of our family. We try hard to bike to school/work to decrease congestion, parking problems and maintain a healthy body and planet. We strongly support bike boulevards funding and Safe Routes to School programs to ensure that they will continue being funded through next year. We live on Castilleja St. - a current bike blvd. we know it can work! Please help prepare Palo Alto to meet the increased population loads expected in its schools and businesses by making alternate transportation options a priority. Safe walking and bike paths are the key to success in Davis CA and the Netherlands. We should lead the way in CA! Thank you, Daja Phillips 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 | 6/19/2017 5:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lanier Benkard <lanierb@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 5:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:My support for bike boulevards funding and Safe Routes to School programs Dear City Council Members, I work at Stanford and commute through Palo Alto every day to work, by bike (7.5 miles each way), in all weather conditions. Biking to work keeps me healthy and happy, and allows me to avoid the traffic, which as you know can be awful at times. In the past I also lived in Palo Alto for 9 years and bike commuted over that period as well. Having two young kids, I constantly evaluate whether it is safe enough for me to continue doing bike commuting. If I ever feel that it has become unsafe, I will jump in my car instead and become one more person clogging up the Palo Alto roads. For these reasons, I support funding for bike boulevards and Safe Routes to School programs. The population of Palo Alto is growing, and so is the traffic. Bike commuting can help alleviate this pressure, but if we don't promote infrastructure that is friendly to bikes and make sure that bike commuting can be done safely, people won't do it. Regards, Lanier Benkard Lanier Benkard Gregor G Peterson Professor of Economics Stanford Graduate School of Business 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305 Tel: 650 725-2173 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Maria Abilock <gotdna@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support Bike Projects Dear City Council, One of my great joys of living in Palo Alto is riding my bike all around town. I have been biking my children to school since preschool and taught them to ride independently as well. I have been riding my bike to work for several years, whether it be to Greendell School in South Palo Alto where I teach or downtown to City Hall where I spent a year working in the Safe Routes to School program (April 2015-May 2016). I have been advocating for bike safety and alternatives to driving solo in my capacities as a PTA volunteer, community volunteer, teacher, and former Safe Routes Assistant Coordinator. I urge continued funding to support the Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Program as well as the Bike Boulevard and Charleston-Arastradero Plans. Safe infrastructure to encourage more biking and reduce car congestion on our roads is in the best interest of all Palo Alto residents. I'd also like to recognize Penny Ellson and all the support she's provided me and all the other PTA Safe Routes volunteers over many years. While she will be missed in the PTA, I have confidence that others will step up and continue/expand the good work needed. Please read my Guest Opinion from the March 2017 Palo Alto Weekly in response to the Weekly's question: "How can the City make Palo Alto streets safer?" With appreciation, Maria Abilock City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 1:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Southgate RPP - Commercial Permits Dear City Council, I will be away and unable to attend Monday's (June 19th) City Council meeting where the Southgate RPP will be discussed; thus this email. I urge you to limit the number of commercial permits available for the two businesses in the Southgate RPP area. Each of these businesses has a parking lot to accommodate 10 to 20 cars for their employees during the work day and their clients as they come and go during the day. My view is that five (5) permits per business would be sufficient. After all, this is a residential parking program; not a commercial parking program. I regret that I will not be available to hear why a greater number of such permits should be granted. Sincerely, James Cornett 420 Sequoia Ave Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 1:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shaila Sadrozinski <sadro@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 10:48 AM To:Atkinson, Sue-Ellen; Josh Mellow; Transportation; Council, City Cc:Hartmut Sadrozinski; Ashok Sadrozinski Subject:parking permit program in Southgate This evening the City Council will address the proposal to establish a residential parking permit program in the Southgate neighborhood. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I would like to request that the one free permit granted each household be a transferable hang-tag rather than a sticker assigned to a specific vehicle. Thank you. Shaila Sadrozinski, 62 Churchill Ave, (650) 322-8261 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Finn <bckp@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Airplane Noise Update Attachments:Nextgen.pdf To City Council: In accordance with the message below which we just received, please place the enclosed attachment NextGen.pdf into the official record. Thank you, Ursula Schulte, Robert Finn Begin forwarded message: From: "Alaee, Khashayar" <Khashayar.Alaee@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Airplane Noise Update Date: June 15, 2017 at 5:29:59 PM PDT To: "Alaee, Khashayar" <Khashayar.Alaee@CityofPaloAlto.org> Good evening, Thank you for subscribing to the City’s email list for Airplane Noise located on the City’s website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/airplanenoise). On Monday June 19, 2017, the City Council will review the Policy & Services Committee recommendation to Reaffirm Palo Alto’s Position to Reduce Aircraft Noise and Direction on Further Near-Term Advocacy Steps, Including Sending a Letter From the Mayor to the United States Department of Transportation and Other Federal Officials. Staff Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58328 Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58243 If you have any comments please email city.council@cityofpaloalto.org so that they can placed in the record. Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carl Jones <carljonesiii@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 10:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Airplane Noise Update Importance:High I was awakened by an air flight over my house at 5:38 a.m. this morning. This is a typical occurrence. I eventually arose around 6:30 a.m. and recorded 42 flights over my house between 6:42 a.m. and 9:49 a.m. That is, on average, 14 flights an hour, or almost 1 every 4 minutes. Actually, many come at intervals of 2.5 minutes for 6 or 7 flights at a time. (I did have three periods, of 13, 15, and 16 minutes each, w/o any flights that I could hear). These were all reported using stop.jetnoise.net. So, YES, INDEED, please continue the objection to the flights over Palo Alto and continue working to see that mitigating solutions are put into operation. Sincerely, -carl jones From: Alaee, Khashayar [mailto:Khashayar.Alaee@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:30 PM To: Alaee, Khashayar Subject: Airplane Noise Update Good evening, Thank you for subscribing to the City’s email list for Airplane Noise located on the City’s website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/airplanenoise). On Monday June 19, 2017, the City Council will review the Policy & Services Committee recommendation to Reaffirm Palo Alto’s Position to Reduce Aircraft Noise and Direction on Further Near-Term Advocacy Steps, Including Sending a Letter From the Mayor to the United States Department of Transportation and Other Federal Officials. Staff Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58328 Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58243 If you have any comments please email city.council@cityofpaloalto.org so that they can placed in the record. Sincerely, Khashayar “Cash” Alaee | Sr. Management Analyst City Manager’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2230 | E: khashayar.alaee@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:36 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Meg Waite Clayton <megwaiteclayton@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise I am sorry to be unable to attend the Council discussion on airplane noise Monday night, but urge you to give this problem your greatest attention. It is ruining Palo Alto. Best, Margaret Clayton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Thomsen <susan@thomsenhome.com> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 5:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James Subject:Airplane Noise Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, It has been called to my attention that on your agenda for this Monday’s meeting date, 6/19/2017, that you will be asked to address the Policy and Services Committee Recommendations regarding airline noise. Although I have written to you before, I would like to reiterate how important it is to our quality of life that you continue your efforts to reduce aircraft noise and emissions over Palo Alto’s skies. The planes have had an overwhelming impact on my life such that I no longer like to be in my home. We were just in Italy for several weeks and during the entire trip, we heard fewer than 5 planes overall even though we were traveling throughout the country and were in metropolitan areas such as our area. We weren’t home for more than 15 minutes when we had already been disturbed by at least 5 airplanes! In your recommendations regarding airplane noise please consider the following:  Please endorse Mayor Scharff’s excellent letter to Secretary Chao of the United States Department of Transportation with the consideration of changing the upper suggested threshold of 5,000 feet to at least 6,000 or 7,000 feet. I have been using stop.jetnoise.net for at least a year and many flights at 5000 feet or above are equally as disruptive as flights at 3000 feet.  One reason airplane noise has been shifted to the Palo Alto area over the years is because we have not had representation on the SFO Community Roundtable. In addition, except for one alternate member, Palo Alto was not represented on the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals. Charts of Bay area flights well document the inequity of flight paths with a concentration of SFO incoming flights from the north, west and south converging on the Menlo Waypoint causing an inordinate amount of aircraft noise in Palo Alto. Consider that legal action may be necessary to achieve equity.  The City Council should have a strong anti-airplane noise and emissions advocate ready to join any permanent entity created to address aircraft noise. If the FAA does not create a new entity to address aircraft noise, then Palo Alto should pursue SFO Roundtable membership. Your efforts on behalf of all Palo Alto residents to reduce airplane noise are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Susan Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 9:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Quiet Skies <peaceandquiet@quietskiesnorcal.org> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 9:20 AM To:Council, City Cc:saratoga_cc@saratoga.ca.us; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; council@losaltosca.gov; Council@sunnyvale.ca.gov; citycouncil@cupertino.org; council@losgatosca.gov; executive_director@citiesassociation.org Subject:Open letter to Palo Alto City Council Attachments:Open Letter to Palo Alto City Council.pdf Importance:High Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Please see the attached letter from the leadership of Airplane Noise Advocacy Groups representing residents throughout Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties. We are writing this letter out of a growing concern, triggered in part by comments made by Sky Posse supporters and by Palo Alto city officials during the recent public city meeting on 5/23. The proposals considered in the meeting are harmful to the entire region. We look forward to your timely response regarding our concerns. ---------------------- Quiet Skies NorCal http://www.quietSkiesNorCal.org Quiet Skies NorCal www.QuietSkiesNorCal.org June 13, 2017 To: Palo Alto City Council CC: Congressional Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ro Khanna, Jimmy Panetta, and City/Town Councils of Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale Re: Jet Noise Mitigation We are writing this letter out of a growing concern, triggered in part by comments made by Palo Alto city officials and by Sky Posse supporters during the recent public city meeting on 5/23. The proposals considered in the meeting are harmful to the entire region, and represent a direct continuation of Sky Posse actions over the last three years. While many Palo Alto residents spoke of a desire for a regional solution that does not shift flight paths onto others, it is a fact of record that the 10/2016 letter from the city to the FAA, as proposed by the Palo Alto Sky Posse (PASP), describes a shift of the SFO southern arrival path from Palo Alto to either Los Altos and Mountain View, or Sunnyvale and Cupertino. The map is included below, copied directly from the city’s letter, appendix page 2, paragraph 4. In the 5/23 meeting, Sky Posse supporters were blaming “lack of representation” at the Select Committee, and calling the SC process “a sham”. This is unfortunate. The chairman of the committee was from Palo Alto, and Palo Alto had an alternate member - in fact it was Mountain View that had no representation. The NextGen transition of 2015 created negative side-effects that impacted the entire region, but it did not move traffic from other cities into Palo Alto. Not only is the Sky Posse (and by proxy, the city) using this impact as a pretext for shifting long-standing traffic patterns elsewhere, they are actively opposing steps (such as DAVYJ) to reverse these 2015 side- effects, essentially trying to sustain the problem and its negative impacts until their plans to shift traffic are accepted. On multiple occasions, Sky Posse leaders remarked that if the effects of NextGen remain unmitigated, there will be a better chance to advance their traffic-shifting plans. This strategy is harmful to everyone, and first and foremost to Palo Alto. While the resultant delay is hurting many communities (including Palo Alto), this strategy virtually guarantees that the regional good will that Palo Alto needs in order to address some of its issues will simply not be there. Their focus on “Equitable distribution” is problematic since it can be used to justify almost anything. For example, the letter by the city proposes shifting a flight path to Mountain View, but is considered by some as a form of “equitability”. Additionally, the morality of the idea is debatable to begin with, given that home ownership decisions were made based on long-standing flight traffic patterns. The tactic of opposing solutions unless the “equitable distribution” concept is accepted and implemented is not only immoral, but also short-sighted. Even if you support equitable distribution as an idea, you have to see that re-drawing flight paths can’t be forced on the region, can’t be implemented in short order even if it were, and should not stand in the way of fixing the impacts of the NextGen transition as soon as possible. Instead, we need to return the situation to where it was in 2014, while making simple improvements where we can, for everyone’s benefit. We want to remind you that Palo Alto’s noise reporting rate spiked by over 10x after the changes of early 2015. By delaying a solution, Palo Alto is directly hurting a large portion of its own constituency. We respectfully ask that the Palo Alto City Council change course and renounce the plan to shift SFO southern arrivals to overfly other communities. Sincerely, Quiet Skies NorCal. (Endorsed on last page) Quiet Skies NorCal www.QuietSkiesNorCal.org We would also like to correct the record with respect to statements made to and by city officials. It is worth noting that the FAA clearly demonstrated the following facts: - That the quantity of airplanes on SFO southern approaches (BIG SUR, SERFR), their concentration over the peninsula, and the amount of vectoring haven’t changed in any significant manner during the NextGen transition or the years prior to it. There is a slow multi-year cycle as the economy booms and busts, but this is not what triggered all the noise reports starting March 2015. - That SFO southern arrival planes are flying with engines revved up, or (alternatively) with speed brakes, because of a mistake in the implementation of SERFR that eliminates the use of Optimal Profile Descent (OPD), a mistake that the FAA has expressed confidence they will fix with DAVYJ. This is the biggest cause for change in noise from pre- to post- NextGen flight over Palo Alto, and is the main reason the planes seem more numerous. - That SFO southern arrival traffic, post NextGen, is flying an average of 500’ lower over Palo Alto due to a safety concern (that in our opinion can be largely mitigated, and is not the main source of noise increase.) - That SFO northern arrivals (the BDEGA “U-turns”) are not on a procedure, so are dispersed and their location is largely a function of how busy the other arrival routes are covering both Palo Alto and Mountain View. - That there was indeed a decrease in utilization of the “eastern leg” visual approach for northern SFO arrivals, resulting in 10-20 extra flights per day over Palo Alto. It is clear that many things have changed for the worse (like the altitude at which planes cross MENLO), which is reflected in the sharp rise in noise reports (from Palo Alto too) starting March 2015. It is therefore clear that the correct response is to try to fix these issues, as well as pick other low hanging fruit that are typically a result of oversights, such as unnecessarily noisy flight paths during off-peak hours. Also for the record, below are the annotated proposal by the city of Palo Alto (Left), and the PASP proposal from 2014. ÍÍ P a l o A l l t o P r o p o s a l “SERFRǦǦEDDYY (…): A proposed alternative approach to the aforementioned SERFR TWO, initially tracking on SERFR TWO to EDDYY (WP) and then transitioning north to intersect the RWY 28 R ILS final approach course, at DUMBA (FIX/WP), on the east shoreline of the Dumbarton Bridge.” – appendix page 2 of 16 EDDYY DUMBA Quiet Skies NorCal www.QuietSkiesNorCal.org This letter is endorsed by Advocacy Groups representing residents in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. Beth Ericksen, Ella Gille, Robert Holbrook, Toni Rath, Chuck Shih, Bob Sims, Mountain View residents, Co-Founders, Bay Area Jet Noise Roger Heyder, Los Altos resident, Leader, Quiet Skies Los Altos Tom Duterme, Los Altos resident, Quiet Skies Los Altos Srinivas Reddy, Los Altos Hills resident, Leader, Quiet Skies Los Altos Hills Cheryl Poland, Los Gatos resident, Co-Founder, Quiet Skies Norcal Eric Rupp, Soquel resident, Co-Founder, Quiet Skies Norcal Ben Shelef, Saratoga resident, Co-Founder, Quiet Skies NorCal Patrick Meyer, Santa Cruz resident, Co-Chair, Save Our Skies Santa Cruz County Vicki Miller, Santa Cruz County resident, Co-Chair, Save Our Skies Santa Cruz County Members of the Sunnyvale-Cupertino Airplane Noise Group Coalition City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 9:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Eschweiler <seschweiler@des-ae.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 9:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane noise To the Council, This email is in support of your efforts to have the FAA reroute airplanes over the bay to reduce aircraft noise in our neighborhoods. Air travel is a wonderful feature but the routing of planes overhead can be more carefully done to minimize the impact on the residents below. Recently I was awakened at 5:09 AM by a large jet that sounded like it was going to land on my house in south Palo Alto. While we might not have noticed this if it was midday, our quiet morning was radically disturbed unnecessarily. Please advocate for the citizens of Palo Alto. Thank you, Susan Eschweiler 853 Thornwood Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 9:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Poland <cheryl@quietskiesnorcal.org> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 9:39 AM To:Council, City Cc:Alaee, Khashayar Subject:June 19 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #17 Attachments:Open Letter to Palo Alto City Council.pdf Dear Palo Alto City Council, Please add the email below (previously sent to Mayor Scharff) to the record of public comments for Agenda Item #17 at tonight's city council meeting. Please also add the attached letter (previously sent to the Palo Alto city council email address) to the record of public comments for Agenda Item #17 at tonight's city council meeting. Thank you, Cheryl ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Cheryl Poland <cheryl@quietskiesnorcal.org> To: greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: executive_director@citiesassociation.org, Ben Shelef <ben@quietskiesnorcal.org> Date: June 16, 2017 at 1:55 PM Subject: June 19 agenda item - proposed letter to DOT Dear Mayor Scharff, I'm reaching out regarding the June19th agenda item considering sending a letter to the DOT requesting, among other things, that long-standing flight paths be shifted away from Palo Alto to overfly neighboring communities ("create more points for aircraft to use", etc.). Link to letter: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58328 I am very disappointed that the city of Palo Alto would consider subverting the democratic process the region went through during the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals meetings last year. Additionally, it is disgraceful that the city of Palo Alto would even consider taking this action without the knowledge or consent of your council member peers and residents of the cities over which you ask to shift flight paths. Further, taking this action is disrespectful to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who has provided exemplary leadership on this issue and is responsible for providing our communities the opportunity to address airplane noise issues directly with the FAA during last summer's Select Committee meetings. No other Metroplex in the nation has been able to achieve such a City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 9:44 AM 2 successful working model with the FAA - we stand as a shining example of regional cooperation and democracy in action. Resolving airplane noise is a regional issue, not a Palo Alto issue. Many communities in the bay area are affected, and some communities are suffering far worse noise impacts than Palo Alto. It is time for the city of Palo Alto to follow the direction of our Congressional Representatives, respect the democratic process, and join the regional community in working together to resolve airplane noise issues. Best regards, Cheryl Poland Co-Founder, Quiet Skies NorCal Mobile: 408.910.5772 Cheryl Poland Co-founder, Quiet Skies NorCal Mobile: 408.910.5772 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 4:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:6/27 Safe Routes and Bicycle Network Consent Item Please honor considerable staff and community efforts. Consent to the next phase of improving Safe Routes to Schools and the bicycle network. I have reviewed and am enthusiastic about Staff Report # 7885. Approval of the $8.6+ million dollar contract to construct AMBLUR including contingencies. These improvements have been developed consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan of 2012. I’m sure each of you is aware of the amazing adoption of bicycle use by our students. Safety rises for all citizens whether motorized or not.. Sincerely, William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo Alto since 2005 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:37 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Clara Chang <clarac@abcandm.com> Sent:Sunday, June 18, 2017 6:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:In support of bike boulevards I am a Palo Alto resident who lives across from Addison school and commutes by bike to work in Stanford Research Park. I am in strong support of bike boulevards and Safe Routes to School programs. I would like to ensure that you continue funding and continue to improve our biking options through next year and beyond. -- Clara Chang mailto:clarac@ABCandM.com 650.326.3758 Home 650.353.7582 Mobile "The heart has its reasons which reason knows not." -Blaise Pascal City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:37 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 12:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:support for bike project funding Dear City Council, I am writing to express my support for funding of the bike projects currently being considered for the budget. I live in South Palo Alto on Louis Road and my family and I bike all time time. My husband is a long-time bike commuter and, since moving to Palo Alto in 2014, my children and I have become bike commuters as well. As a JLS and Fairmeadow family, we are particularly excited about the improvements to Ross Road (especially the Ross-Meadow intersection). I bike all over town and Palo Alto’s bike-friendliness is one of my favorite things about the city. As a Safe Routes to School Champion for Fairmeadow I have spoken with many other parents about walking and biking to school, and I know that the planned improvements will lead to more families being comfortable with active school commuting. Anything we can do to alleviate traffic and make our roads safer for everyone is a win in my book! I appreciate all of the work that the Council has done on the planned projects and can’t wait to see them come to fruition. Thank you, Christy Moision -- Christy Moision 626-390-0343 (cell) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:37 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Steve Rock <rock_js@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:bike boulevards Dear Folks, Please appropriate funds for improving biking in Palo Alto. This includes completing of the bike boulevard system and providing bike access to places people go (theaters, stores, libraries ..) as well as safe access to schools for kids. -Steve Stephen Rock 3872 Nathan Way Palo Alto CA 94303 ser84@columbia.edu City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 4:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:ken3lee@gmail.com Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 4:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:yes to bicycle boulevards I live in Midtown. We badly need safer and more direct bicycle routes to the California Ave business district and also to downtown Mountain View and the Mountain View shoreline area. Existing routes are convoluted, scary, and often involve intimidating "no bicycle riding" signs. Please do everything you can to make bicycling around town more efficient and convenient so we can rely on bicycling as a safe alternative to driving. Thank you. K. Lee Waverley Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 5:21 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lanier Benkard <lanierb@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 5:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:My support for bike boulevards funding and Safe Routes to School programs Dear City Council Members, I work at Stanford and commute through Palo Alto every day to work, by bike (7.5 miles each way), in all weather conditions. Biking to work keeps me healthy and happy, and allows me to avoid the traffic, which as you know can be awful at times. In the past I also lived in Palo Alto for 9 years and bike commuted over that period as well. Having two young kids, I constantly evaluate whether it is safe enough for me to continue doing bike commuting. If I ever feel that it has become unsafe, I will jump in my car instead and become one more person clogging up the Palo Alto roads. For these reasons, I support funding for bike boulevards and Safe Routes to School programs. The population of Palo Alto is growing, and so is the traffic. Bike commuting can help alleviate this pressure, but if we don't promote infrastructure that is friendly to bikes and make sure that bike commuting can be done safely, people won't do it. Regards, Lanier Benkard Lanier Benkard Gregor G Peterson Professor of Economics Stanford Graduate School of Business 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305 Tel: 650 725-2173 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 1:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Charlie Bronitsky <charlie@brewerfirm.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 1:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:305 N. California Avenue Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: I am sending this email although we had hoped never to send it. We need your assistance to prevent a small, woman owned, minority owned business from being shut down and scores of Palo Alto elementary school students from being deprived of a music eduction at the hands of City Staff. We had thought this matter was resolved at last week’s Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Hearing but despite the unanimous vote of the PTC members, City Staff appears to wish to continue its efforts to shut down our client’s music school so we need your help. My name is Charlie Bronitsky and I represent the New Mozart School of Music which operates out of the First Baptist Church at 305 N. California Avenue in Palo Alto. Last week, on June 14, 2017, we had a hearing on a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for continued operation of the school, which has been in operation for a dozen years and serves primarily Palo Alto elementary aged school children to obtain a music eduction. The unanimously passed motion of the PTC was to deny our CUP but to have staff give us sufficient time to move to a new location so as not to disrupt the childens'education. I explained to the PTC that the City Staff’s position that we had no legal right to a CUP did not arise until just a week prior to the hearing date. Prior to that, the school went through the CUP process because it was the process that CIty Staff directed us to do. Had City Staff told us initially that their position would be that we had no legal right to a CUP, we would have begun efforts to relocate the school a long time ago and by now would have been gone from the location. That City Staff lead us to believe that a CUP was not only the correct procedure but was likely a formality in this instance, we would not be in the situation that we now find ourselves with City Staff threatening to disregard the decision of the PTC and push forward with its Code Enforcement efforts to shut down the school. Instead, City Staff has scheduled a consent calendar item for your June 27, 2017 meeting, a meeting I cannot attend due to a prior pre-paid out of state vacation. When I asked City Staff to move the matter to a later date, they indicated that there was a 45 day deadline and that only by request of three Council Members could the meeting be moved and placed on the regular agenda. That is what we are now asking for. My experience in another area of my life where I am currently serving my eighth year on the Foster City City Counsel and currently serving as mayor has, frankly, left me shocked by the way City Staff has handled this matter. As I said above, they first advised us to proceed with a CUP application, refused to respond when we offered to reduce the size of the school or increase the number of parking spaces, denied the application for other reasons, then just a week before the PTC hearing came up with a whole new basis for the denial claiming we had no right to a CUP (with which we disagree), then ignored the PTC vote to allow us time to move, indicating in an email to me that “staff was continuing to evaluate that issue.” We do not wish to fight the CUP and told both City Staff and the PTC that. We found another location in Palo Alto and are willing to move there, but as City Staff acknowledged it will take 3 - 6 months to complete the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 1:55 PM 2 build out of that space. We told the PTC the same thing and pointed out that had City Staff told us that we could not get a CUP when the process started that we would have already moved. We also pointed out that in order to move our client would have to guarantee a lease and incur obligations of well over a million dollars but was willing to do so as long as she had the time to move. Closing the school immediately, which appears to be what City Staff wishes to do, will destroy the school and leave the students without their music education. Of additional surprise to me is the fact that the actual decision of the PTC was nowhere reflected in the Staff Report provided to you. Nowhere does it say that the PTC voted to give the school time to move. In addition, nowhere in the Staff Report are you provided with the documents that we submitted to the PTC showing our side of the issue and documenting the facts listed above, among others. What we are asking for at this time is for the Council to remove the matter from the June 27 consent calendar and to set it for a hearing at a later date. We will waive any time constraint that prevents this as all we want is a fair process and a fair hearing. I can provide additional details and facts showing the strength of our position, but this email is already quite long. We greatly appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you, Charlie Bronitsky Charles Bronitsky Attorney Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 2501 Park Blvd., 2d Flr., Palo Alto CA 94306, United States t: (650) 327-2900 x.16 f: (650) 327-5959 m: (650) 576-8441 w: http://www.brewerfirm.com e: charlie@brewerfirm.com This email is intended for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the email to us at the address noted above. Thank you. The foregoing name, telephone, telecopy and email information is provided to the recipient for informational purposes only and is not intended to be the signature of sender for purposes of binding sender or any client of sender or the firm to any contract or agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any similar law. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:11 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request Approval of Boulevard & Charleston-Arastradero Projects Dear City Council, I‘m not sure I can attend your meeting on Monday night, but I am writing to thank city staff for their collaboration with the schools and PTAs on the Safe Routes to School Five Year Work Plan. I have volunteered as a Safe Routes to School Champion. I have helped at bike rodeos. I know that we are doing a great job building bicycle and pedestrian skills and culture in our schools. Safe Routes to School led me, as a mom with lots of meetings, errands and activities, to choose bicycling to get around town. Safe Routes to School programs and projects are very important to me. Thank you for your approval of the Bike Boulevard and Charleston- Arastradero projects. It is time to fund them now. Please make sure they are included in the budget. We have worked hard with city staff on the plans and have waited a very long time for these improvements. My family and I bike everywhere—to shop, to schools, to social events, and to work. I look forward to seeing the vision of the city’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan become a reality. Thank you for previously approving these projects. Please fund them this year! Sincerely, Sonya Bradski Nelson Dr. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:gmahany@aol.com Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 9:29 AM To:Council, City Cc:rebsanders@gmail.com Subject:Fry's redevelopment who ever builds it pays for it hello Palo Alto City Council This is to request that you include budget money in the 2018 budget for a Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) for the Fry’s redevelopment site. My wife and I live in the Ventura neighborhood and participate in the Ventura Neighborhood Association on a regular basis and would like to see this development take our community concerns into account. Our concern is that more people will live there while the city dose nothing to adapt the existing infrastructure/amenities to the increase in population. Gary Mahany City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:PAFD Service Cut Proposals: FY 2013 and FY 2018 Council Members, As stated during oral communications last Monday, the city’s proposed FY2018 Fire Section, "Budget Adjustments #5" for "Fire Services Deployment Changes" in the amount of -$1.3 million (Document Page 242 or PDF Page 256 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57411 ) is similar to a proposal for FY 2013 that was not implemented to the extent that it would impact fire engine service. During the budget process, I wrote a an article on the matter, which I have reprinted below, for your background, and have interspersed material in brackets and bold red text to specify changes implemented between then and now Thank you in advance, for your interest. -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street https://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/2012/06/06/proposed-budget-reduce-engine-service-increase-ems-trim-ot TOWN SQUARE Proposed Budget: Reduce Engine Service, Increase EMS, Trim OT Original post made by Fred Balin, College Terrace, on Jun 6, 2012 Fire engine service from one of the Palo Alto Fire Department's six round-the-clock stations would be reduced, possibly dramatically, under a budget plan to shift personnel to expanded emergency medical services (EMS), while also reducing overtime costs. Under the plan, when fire engine staffing was low, one 3-person engine company would be shut down. The specific engine company chosen would be the same for the entire year in order to simplify logistics as well as the tracking and measurement of impacts, the city's fire administration stated. After the period of evaluation, the city would consider making the reductions permanent. Wording in the proposed budget implied that Engine Company 2, situated at Hanover Street's Fire City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 2 Station 2, would be the fire engine impacted. After residents' comments at the May 15th Finance Committee hearing, the fire administration confirmed it. However, at the follow-up May 29th committee hearing, the city's fire administration said that it might utilize another, unspecified station. The extent of the engine company brownout has also not been detailed. Understated wording in the budget merely says that "up to one fire response vehicle may be taken out service when staffing falls below a preset number due to absences " However, based on the $1.1 million dollar line-item budget savings associated with this plan, I calculated a shutdown of 360 full days. In response, the city manager's office stated its plan was not to permanently shut down an engine company, but it also did not define the extent of the brownout. Working from a different and more conservative vantage point, a very likely period of impact would be during the 120 days from July through October when the city staffs an additional engine during the daytime at Foothills Fire Station 8. In addition, the budget's plan to shift six fighters to expanded emergency medical services (EMS), with no increase in firefighter staffing, raises the likelihood that the engine company brownouts will extend to other periods of the year as well. [Last year at this time, the city discontinued its 12 hour day-time fire-season staffing of its 3-person wild- land fire engine at Foothills Park.] ------- The Crux of the Matter When an engine company is out of service, response times will increase. This could impact the first- response engine to a potential fire situation (fire alarm, smell of smoke) or the full 3-engine complement to a confirmed fire (1st alarm); but also EMS, rescue, hazmat, and other responses in which engines play an integral part. The city manager's office stated that response times would still be adequate and referred to data from the city-contracted Fire Utilization and Resources Study of January 2011. The goal of the study was was to provide an independent review of of the Fire Department operations so that city officials could understand how well the system is working and whether the fire department can provide services more efficiently. A second, follow-on study, on Emergency Medical Services was presented early this year. ------ Why This Article? Concern over the impacts of reductions in engine service combined with the proposed budget's City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 3 opacity, and the city's decision not to mention the engine service reduction in its presentation at the May 15th Finance Committee meeting, are the motivators for this article. Nonetheless, this piece is intended to be as objective as possible, and provide you and your circle with information related to what is an important public policy matter moving rapidly through the budget process. The Finance Committee has recommended approval of the plan, although it appears that committee members' familiarity with the full proposal and its impacts was limited. The budget approval process concludes with back-to-back Monday evening council meetings on June 11th and 18th . ------- Update on Fire Services Study On June 12, interspersed between the final two council meetings on the budget, the Policy and Services Committee will hear an update on the two studies related to Fire Department services. Some of the elements in those studies will be noted further below, but Tuesday's meeting remains an excellent opportunity for you to ask questions based on this matter and further help you form and/or refine judgments. The update on the fire studies is the first item listed on the tentative agenda for the meeting, which begins at 6 pm at City Hall. ------ Article Content The material in this piece is informed by a review of the two studies, video of the related council hearings from early last year and this, a thorough dissection of this year's fire department budget, attendance at the Finance Committee meetings on the topic, a review of last year's fire department budget and hearings, communications with the city's fire administration, discussions with firefighters, and review of other relevant history. Kindly send any corrections to me at fbalin@gmail.com . ------- Expanded EMS Proposed According to the studies, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) calls comprise 60% of all fire department response requests. In the years from 2000 to 2009, EMS calls increased by 48%, while total calls for the fire department increased by only 19%. Proposed increases in paramedic services and associated new positions in fire administration mirror recommendations within the fire studies. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 4 The budget proposes to increase EMS from its current two, up to a total of three, concurrent, two- person paramedic staffed ambulances. EMS services are part of the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) with firefighters also trained as paramedics. At present, one ambulance with dedicated 24-hour, 7-day regular-time staffing is on call at Fire Station 1 (at Alma and Everett). [This continues today.] A second medic unit is at the Hanover Street Station 2. It has dedicated 12-hour daytime staffing, via an overtime shift, and is "cross-staffed" with Engine Company 2 at night. Cross-staffing means that firefighter shift crew members go out on either a fire call via the engine or a medic call with the ambulance -- whichever call comes in first -- but obviously they can not handle both at the same time. Palo Alto fire engines crews are staffed with up to two paramedics within its crew of three. The budget proposes to ramp up the Station 2 ambulance ("Medic 2") to dedicated 24-hour regular staffing as is the current practice at Station 1. [This was implemented, so Hanover Street Station 2 ambulance, now also has full-time dedicated 24 x 7 x 365 staffing.] The budget also mentions a third, concurrent medic ambulance unit, but does not state how it would be staffed or where it would be stationed. However, to avoid overtime costs, it would probably require a normal 24-hour firefighter shift. The city's follow-up study specifically devoted to EMS services recommended including a cross-staffed ambulance at Station 3 (on Embarcadero at Newell). So a reasonable assumption is that engine and paramedic service would be shared between a 24- hour 3-person firefighter shift at Station 3, if the city intends to have the potential of 3 concurrent ambulances available at all times. [And this is what occurred, but at Station 4 (“Mitchel Park,” Middlefied at East Meadow) rather than Staton 3. The ambulance is ready full-time, but not with dedicated staffing It is cross-staffed around the clock with the fire engine in Station 4, i.e., the 3 firefighters there can use the ambulance or the fire engine, but not both at the same time.] [In summary, the current ambulance deployment model, has 2 dedicated full-time ambulances and 1 cross staffed full-time ambulance. They participate in about 90% of EMS calls received; i.e., the county’s service is needed to fill in about 10% of the time (my estimates). According to the department’s most recent performance report (3/6/2017, ID# 7829), about 70% of EMS calls result in transport to emergency care facility. Transports currently generate revenue of $3.1 million per year as per statement of the city at Finance Committee hearings. The proposed FY2018 municipal fee schedule calls for increases in fees for transport services.] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 5 ------ Reasoning for the increase in EMS as per the studies are as follows: - Increasing EMS services responds to the high rate of increase of emergency medical calls to the department - Increasing capacity reduces dependance on 400 to 600 annual mutual aid calls to private ambulance services from the county, which generally have a longer response time, and are not viewed as comparable to PAFD paramedic service - A large percentage of the city's EMS operating costs are returned to the general fund via fees for the services. - While Palo Alto receives mutual from the county EMS, it does not provide it in return. Should it be required to, it would increase demand up to 11%. ----- EMS and Fire Engines The Palo Alto Fire Department sends both an ambulance and a fire engine on an EMS call, a total of 2 vehicles with up to 4 paramedics. Some view this as overkill, while others see this as excellent and needed service. Here is some of the reasoning in favor of this policy: - Engines are at every fire station, ambulances are not. Therefore, fire engines are first on the scene for many EMS calls. - As engines also carry paramedics, emergency service can start right away if the engine arrives first. - In case of a very serious or complex situation, additional paramedic staff is available. - Once the EMS situation is stabilized, the engine leaves the scene. On the other hand, the fire services study recommended development of a dispatch system methodology for EMS calls such that fire units are only dispatched to high priority medical calls, not every routine medical situation. The study also stated that 96% of EMS calls are for "possible life- threatening" situations, but believes the true number to be much lower. It is not clear if the city plans or is ready to implement new dispatch protocols at this time. Combining additional EMS capabilities together with the brownout of an engine company adds strain to the overall system. The fire administration mentioned the possibility of using the city's single Rescue vehicle (Rescue 2 at Station 2) to pair with an ambulance on EMS calls. As per the study, Rescue 2 is primarily responsible for extrication at accidents and to augments staffing at structure fires. The 3-person crew and vehicle is are also equipped to provide other types of rescue and hazmat services. The study views Rescue 2 as underutilized and recommends it be cross-staffed. [The three 3-person staffing of the rescue vehicle was eliminated in the FY 2013 budget, and the vehicle is no longer in service. The personnel was used to support the additional ambulance coverage.] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 6 ----- How Many Fires? When most people think of fire engines, they think of fighting fires. So let's go directly to an often asked topic. How many fires are there in Palo Alto? Or to phrase it differently, as Palo Alto also provides fire services for Stanford under contract and reimbursement with the university, how many actual many fires does the PAFD handle? [Note: Fire Station 6 is on the Stanford campus on Serra Street. The former Fire Station 7 on the grounds of SLAC, closed last Fall and is now supported off-site by the Menlo Park Fire Protection District.] [As stated in my comments at oral communications on June 5, the 9 full-time equivalents positions required for dedicated staffing of the fire engine at SLAC were removed in the FY 2013 budget. The 2011 fire study shows that from 2000 to 2009, fires ranged from an annual low of 181 to a high of 242; or, in other terms, between 2.0 and 3.8% of calls during those years. These numbers include vehicle fires, building fires, fires in portable and mobile homes, fires confined to a structure like a cooking pot, outside fires, and others. There were five fatalities and five injuries over that time. The numbers comprise fewer fires and deaths per capita than averages for the US, the west coast, and communities of similar size. Fire injuries are significantly lower than national, regional, and community size averages. That positive news, however, may be of limited comfort for those waiting for help when an engine is out of service. ------ Too Many Engines and Too Many Stations? The Fire Services study contained recommendations for the merger of two stations and a subsequent shutdown of an engine company. It recommended that Fire Stations 2 (Hanover Street) and 5 (Arastradero near El Camino) could be merged as they had low call volumes and workloads and significant overlap not justified by current or projected demand. It recommended creating a new station in the vicinity of Miranda and Hillview Avenues. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 7 The recommendation also stated ".. because planning for a new station would take several years, the city would be able to make small changes such as cross-staffing the engine/rescue and staffing the second medic while it evaluates the large questions of station consolidation." There is no recommendation to shut down an engine company for significant periods of time prior to the merger. Merging of stations is not on the table in this budget, but the fire administration stated that "we're trying to find other ways to maybe accommodate what the spirit of that recommendation would be with as little impact to service as possible." -------- Current Response Times According to the study, The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) response time guideline is no more than 6 minutes from the initial call to the first fire responder at the scene, 90% of the time. The six-minute time frame is based on research showing that a structure fire begins to grow exponentially after six minutes, and individuals in cardiac arrest need defibrillation within six minutes. The study estimates that Palo Alto is about a minute over this level even when the percentage is lowered to 80%. However, the fire study is not overly concerned about this. It states that "most fire departments use the NFPA 1710 standard as a goal, not as a prescriptive requirement. Few departments are currently meeting or exceeding NFPA 1710, especially with respect to travel time (which is the hardest to improve).” The study also states that there is no single set of nationally accepted response time standards. Many communities choose to develop their own response time goals in light of what is currently achieved versus what it would take to improve them. There have been a few attempts to measure the incremental value of a minute faster response time for fires and EMS calls, but there is no definitive study of the incremental benefit. Faster is better, but it is unclear how much better in terms of dollars or lived saved." The NFPA 6-minute guideline is divided into three parts: 1 minute for call processing (i.e., initial call to entry in dispatch system), 1 minute for turnout (i.e., alert a station to crew ready on apparatus), and 4 minutes for travel. The study states that under Palo Alto's "road network," it would be very difficult to achieve a 4:00 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 8 travel time and is comfortable with using 5 minutes as the goal at the lower 80% level. It does, however, see turnout times as an area for possible improvement. [As per the 3/6/2017 PAFD Performance Report, Palo Alto’s current response time goals for fires are (a) first responder arriving on scene with 8 minutes, 90% of the time, and (2) structure fires contained to the room or area of origin 90% of the time. FY 2017 Q2 shows the department below those metric (85.9% and 80%). ------- Increased Response Times Under Brown Out The city manager's office stated that "when you look at the numbers [in the fire study] even with the elimination of Engine 2 the response times would still be adequate." But the study does not really validate that because it doesn't just pluck an engine out of a station. Rather it comes up with a new station location that takes into account existing coverage areas. As the fire administration candidly states, the response time increases and impacts will not be known ahead of time. "We would have to collect that data and figure out what the response time difference is for that particular district, for that particular engine company ... We can look at historical data and take our best guess at it, but I think that wouldn't really benefit us in this case." ---- Final Word Major changes to engine company deployment really should come down to what the community feels comfortable with. As one of fire services study authors said at the council in January of last year, "ultimately the decision to merge a facility is a policy decision, certainly based on residents' expectations." A similar statement can be made about the proposal to brownout an engine company, possibly for long periods of time. But residents have not been given much time nor clear information to develop these expectations. -Fred Balin 6/5/12 ## City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 2:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pearlin Cheung <pearlin@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Add budget item - Fry's CAP Dear Council Members, Please add an item for the Fry's site Coordinated Area Plan to the city's 2018 budget. Previously, the City has done CAPs for both the SOFA area and the PAMF site with great results. Please allow the City to do this again by budgeting for a Fry's site CAP. There are interested residents in the Ventura neighborhood for such a group as a few of us have already met specifically to discuss ideas for the Fry's redevelopment. It would be great to have a big development that the community can support. Respectfully, Pearlin Yang Margarita Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 2:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please, We Want a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry’s Development Honorable Palo Alto City Council members, Thank you in advance for reading this email. I grew up in Barron Park, and now live in Ventura. So you might say that I am intimately connected to western 94306. South West Palo Alto, along El Camino has long been an area ripe for re-imagining. We have lagged behind the rest of the city in infrastructure benefits, with our neighborhoods having limited parks, poor walking infrastructure along and across El Camino, poor ability to cross the Caltrain track, in any transportation modality, and the vestiges of the last industrial architecture, including the Fry’s building. We have a vibrant, and relatively affordable housing stock, but limited access to retail or community services, as we have to cross the train tracks for many of these. California Avenue is our “downtown” but there is a large area of commercial building between Barron Park or Ventura and the the shopping district The end of Fry’s lease is coming up, and it is one of the largest areas of land to come up to be re-developed within Palo Alto city limits. This could be a crisis or an opportunity for my home town and especially for my neighborhood. Can we use that space to give this area better services, and a better quality of life? I think so, and I know our neighborhood would like to be involved in the process. Please put money in this years budget for a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry’s Development site. We south/western residents will work hard to make sure the plan suits the local community and the needs of the city. Best regards, Kirsten City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Erin <erin_liman@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 5:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Requesting a CAP for Fry's be added to the 2018 budget Dear Reader, I think civic engagement in re-imagining spaces is an important input to the design of shared spaces. I was part of a Every Voice Engaged session earlier this year where citizens used participatory budgeting games to allocate 64M of discretionary funding for the City of San Jose. After this session, San Jose City Council had a list of the items most important to participants in each district. As a side effect, it educates the public on the tough tradeoffs the City Council members need to make (empathy). If you are interested in learning more, I can make an introduction to the Executive Director, Luke Hohmann. I'm sure a similar session could be hosted on this topic. About About Luke Hohmann, Acting Executive Director Luke Hohmann is the Acting Executive Director of Every Voice Engaged. Lu... Best regards, Erin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:10 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 6:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fry's Site Plan Dear City Council Members, The South of Forest Area Plan, developed almost 20 years ago, has resulted in a beautiful area for residents and visitors to Palo Alto. Crucial to this development was the careful inclusion, during the planning process, of neighborhood residents, who ensured that the city's open-space regulations were adhered to, and that the architectural design was appealing, appropriate and accessible. Now that the Fry's site will soon be redeveloped, we in the neighborhood are eager to have a similar influence over the decisions made for development of this large piece of land that is adjacent to our homes. Imagine our surprise when we realized that there is currently no money budgeted for a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site. No budget for staff coordination of a CAP would mean that our voices would be marginalized and effectively silenced. The residents of south Palo Alto may not be as renowned as the residents of the downtown area, but we care just as much about our neighborhood and our city. We deserve to be full partners in the redevelopment of the Fry's site. Please include in the budget for 2018 the monies necessary for a carefully considered, and fully inclusive, Coordinated Area Plan. Thank you, Angela Dellaporta 421 Matadero Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:10 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Emily Mathews <emmat@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Frye's site Dear City Council Members, The South of Forest Area Plan, developed almost 20 years ago, has resulted in a beautiful area for residents and visitors to Palo Alto. Crucial to this development was the careful inclusion, during the planning process, of neighborhood residents, who ensured that the city's open-space regulations were adhered to, and that the architectural design was appealing, appropriate and accessible. Now that the Fry's site will soon be redeveloped, we in the neighborhood are eager to have a similar influence over the decisions made for development of this large piece of land that is adjacent to our homes. Imagine our surprise when we realized that there is currently no money budgeted for a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site. No budget for staff coordination of a CAP would mean that our voices would be marginalized and effectively silenced. The residents of the Ventura neighborhood care about our neighborhood and our city. We deserve to be full partners in the redevelopment of the Fry's site. Please include in the budget for 2018 the monies necessary for a carefully considered, and fully inclusive, Coordinated Area Plan. Thank you, Emily Mathews Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:10 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 10:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Budget for a CAP for the Fry's site Dear City Council Members, The South of Forest Area Plan, developed almost 17 years ago, has resulted in a beautiful area for residents and visitors to Palo Alto. Critical to this development was the thoughtful inclusion, during the planning process, of neighborhood residents, who ensured that the city's open-space regulations were adhered to, and that the architectural design was appealing, appropriate and accessible. With the Fry's site coming up for redevelopment, we in the neighborhood are anxious and eager to have a similar influence over the decisions made for development of this large piece of land that is adjacent to our homes. Among our concers are traffic and parking patterns that might impact our neighborhood negatively. It disturbs me that there is currently no money budgeted for a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site. No budget for staff coordination of a CAP would mean that our voices would be marginalized and effectively silenced. The residents of the Ventura neighborhood including myself care about our city as well as our part of town. As neighbors, it is essential that we are full partners in the redevelopment of the Fry's site. Please include in the budget for 2018 funds necessary for a carefully thought out and all inclusive, Coordinated Area Plan. Sincerely, T.R. Ranganath City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:10 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Christine Egy Rose <christineegy@aim.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Request for Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site Dear Council Members, My husband, children and I have our home on Lambert Ave. Subsequently, we’re very interested in the surrounding area, including the nearby Fry’s location. We’d like to request that a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site to be added to the 2018 budget. Regards, Christine Egy Rose City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:10 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:CAP for Fry's site I am unable to attend the meeting at which this may be discussed, so write you here. I am a 25-year resident of the Ventura neighborhood. I would be interested in participating in a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site (as was done for the PAMF site downtown). I strongly encourage you to approve a CAP for the site in my neighborhood. thank you for your consideration, Ken Joye 3793 Park Blvd City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fry's Council must step up and budget for a Coordinated Area Plan for the Fry's site. Failure to do so places the entire California Avenue area into second class status compared to downtown. It is akin to paying for a TMA for downtown but not for the California Ave. area. Thank you Paul Machado City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:19 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:My Comments Lat Night Re: Proposed PAFD $$ Savings FYI, Text of my comments last night, follow. -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street —— Council Members, City Manager, Chief: Firefighters responded to a full first alarm in the Ventura neighborhood, last Tuesday shortly before noon. Online dispatch archives indicate that the fire engines at several nearby stations were not immediately available. Two may have been at the regional wild-fire drills in the foothills. A press photo shows that the first engine to arrive came all the way from the Embarcadero- at-Newell station. Seconds count, and without an engine, there is no hose, no pump, no water. How elevated was this engine’s response time? I have requested the incident report. Fortunately this fire was confined to an area outside the home. If inside, the house might have been lost. This situation is a clear example of what could happen under the proposed $1.3 million dollar savings in "deployment services.” When two or more fire stations each share staff between engine and ambulance, if two ambulances are out on call, two engines are out of service. The department's fire-call response goal of within 8 minutes 90 percent of the time is based on the first, emergency-response unit on the scene. Not necessarily a fire engine, but assumed to be when they are strategically placed around the city and always at-the-ready. The proposed cut to engine availability will increase their response times and provide misleading results under this current, success-measurement, metric. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:19 PM 3 Significant cuts to engine service is the only way to implement the proposed savings.Don’t believe me?Another reason to demand that the specifics of the new deployment be released. Were you aware that your budget approval last year led to the elimination of dedicated, daytime, fire-season engine staffing at the foothills station. It’s hot and dry this week, but not enough for a Red Flag Fire Warning so the station probably remains empty. City Hall: Release the secret deployment plans in this week's online packet, so the public has at least some time to assess. City Council: You don’t want to be up here, if that information is withheld and something serious and attributable to those deployment service changes goes counter to aspirations. Thank you. ## City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neera Sodhi Narang <neera.sodhi@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:CAP for Fry's Redevelopment Dear respected members of the Palo Alto City Council: My name is Neera Narang, and I'm a resident of the Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto. I am a physician and mother of two young children, and feel very fortunate to live in this community. I am closely involved in our neighborhood association and hope to be a part of progressive plans for our lovely city moving forward. It has come to my attention that there is no money currently budgeted for a Coordinated Area Plan for the Frys site. I urge the members of the city council to add this to the budget so we can have our voices heard and ensure that this site is developed into the best possible resource for our community. Thanks so much for your consideration. Neera S. Narang, MD City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 11:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:2555 Park Blvd construction Dear City Council, In my church there is a children's song about a wise man and a foolish man. It goes like this. Lyrics  1. The wise man built his house upon the rock, The wise man built his house upon the rock, The wise man built his house upon the rock, And the rains came tumbling down.  2. The rains came down, and the floods came up, The rains came down, and the floods came up, The rains came down, and the floods came up, And the house on the rock stood still.  3. The foolish man built his house upon the sand, The foolish man built his house upon the sand, The foolish man built his house upon the sand, And the rains came tumbling down.  4. The rains came down, and the floods came up, The rains came down, and the floods came up, The rains came down, and the floods came up, And the house on the sand washed away.    The Developers of 2555 Park Blvd are foolish men because they are building on a flood. I mean am I the only logical person around here? It's sickening how the developers have you guys eating out of their hands.   It's been too long and I'm too tired to play nice anymore.   Alice Jacobs  123 Sherman Ave.   P.S. I could go on all day. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:10 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 4:49 PM To:scweekly@ix.netcom.com Cc:Anna Medina; assemblymember berman; Council, City; Mario Dianda; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; senator.hill@senate.ca.gov Subject:affordable housing Local government ought to protect the affordable housing which already exists, by requiring that every employer of more than a dozen employees provide one bedroom of housing unit for each one of them, including spaces for RVs and mobile homes. They wouldn't necessarily object to this, since they have to allow in their wages for housing , the workers have to be housed someplace, and taking over all the existing housing brings much hostility. This also applies to public servants, particularly teachers. It doesn't make sense for school districts not to build beautiful, but inexpensive housing for all their teachers, since they are obliged to pay salaries sufficient to house the teachers, or lose them. Existing affordable housing is also under threat from the dreaded Uniform Building Code, an excuse for demanding upgrades not existing in similar houses. Houses are held to be "uninhabitable" even as hundreds of people have no place at all to sleep. Cities actively discourage, by their regulation, the efficient use of old spaces described by Ms. Diamond of four apartments carved out of an old ballroom, or even of four brand new small units in the space allocated to one large "unit". If this were changed, many tiny units could have been built, affordable without subsidy for older people living on Social Security, and even now, with highly inflated land prices, there is some number of SRO units which could be built on any lot and rented cheaply enough if cities were willing to change their height limit or FAR, but they won't do it without citizen pressure, not one person going before City Council, but dozens, quiet but firm, repeatedly; the density changes have to be restricted to affordable housing and have to be rent controlled in order to keep them as affordable housing. Good luck! Stephanie Munoz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 1:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable RENTAL housing NOW Dear Council Members: The median income for Palo Alto (2015) is now over $147,000. Even middle income rental housing in the city and particularly the downtown area continues to be threatened with evictions/demolitions/rent increases, to build even more expensive housing, including condos. When will the city take leadership to HALT this development until there is a more reasonable housing/jobs ratio? If you take any time at all to look at the research, it's evident that multiethnic, multi-social class communities are more healthy, more vibrant, more civil, more humane, more democratic, than upper middle and upper class, predominantly white communities. We await your leadership in controlling the outrageous rent increases, and the low income rental housing demolitions NOW. The city's Tenant Mediation Board has absolutely NO TEETH. You need to address this as well. We continue to seek action to build LOW INCOME rental housing for our workers, city employees, civil servants. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, for the Low Income Housing Committee of the Peninsula Women's International League for Peace and Freedom City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 11:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Finn <bckp@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:airplane noise and particulates Attachments:Nextgen.pdf To PA City Council: I attended the Council meeting Nov. 19, and was very pleased to note the active interest of council members toward positive resolution of the airplane noise and pollution problem. My personal view is that the continuing discussion as to details of proposed landing routes is being encouraged (for reasons I’m not equipped to evaluate) as a way to deflect attention from the immediate availability of a return to the pre-NextGen landing procedures. These worked remarkably well for everyone, and would with certainty work better now than what we currently experience. I have yet to see a convincing reason why they had to be discarded. My suspicions are supported by the quotation in the enclosed attachment, from the Draft-Report of the Select Committee, which went out of its way to “summarily” reject return to pre-NextGen for an obviously preposterous reason. As I see it, it can only have been desperation that would drive them to such a contrived “justification”. I am attaching a modified version of a letter (including that quotation) that my wife and I submitted to the Council some days ago. The added paragraph toward the end in the new version is intended to connect the thoughts more definitively, and it includes also a new and explicit request from us. Thank you for your efforts toward bringing back the wonderful lifestyle we all once enjoyed in Palo Alto, Robert Finn (New version including a request) 6/19/2017 To PA City Council: We have been living in our Old Palo Alto home since 1982. For 32 years, we treasured it for its quiet and convenient location. During those years, airplane noise was never an issue for us, nor was it for anyone else we knew. Then suddenly in 2014 we found ourselves besieged by planes flying loudly over us, at low altitudes, and clearly indifferent to any personal needs of residents. No explanation came from any official source, but we somehow learned that a new landing pattern for SFO, labeled Nextgen, had just been instituted. There could be no other plausible explanation. We were not the only ones affected, and appeals and hearings ensued. And ensued and ensued, with nothing done toward alleviation. In a Draft-Report from a major Committee issued last October, we found the paragraph: “Some have proposed the simple option of returning to pre- NextGen procedures for the Bay Area. The Draft-Report rejects that option summarily for the reason that “FAA was required by law to adopt new and advanced technology”. This seems to say that Congress required FAA to make things new, even if doing so would actually make them disastrously worse. We are dubious that Congress would make (or even intend) such a demand. We remain unconvinced that there was any legal requirement for the FAA to abandon previous procedures that had already proven themselves viable. We therefore request the City to insist on clearer explanations than the above one proffered in the Draft-Report, as to why that option was rejected. Should we discard our simple kitchen can-opener ––which works faultlessly–– and replace it by an elaborate device that makes a lot of noise but won’t open our cans? And if the system really has to be new and expensive, please at least get it changed from Nextgen. Thank you, Ursula Schulte, Robert Finn City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 9:08 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Monica Miradi <mcmiradi@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 8:42 AM To:Council, City Cc:james.keene@ciryofpaloalto.org; ed.shika@cityofpaloalto.org; hillary.gitelman@ciryofpaloalto.org; Mello, Joshuah Subject:Arastradero Cross Walk / High Risk Dear Sir and Madam, As a mother of two kids I would like to bring to your attention the danger of the Arastradero / Clemo Ave crosswalk. My youngest who was attending Juana Briones school this year had to cross that crosswalk every day of the week so as my older child. The cars doesn't really see the light blinking perhaps because is not strong/visible enough? It would be extremely helpful for the city to install blinking lights on the ground so the drivers can see it better. The amount of traffic is very heavy during school drop off and pick up and the amount of kids walking, baking to school is great in our area. And we do want to encourage that. Please consider this matter priority for the safe of our children! Thank you! Monica Miradi City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Michael J. Freeberg <michaeljfreeberg@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 7:36 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Arastradero-Clemo pedestrian crossing There are concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists using the Arastradero-Clemo pedestrian crossing. The concern is that cars often do not stop for pedestrians entering the crosswalk when the pedestrian flashing lights have been activated. It appears drivers don’t see the crosswalk or flashing lights. It might be helpful if signs were installed before the crosswalk warning drivers of a pedestrian crosswalk ahead, like the warning signs for the crosswalk on El Camino Way. Pedestrians cannot see if the crossing lights were activated after touching the box to activate the crossing lights. In addition, the pedestrian sign for westbound drivers is partially obscured by trees or bushes. Has city staff looked at how other local cities have built or improved crosswalks with proper signage and lighting to improve pedestrian safety? Other local cities have done an excellent job regarding pedestrian crossings. For example, Mountain View pedestrian crossing on Showers Drive at Latham Street has pedestrian signs and flashing lights in the crosswalk making it very visible. There are three crosswalks on Shoreline Blvd. between El Camino Real and Villa Street. The pedestrian signs at each crossing have flashing lights surrounding the entire signs. When the sensor is pressed, an audio recording in English and Spanish states the yellow lights are flashing. The pedestrian crossing on San Antonio Road one block west of El Camino Real in Los Altos has the flashing lights in the crosswalk and an audio warning to pedestrians that cross traffic may not stop. The problem with cars not stopping for pedestrians at the Arastradero-Clemo pedestrian crossing is not a new issue and has been discussed at previous Arastradero/Charleston Corridor public meetings but the problem has still not been addressed. I hope the City of Palo Alto will be more proactive to improve this crosswalk instead of being reactive after a pedestrian is injured or killed due to a poorly marked crosswalk. We are grateful for the hard work by city staff and city council to move forward with the final plans to complete the lane reduction along the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. This was significant by reducing speed which was much faster with four lanes and and providing protective bike lanes. We look forward to the final implementation. Michael Freeberg & Rose Ann Freeberg Palo Alto Orchards City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 2:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Betty Lum <bylum@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 2:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero/Clemo ttraffic signal To the Honorable City Council, Thank you for your efforts which enabled us to get a crosswalk with traffic lights at this intersection several years ago. This has been an extremely busy thoroughfare for students and parents driving children to the several schools (Gunn High, Terman Middle School, the International School, and the Palo Alto Montessori School) along the thoroughfare. In addition, children on both sides of Arastradero attend Juana Briones School necessitating crossing Arastradero to get to school. Those of us in the area are extremely grateful for the traffic light, but would appreciate some improvements to make the crossing safer. n my opinion the lights are too high for the driver to see as (s)he approaches the light. The driver, looking straight ahead, periodially does not see the dimly blinking light which is above his sight of vision. I have gone out to the crosswalk periodically on school days, and notice cars which go through the blinking light. In the ddriver's defense, the lights are at too high an angle, and the blinking lights are not bright enough to be clearly visible. During my observations I find myself yelling at a motorist at least once during the morning rush hour to alert the driver that the crosswalk light is blinking. When I have been at the crosswalk, I have urged the student who wishes to cross, to push the button, then count to five before stepping into the street. Now that schools afre out for the summer, there understandably seems to be fewer people usig this crosswalk. I am very concerned that drivers, seeing fewer pedestrians, will become complacent, be unaware of the crossing lights. Shortly before school closed for the summer, a student crossing Arastradero at this intersection was hit by a car. Fortunately there were no injuries; however the exterior passenger side rear-view mirror broke off. Although police officers arrived, no police report was taken. The student was told she was partly at fault for riding her bicycle in the crosswalk--that she should have pushed it across. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Betty Lum 4202 Suzanne Drive (corner of Suzanne/Arastradero and at the Clemo crosswalk) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:26 AM To:Joe Simitian Subject:Autism: Can't Explain Exploding Numbers --soon 1 in 2 Attachments:Untitled; Untitled ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Autism Action Network <jgilmore@autismactionnetwork.org> To: Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:07 AM Subject: New Study shows diagnostic substitution can't explain exploding autism numbers New Study shows diagnostic substitution can't explain exploding autism numbers A new study has been released that shows that diagnostic substitution cannot account for the huge increase in the number of Americans diagnosed with autism. "Diagnostic substitution" means disorders that in the past would have been called something else are now called "autism." CDCl, NIH can't figure if rate is going up One of the worst failures of the institutions entrusted to protect our health is that after more than two decades of exponential growth in the number of people in the US diagnosed with autism, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the federal Department of Health and Human Services, the corporate autism charities, etc. still claim they can't figure out if the autism rate is really going up The excuses usually given for this catastrophic failure are diagnostic substitution, better case finding (in the past nobody noticed the non-verbal kid flapping in the corner) and changes in how "autism" is defined, but that didn't stop the American Psychiatric Association, the psychiatrists cartel that is allowed to define psychiatric disorders, from redefining autism five times since the 1980s. 1 in 1250 in 2005; now rate is 1 in 40 children; 1 in 2 by 2025 Official medicine still claims they can't figure out if the autism rate has really gone up. This fiction provides cover for the major medical institutions to continue their response to autism, which at best could be characterized as lackadaisical. To put this in perspective, when the Autism Action Network was founded in 2005 the accepted known causes of autism could account for only a small percentage of the diagnosed cases, there were no accepted treatments, and the official autism rate was I in 1,250. Twelve years later the accepted known causes of autism can account for only a small percentage of the diagnosed cases, there are no accepted treatments, and the official autism rate is approaching 1 in 40 children. If current growth rates continue unabated, by 2025 half the kids born in the U.S. will be diagnosed with autism, according to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:17 PM 2 And the Emperor continues to fiddle while Rome burns. You can see read the study abstract here: Diagnostic Substitution for Intellectual Disability: A Flawed Explanation for Rise in Autism forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:lmnop1100@gmail.com on behalf of WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Dear Palo Alto City Council members, Please take a moment to read the following message about Nuclear Disarmament. This is especially timely in light of the upcoming Women's March this Saturday, June 17. We hope to see you at the corner of Embarcadero and El Camino Real at 12 N - 1 PM! It’s Time for a Disarmament Race By Archbishop Desmond Tutu When Nelson Mandela walked free, in 1990, after 27 grueling years behind bars, South Africa began the process of emancipating itself from not only from its brutal apartheid regime but also its arsenal of atomic bombs. Like white-minority rule, these awful weapons had weighed heavily on us all, entrenching our status as a pariah nation. Their abolition was essential for our liberation. Today, North Korea rightly faces the same kind of stigma over its nuclear weaponry. By pursuing such arms, it is behaving as no respectable member of the family of nations should. But too seldom do we hear strong words of censure for others who wield these abominable devices. On the world stage, they present themselves, oxymoronically, as “responsible” nuclear powers. All of those who wield nuclear weapons are deserving of our scorn. The development and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction by any state is morally indefensible. It breeds enmity and mistrust and threatens peace. The radiation unleashed by an American or British or French nuclear bomb is just as deadly as that from a North Korean one. The inferno and shock waves kill and maim no less indiscriminately. With sabres rattling and the specter of nuclear war looming large, the imperative to abolish man’s most evil creation—before it abolishes us—is as urgent as ever. Further arms races and provocations will lead us inexorably to catastrophe. The overwhelming majority of the world’s nations understand this, and are now developing a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons under international law. They began negotiating the accord at the United Nations in March and will resume their work on June 15. Regrettably, however, all of the nuclear-armed nations, along with several of their allies, are refusing to take part. They claim that their bombs help keep the peace. But what peace can be maintained through threats of annihilation? So long as these weapons exist, we will continue to teeter on the brink. To realize a nuclear weapon–free world, we must first acknowledge that nuclear weapons serve no legitimate, lawful purpose. That is precisely what the new treaty will do. It will place nuclear weapons on the same legal footing as chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines, and cluster munitions—all of which the international community has declared too inhumane ever to use or possess. Some leaders, intent on preserving the status quo, have dismissed this UN process as futile given the resistance of the so-called great powers. But what is the alternative? To wait and hope that the powerful few will one day show enlightened leadership? That would be a very poor strategy indeed for safeguarding humanity. In the absence of tremendous pressure, disarmament will remain but a fantasy. For too long, the nuclear powers have failed us terribly. Instead of disarming—as they are duty-bound to do—they have squandered precious resources on programs to bolster their nuclear forces. They have held humankind to ransom. But nuclear- free nations are now rising up, asserting their right to live in a safe, harmonious global community, unburdened by this ultimate menace. Of course, it was not the slaveowners who led the struggle to abolish slavery. Nor was it the Afrikaners who tore down the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:08 PM 2 system of apartheid in South Africa. The oppressed fought for, and ultimately secured, their own freedom. Through collective action, we built the foundations for transformative change, to the benefit of all. This is what we are witnessing today in the arena of disarmament diplomacy. Every nation will be better off in a world without these “terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction,” as Mandela so aptly described them to the UN General Assembly in 1998. Disarmament was a cause dear to his heart. He saw racism, injustice, and the bomb as inextricably linked, and he knew that the arms race, if not curtailed, could only end in oblivion. What we need now is a disarmament race. Desmond Tutu, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, is Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and a patron of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. from https://www.thenation.com/article/its-time-for-a-disarmament-race/ -- Sent by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons www.icanw.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Klose01@comcast.net Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion Dear Council members, I am writing to support the poor people battling Castilleja’s expansion. I don’t understand why the school doesn’t move. Many private schools in Palo Alto have done that as they have grown and expanded. They could separate their high school and middle school. Keys school separated their lower and middle school. Gideon Hausner, who I work for, moved. Honestly, it seems they feel entitled because most of their students come from wealthy families. I am shocked that they are playing this as the victim. These girls will always get what they need and can’t be classified as victims of the neighbors or otherwise. There is no hardship involved. I support Castilleja looking at different solutions to solve their desire to grow their enrollment. If the council agrees to the expansion I will chalk it up to money talks. Sincerely, Katherine Lose’ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kathy Burch <kburch@castilleja.org> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:42 AM To:Keene, James; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; French, Amy Subject:Castilleja School's CUP application Dear City of Palo Alto Officials, As many of you already know, I am an employee of Castilleja School. I am writing to you from my Castilleja account so that there can be no confusion as to my status. I am, in fact, extremely proud of the fact that I work here, and I hold this institution in the highest regard. I want to be clear, however, that I am writing on my own behalf only, and not in any official capacity as an employee of the school. I am also a long time (34 years) resident of Palo Alto – I consider this to be my home town – and my daughter attended Ohlone, Jordan, Castilleja, and Paly. My late father-in-law, Jim Burch, was a Council member and Mayor, whose mission was to help Palo Alto be the best it could be. It is within all of these contexts that I write to you. I attended the neighbor meeting that Castilleja hosted on June 6th. It was only the 2nd of these meetings that I've been to; I have avoided them in the past, because I knew that they would upset me. And I was not wrong, they most certainly did. I'd like to share with you one incident from the first meeting I attended, last fall: a neighbor in attendance told one of my colleagues that she was an "immoral person" for supporting Castilleja's plans. This employee is someone who always has Castilleja's best interests at heart, and who works tirelessly on Castilleja's behalf, while at the same time being mindful of the impact the school has on its neighbors. None of us deserves to be the victim of this sort of baseless and bullying insult. Here are several examples from the June meeting: • even though the format of the meeting was proposed by the members of the PNQL group, which Castilleja graciously agreed to, several members of the audience loudly and prolongedly argued that they didn't agree with the format and would not accept it. One such person, despite the ground rules and time limits imposed by PNQL, had a multi-page presentation of his own that he persisted in delivering, despite the fact that he went well over the time limit imposed on the other speakers. Yet another example of the bullying mind-set that seems to prevail in the anti-Castilleja faction. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:17 PM 2 • one PNQL speaker proclaimed that if Castilleja was allowed to increase its enrollment, there would be "1200 car trips through the neighborhood per day." This "fact" was based on our proposed enrollment of 540 students. In order for his proclamation to be even close to true, every individual arriving and leaving campus would have to be in a car by themselves twice a day, every day. This supposition is patently absurd, and obviously does not take into account all those who carpool, take the train, the Casti shuttle, bike, walk, or use some other mode of transport to and from the school. It also does not take into account the fact that we have stated clearly and often that our CUP application includes additional TDM measures on top of everything we are already doing, as well as self-imposed consequences should we exceed our required daily trip maximums. Yet this individual's fictional number is stated as fact. Finally, to speak to the viral degree to which Castilleja has been and continues to be defamed by residents, I'd like to share an excerpt from a comment made by an anonymous poster on Palo Alto Online, in response to an article about Castilleja's 2017 Commencement program: Reflecting on the community, future? What a pity that as reported, Maria Klawe seems to have chosen to ignore the lack of what she saw in front of her! Where are the black students? Or preparing leaders is only for certain groups? Was there a mention of service? And what kind of community and future is there if a group of our citizens is not represented? When we speak about leadership we have to be careful that the talk and the walk are both visible. This is insulting, hurtful, and flat-out wrong. Our class of 2017 is extremely diverse, with a wide range of ethnic, racial, economic, and religious backgrounds. The class contains a number of students on tuition assistance, including some who will be the first in their families to attend college -- those students will be attending Columbia, Stanford, Rice, and Yale, by the way. One of our signature programs, in which every student on campus participates every year, is our Awareness, Compassion, and Engagement program, through which students partner with a large number of local organizations, including Ada's Cafe, the VA Hospital, Channing House, and many, many others. Castilleja does not "walk the talk"? I would challenge anyone with this perception to spend just one day on our campus observing what goes on in our classrooms and our ACE Center, and then tell me how Castilleja is not diverse, and is not preparing girls for leadership. I also thought it would be informative for you to know that prior to the point in time at which Nanci Kauffman came forward to the City and then to the neighbors about our over-enrollment, Castilleja received very few complaints from our neighbors. Our twice-yearly obligatory neighbor meetings were quite poorly attended -- maybe a half-dozen attendees at the most, and sometimes not a single neighbor showed up! So what changed? Simply the fact that the neighbors were told (by us) that we were over-enrolled. Overnight, their attitudes changed dramatically, and to this day they remain determined to punish Castilleja over and above the huge fine levied by the City, along with the City-mandated reduction in our enrollment. I understand why the neighbors felt that Castilleja had broken its trust, but how long must they remain mired in the past, given all that we have done in the years since to successfully mitigate our impact on the neighborhood? Castilleja has repeatedly and consistently taken the high road throughout this process. We have been circumspect in how we speak to and about our neighbors, and we have been circumspect with regard to calling City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:17 PM 3 out their many misrepresentations of the facts surrounding our CUP process and future plans. Regardless, we continue to be vilified by a number of neighbors and other Palo Alto residents. If you have made it this far, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to hear my perspective. I am very loyal to Castilleja and its mission, and am grateful beyond imagining to have spent the bulk of my work life here. I can tell you that if Jim Burch were alive today, he would be shocked and saddened – as am I – by the decline in civility and the "NIMBY" mind-set that now seems to be prevalent among Palo Alto residents (and if not prevalent, it is most certainly loud). Can you imagine how it makes me feel to walk/drive through my home town's neighborhoods and see those anti-Castilleja signs? Can you imagine how our students – and please keep in mind we are talking about children here – feel when they see these signs on almost every property surrounding their beloved school? If not, I'm happy to tell you: they ask, "why do the neighbors hate us so much?" Why, indeed. Sincerely, Kathy Burch -- Kathy Burch Chief of Staff Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 650-470-7702 WOMEN LEARNING I WOMEN LEADING City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:06 AM To:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Philip, Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich; Council, City; Keene, James; Kniss, Liz (external); Scharff, Greg; Reichental, Jonathan Subject:Fwd: Automatic reply: You and others belong in jail...Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter He's out of the office until April 4th 2016? And guy is chief of detectives? And doesn't know how to use Microsoft suite? I would question everything this guy produces...legally Mark Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Philip, Brian" <Brian.Philip@CityofPaloAlto.org> Date: June 19, 2017 at 6:39:32 AM CST To: Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Subject: Automatic reply: You and others belong in jail...Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter I am out of the office until April 4, 2016 and will respond to email when I return. Thank you. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Watson, Ron; Lum, Patty; Wagner, April; Brian Welch; Philip, Brian; Minor, Beth; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Carnahan, David; David Angel; Perron, Zachary Subject:Fwd: Cops cause auto accident Attachments:DOC062017.pdf Claim rejected...status quo. All cities, with few exceptions will deny claims. they would rather spend taxpayer dollars fighting claims with the hope the complainant will go away... this scenario happens time and time again. that's the city attorney molly stump's job in reality. that's what she is paid for. forget the morality of the claim, she practices zombi law.. without a conscience. A dead heart ❤ blood cold as ice..her actions approved and sanctioned by everyone. A monster a well compensated monster... thanks mr t for passing along... Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com> Date: June 20, 2017 at 12:10:10 PM CST To: Mark Petersen-Perez <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Subject: Cops cause auto accident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 2:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 2:36 PM To:Dan Richard; bretthedrick; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mark Standriff; Mayor; CityManager; Council, City; kfsndesk; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; popoff; richard.wenzel; boardmembers; nick yovino; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Kreutzer Subject:Fwd: Uber-Lyft potential impact on Ford and GM Sales ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:27 PM Subject: Fwd: Uber-Lyft potential impact on Ford and GM Sales To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM Subject: Fwd: Uber-Lyft potential impact on Ford and GM Sales To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:44 PM Subject: Fwd: Uber-Lyft potential impact on Ford and GM Sales To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:25 PM Subject: Fwd: Uber-Lyft potential impact on Ford and GM Sales To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:09 PM Subject: Uber-Lyft potential impact on Ford and GM Sales To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 2:56 PM 2 Monday, June 19, 2017 To all- Impact of ride sharing on new car sales: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4081941-evidence-building-uber-lyft-will-severe-impact-ford-gm-sales Here is an idea: Ride sharing is mainly within your town, right? Inside SF or NYC, or Fresno. But I periodically go from Fresno to San Mateo-Palo Alto. Do the ride-sharing services address that need? Can I tell them that I need to leave Fresno at 10 AM on a certain date and be at a certain address in San Mateo at 1:45 PM? And then leave San Mateo at 3:30 PM and travel to the Stanford Shopping Center? That last leg would be local travel I guess, moving mid-Peninsula. The 180 mile trip Fresno to San Mateo is the one I wonder about. It is a 3 hour trip with a pit-stop in Los Banos, 60 miles from Fresno. The only cost I consider for that trip is for gasoline, lately quite affordable. The cars were paid for the day I got them, I don't try to assign repair costs and tires etc. to the trip. If I avg. 15 MPG and pay $2.75 per gallon for gas, the 180 miles costs me $33. If a ride sharing srv. wanted some multiple of $33 one way Fresno to San Mateo, I'd keep driving one of my cars. Just food for thought for the ride sharing services. Of course, with 2 or 3 fellow travelers, I might not have to pay a big multiple of $33. Safety is a consideration. I know what kind of driver I am, and the skill of a ride sharing driver is an unknown quantity. I might risk his skills for a local trip while putting my life in his hands at 70 mph on the freeway loaded with gasoline tankers and other big 18 wheelers for 3 hours could be a different issue. And I might tolerate the 2 or 3 fellow travelers for 20 minutes for a local ride inside of Fresno or San Mateo better than I would tolerate them for 3 hours. And, even if 2 or 3 fellow travelers could be found in Fresno who wanted to make that trip at those hours on that date, the driver would still have to drive around inside Fresno to pick them up, and Fresno is 110 square miles. So that could add quite a bit of time to the trip. Maybe the ride sharing services would do better transporting me from my home in NW Fresno to the high speed rail station in downtown Fresno when it is operating. One hour Fresno to Palo Alto via HSR and it has to compete price-wise with my car. It works in Europe and Japan. Of course, a lot of HSR riders there live in big cities and don't own cars. In spread-out Fresno, far more people do own cars. So that will have to enter into the calculations of high speed rail. If we are talking about riders who own cars in a spread out town like Fresno, their potential ridership is diminished. Where they will become HSR riders is 1) if they don't own a car or 2) they are commuters from a Fresno to a Silicon Valley and the employers are subsidizing their monthly HSR pass. To drive occasionally from Fresno to San Mateo and leaving at 10 AM can be sort of fun, but to try to do that 5 mornings per week during rush hour would be a man-killing proposition. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 2:56 PM 3 I heard a new factor the o. day re HSR for commuters Fresno to S.V.: S.V employers would pay much of the HSR cost for their employees to get them S.V. to affordable homes in Fresno because they would have to pay them a lot more to afford the mortgage on a million dollar home in San Jose or a $2 million one in Palo Alto. HSR is going to be a boon to employers in S.V. where most of their employees cannot afford to buy or even rent and it is going to be a boon to towns like Fresno with a big influx of educated, law-abiding taxpayers buying nice affordable homes. Notice that ride-sharing, even if only local, is going to be a boon to HSR. It will get HSR riders from their homes to the HSR station in towns like Fresno, a pain now, and it will get them around in Palo Alto or San Francisco once they alight from HSR there. The trip by car from Fresno to San Mateo is three hours, no matter who is driving, so ride-sharing won't damage HSR much, but it is a great development for HSR since arriving in Palo Alto or SF via HSR and then not having a car would seem like a big deterrent to HSR ridership to me. Local ride sharing will reduce that issue for HSR ridership. LH City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:20 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Michaud <info@idlefreecalifornia.org> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:shelly.gordon@lomaprieta.sierraclub.org; Luz Gomez Subject:Idle-Free Palo Alto Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff Dear Vice Mayor and City Council members, I am executive director of Idle-Free California, a nonprofit organization that raises awareness of the harmful and wasteful practice of unnecessary vehicle idling — idling when parked or discretionary idling — in California. I am not local - residing in the Sacramento County city of Citrus Heights. But the recent article on vehicle idling in Palo Alto caught my attention. We know idling when parked is a common occurrence just about everywhere. In fact, we can roughly estimate that Californians idling just when parked emit 3.75 million tons of CO2 annually. In reading the story, I was quite pleased that the City Council is considering adopting an anti-idling ordinance, and may take this up after summer break. Since California has a regulation that limits the idling of vehicles of more than 10,000 lbs., an ordinance targets mainly light-duty vehicles such as cars, SUVs and pickups. I am aware of only one anti-idling ordinance in California: Santa Cruz, a city of similar size to Palo Alto. As to enforcement, based on other anti-idling ordinances in U.S. cities, they are rarely enforced. There can be some enforcement depending on how the police department is set up. A walking beat enforcement, while they mete out parking tickets, could issue citations for prolonged idling. Posted signs are undoubtably a key to increasing ordinance effectiveness. But an ordinance can serve a more important purpose: to strengthen a city idle-free educational campaign. Already, city citizens raising concerns of this issue has apparently led to a significant cutdown in idling of Mark Zuckerberg’s security detail. The city could work with such organizations as the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club and, as suggested in the article, joining with the Spare the Air/Idle Free Tri-Valley/East Bay Area campaign. Campaign steps could involve handouts*, student-led idle-free schools campaigns, idle-free presentations to fleet businesses in the community, as well as the municipal fleet. This effort could help in achieving the city’s Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal while also achieving cleaner air. I would be happy to provide additional feedback/suggestions. *Idle-Free California handouts Thank you, Wayne Wayne Michaud Executive Director, Idle-Free California 6900 Navarro Ct., Citrus Heights, CA 95621 707-548-1619 Idle-Free California website Idle-Free California Facebook page City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:20 PM 2 Be idle free for our health & planet City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:03 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:31 PM To:Perron, Zachary; Brian Welch; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Wagner, April; Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Council, City; Stump, Molly Subject:Immigrants preying on Americans with false tales of abuse to stay in US, experts say | Fox News Did you ever consider this happening in my case? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/08/immigrants-preying-on-americans-with-false-tales-abuse-to-stay-in-us- experts-say.html Do any, any of you have the integrity to answer this question. Mark Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 14, 2017 8:36 PM To:Wagner, April; Bonilla, Robert; Ryan, Dan; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (external); Lum, Patty; Scharff, Greg Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; Keith, Claudia; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Brian Welch; Philip, Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich Subject:marriage fraud schemes that cause the most damage “It is these one-sided immigration marriage fraud schemes that cause the most damage to unsuspecting U.S. citizens and their families,” Sampson said. “They are abused emotionally, financially, psychologically and, often times, physically. And no one seems to be interested in stopping this heinous crime.” Namely..YOU ROSEN you piece of shit!!! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/08/immigrants-preying-on-americans-with-false-tales-abuse-to-stay-in-us- experts-say.html Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Steve Rock <rock_js@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, June 18, 2017 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:merchants waste of energy Dear Folks, Today it is 102 in Palo Alto. I was at the World Music Event and observed that about half the stores that were not closed, had their doors open and air conditions on. This included in one small area 463, 460,456, and 447 University Ave and 'Shoe Place' at the corner of Kipling which had no visible street address. This is a clear and blatant waste of energy. The cost of keeping the doors closed is zero. Many stores seem to prosper with closed doors such as Apple, Keen, and Walgreens. Our city postures as wanting to be 'Green', heavily subsidizing local solar, putting up ultra green buildings, subsidizing low energy appliances, and sounding vary pious. However, the simple matter of requiring businesses to close their doors has been ignored for decades. Yes, I have been complaining about it for that long, only to get responses like 'The Utilities Dept will look into it'. I propose legislation to make it illegal to leave doors open if heating or cooling is on and the thermostat set for more than 5 degrees different from the outside temperature. Punishment could be either fines (increasing for each additional offense, perhaps with 3 strikes and you loose your business license, or steep increases in utility rates. In addition, offending stores would have to prominently post on their doors that they had failed the energy test (like restaurants with health inspections). Inspections would be quick and easy on days like today. If you really want to save energy, in addition to spending millions on putting solar panels on garages, you could spend almost nothing and conserve that very energy. -Steve Stephen Rock 3872 Nathan Way Palo Alto CA 94303 ser84@columbia.edu City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:shawn sasse <sassetoo@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 5:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page - Contract with Tim Sheeper Rinconada Pool - On Agenda Jun 19 City Council Members: I am a longtime Rinconada lap swimmer and am extremely disappointed that the swimming community - the 365 day/year users, both lap swimmers and Masters swimmers - can't stop the awarding of the contract for operational management, etc. to Tim Sheeper. Rob de Geus is determined to pass this contract regardless of a large swimming community backlash which implored him not to do so. Most swimmers are worn down at this point, and we have fought hard just to keep a lap swimming/masters swimming schedule in place that has worked for decades. We achieved this through the dedication of a community of swimmers confronting Rob de Geus and Tim Sheeper - who originally presented a schedule that showed a tremendous lack of understanding of the City of Palo Alto's existing swimming community. As you can imagine, there is a complete lack of trust in Rob de Geus and Tim Sheeper within the swimming community going forward. Rob de Geus wants to pack the pool with swim lessons and recreational programs as well as wash the City's hands clean of operating it; Tim Sheeper needs to make a profit by increasing usage to whatever he can accommodate (unfortunately, without understanding the swimming community he would serve). The Rinconada pool is a gem, and it is paid for by taxpayers/users as a community benefit for its citizens and guests. There is no other community pool as nice as Rinconada's in the area. Now, an outside contractor will profit from the facility, while swimmers will pay more while as the locker rooms and pool lanes become more crowded and their experience diminishes. Contrast the purposes: private contractor and profit, versus City of Palo Alto and serving the swimming community. I, along with many lap swimmers and masters swimmers, implore you to reject the contract and keep the Rinconada Pool as a City run pool paid for by users and tax dollars. There IS a way to do this, contrary to Community Service's many excuses; the pool operated this way long before Rob de Geus was Director of Communiy Services. Thank you. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 11:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Larry and Zongqi Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:No left turns on Hawthorne Avenue make for more safety and peace Dear Councilmembers, Thank You for your support of traffic calming in our city. Hawthorne Avenue is safer for pedestrians, children playing in the park, and quieter and more peaceful for residents; the result of the no left turn signs on Hawthorne and hopefully the additional medians to be built in the future. Best Wishes, Larry Alton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:02 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pot Shops Should Be Prohibited City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elected Council Members: I believe that Palo Alto should prohibit pot shops if it can. There is no place for this narcotic in our town, and it seems to me that we should use our city government to see that it is not sold openly. Please vote NO on any attempt to openly sell this substance. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:43 AM To:Press strong Cc:Keene, James; Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Stump, Molly; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Brian Welch; Philip, Brian; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; David Angel; Perez, Lalo; sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Dave Price; jeramygordon@me.com Subject:Re: 10 missing videos This clearly demonstrates an on-going pattern of Palo Alto Police abuse and demonstrates Palo Alto's city council's inability to reign in or control these abuses, past and present. City attorney Molly Stumps, continues to protect these officers by conducting settlement discussions behind closed doors. This is in complete defiance and failure of her promise (main priorities will be transparency) to the residents of Palo Alto to be not only open, but transparent. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/03/22/new-palo-alto-city-attorney-pledges-transparency Molly Stump has defrauded the citizens of Palo Alto in her position as city attorney and should be immediately terminated salaries returned to the general fund and her pension revoked. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Jun 14, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com> wrote: James Keene Palo Alto City Manager Mr. Keene if your kid came to you with the excuses below for not doing his homework would you believe him? 1.I forgot to do it. (turned off) 2.I dropped it in the pool. (malfunction) 3.The dog ate it. (malfunction) 4.I thought I did it, but I guess I didn't. (turned off) 5.I forgot to do it. (turned off) 6.I decided not to do it because I didn't need to. (turned off) 7.My teacher didn't give me all of it. (dead battery) 8.I lost it on the way to school. (edited - missing video) 9.The dog ate it a second time (edited - missing video) 10.My little brother painted over it. (edited - missing video) 11.I put it in the microwave because I didn't think I needed to turn it in to the teacher (destroyed it) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:06 PM 2 There have been a minimum of 6 separate incidents between the Palo Alto Police and citizens in which 10 recording devices used by the Palo Alto Police failed to record those interactions. 1 (1 Recording Device) Officer Seghetti forgot to turn on the patrol car video recording device even though the recording device activates automatically when the flashing lights or siren are turned on and the officer had in fact turned on his lights. PAPD spokesperson Agent Dan Ryan acknowledged the design flaws and that officers forget to turn the recording device on. http://gennacobarcomplaint.weebly.com/cop-crash.html 2.(2 Recording Devices) Tyler Harney settles lawsuit with Palo Alto Police after judge rules that PAPD must turn over evidence that would determine if they tampered with the videos; for two separate MAV recorders malfunctioned simultaneously and thereby failed to record the severe injury that Harney sustained while being arrested. http://gennacobarcomplaint.weebly.com/harney.html 3.(1 Recording Device) A Palo Alto Police Officer failed to turn on his Mobile Audio Visual System, "MAV," recorder just prior to making an arrest in which a suspect sustained an unexplained head injury. Interestingly the officer thought he had turned the recording device on when in fact he had not demonstrating the flaws with the system. If an officer does not know if the MAV is on how will he know if it is recording? http://gennacobarcomplaint.weebly.com/head-injury.html http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50425 4 and 5 (2+ Recording Devices) In the latest Police Auditor Report (March 2017 - April 3, 2017) there is a case regarding an officer failing to turn on his "Mobile Audio Visual System" "MAV" during and incident which involved a teenager. The officer had already been disciplined for not turning his MAV system on in 2015. Although there is nothing in the current report to indicate that the missing video has anything to do with the teenager mauled by a Palo Alto Police Dog the timing of both incidents do correlate to each other. Hopefully it will be clarified in the subsequent reports and the Teen's lawsuit whether or not the Dog Mauling was recorded by the officer's MAV system. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/dog-attack.html http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56685 This pattern and practice reveals system flaws with the Mobile Audio Visual System as acknowledged by the Palo Alto Police. http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/systemic-flaws.html 6 (4 Recording Devices) A)Ofc. Temores' Microphone's Battery -- Patrol Car recorder did not record audio because the battery to the microphone ran out of power even though the battery was charged when officer Temores went on duty 5 hours earlier and the battery can power the microphone for 10 continuous hours. One would think that if the microphone battery had 15 minutes of power it would have City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:06 PM 3 powered the microphone for the first 15 minutes of the interaction but it did not. http://gennacobarcomplaint.weebly.com/temores.html B)A Forensic expert determined that taser videos footage from two seperate recordings had been altered, edited with content being removed. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-3.html The Santa Clara County Crime Lab inadvertently verified that 4 seconds of video footage is missing from one of the taser videos. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-8.html C)The Santa Clara County Crime Lab verified that the taser videos match up to the both Temores' and Burger's MAV videos, thus since video footage is missing from the Taser videos there must be video footage missing from the two patorl car MAV videos. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-8.html D)See also that the officers confirmed that two taser guns fired taser probes. The video footage of the second taser gun firing is missing from both Temores' MAV recording and Taser recording. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html The officers were forced to destroy evidence to conceal the missing video footage. http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/ http://chiefburns.weebly.com/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 11:37 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:34 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Reich, Russ; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Hoyt, George Subject:RE: 24/7 Construction Noise On another note, the construction site just south of 2555 Park Blvd also is going on when we were assured that they'd be staggered. Biking home with my young children from swim lessons down on Margarita, I witnessed a large loader truck go through a stop sign and almost take out a biker about 20 yards in front of me. A few second later it would have my children and I. He slammed on his breaks and the biker swerved. I shouted at him and he yelled a bunch of angry words as if he were the right away. He charged to that stop sign with little caution. They are not monitoring traffic there. 2555 Park Blvd is doing a really great job of monitoring traffic and making sure everyone is safe. I reported this incident to the police. When you come to a stop sign you stop on the line and then creep forward for a better view. However they really should havea worker on site giving these large construction vehicles guidance out onto Park Blvd..... THE BIKE BLVD. Guys, it's a mess down here. Alice Sent from Droid On Jun 21, 2017 11:27, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Ms. Jacobs: City staff is actively working with the contractor on this issue and we’ll provide an update to you and others by the end of the day. Hillary Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 11:37 AM 2 From: Alice Jacobs [mailto:aquayellow@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 7:36 AM To: Council, City Subject: Re: 24/7 Construction Noise By the way, here is a picture of the nightmare behind my house. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council, My family and I live at 123 Sherman Ave. For the past 6 months we have endured loud construction noise and a shaking house from the demolition and construction of 2555 Park BLVD. It is right behind our house. It is destroying us. Due to all of the stress I have developed several health issues including adrenal fatigue and loss of hair. I was finally getting enough medical and professional help (after thousands of dollars that we don't really have) to be on the mend until the site hit the river (would they should have know was there due to soil testing and the fact that just down the street Oregon Expressway underground water is being pump.) Anyhow, for a week they've had a loud pump going and has been going on for 24/7. I have not slept. It is not an exaggeration. I have the rationale to type this email because I had to go to a friends house far away to sleep. This is a noise that cannot be covered up by ear plugs or a sound machine. It bellows through our foundation and vibrates a hum throughout our house. My husband needs his brain to work. He needs sleep. We thought we were in the sleep clear with our children being a little older (8,6,3) now that we're only getting up occasionally to soothe for a nightmare of bed wetting rather than babies and toddlers waking up all night for various reasons. After talking to several people we have found out that they are violating city codes: Here’s what I think is the relevant part of the city code PAMC 9.10.0.40: 9.10.040 Commercial and industrial property noise limits. No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. (Ord. 4634 § 2 (part), 2000) Why is this not being enforced? Why are they not being fined for every night that this is going on? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 11:37 AM 3 I cannot mother, I am having trouble functioning each day on no sleep. My son just had surgery and requires extra care. This has destroyed our lives, been a very heavy burden on my marriage. This countries government is in such disarray that I'm saddens to also witness the decline in the ethics of the Palo Alto political system. I cannot believe what we're getting for the amount of we are paying in property taxes. I grew up in Hayward with a poor educational system and lots of violence and fear hoping for a better life for a children. Well we desperately want out but we've been put to put if lightly, totally screwed over. They took our tree down, which shed more heat on our house, they helped pay for AC but it wasn't enough so we are in financial stress. I feel like our home that I put so much blood, sweat and tears into making a happy environment for children is being under attack. We are not the only ones who feel this way. All of the neighbors on all sides of this project are not getting sleep. DO SOMETHING! DO YOUR JOB! WE are stuck and powerless. We can't move, or sell of rent out our place because of this. They estimate this will go on for 9 months. Why in the world would this project be allowed if they needed to pump out 9 months worth of water. This is absurd. I know I don't live in Syria and don't have to worry about being bombed. I have a perspective. But I am tired and angry. When we pay so much to live in this house, this community, for the opportunity for my husband to bike to work. We have done everything you've asked. I put less than 7,000 miles on our one car. Our grass died a long time ago because we saved water. We walk/bike as much as possible. We are giving to our community but in the end, what's the point? We are constantly pushing against the tide. Palo Alto is now a sad pressure cooker which you have contributed to. If I were better rested I probably would not have ranted so much but I'm feeling a little bit irrational at this point so I'm spilling my guts. LISTEN TO ME! -ALICE JACOBS 123 Sherman Ave. P.S. Sorry for any typos, I'm too tired to reread and need to attend to my children. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 18, 2017 1:50 PM To:mldauber@stanford.edu Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Brian Welch; David Angel; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (external); Scharff, Greg; Keene, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Press strong; Wagner, April; Ryan, Dan; Bullerjahn, Rich Subject:Re: Historic Palo Alto Police Rape Hot Line What Mr. Okinawa really said. Is Far, Far different from Mr. Welch's response... "No charges will be filed at this time". Waiting for future, raping, more evidence gathering, child abuse, elder abuse...who knows what they wanted... The DA's office, the PAPD have kept me in prison. In psychological prison in perpetuity... Shameful abhorrent conduct, willful and wonton...investigative abortion.... Mark Petersen-Perez City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 3 Sent from my iPad On Jun 18, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: Here's the link I promised: Enjoy. Perhaps you will feel motivated to respond, but I doubt it. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/12663 BTW, DA Jeff Rosen, decided that this alleged vicious rape is no longer worth pursuing and decided to label in case, end-of life (Statue of limitations) Outrageous and sicking vomit!! All the while I'm locked in a psychological prison in perpetuity... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:45 AM 4 Sent from my iPhone Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Jun 18, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: Were you aware that the Palo Alto police installed the 1st, 1st domestic Rape line in my apartment? And the DA's office was in the process of charging me with interference of this Rape Hot-Line... That Rape Hot line was installed without my consent. It remained unpaid ($3000.00) and on my credit report for years... Impacting my ability to even get a credit card... I'll send you the link. It's one document the city of Palo Alto can not bury... The Palo Alto police claimed this RAPE was a vicious assault. Yet, district attorney Jeff Rosen, rather then get at the truth has decided to invoke the "Statue of Limitations". Outrageous Chief Detective, April Wagner... This police officer belongs in jail having violated Tony Ciampi's constitutional rights, and the rights of others which is well documented in the media.... Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe Nicarauga Central America City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keene, James Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 7:57 PM To:Council, City; Landesmann, Jennifer Cc:Alaee, Khashayar; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: Jet Noise on Agenda Tonight Thanks Jennifer! Jim Get Outlook for iOS From: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:51:27 PM To: Council, City Cc: Keene, James; Alaee, Khashayar; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject: Jet Noise on Agenda Tonight Dear Council members, I support the Mayor's letter to the Department of Transportation. I also support City follow up to the Select Committee items which are important to Palo Alto - namely, the committee's unanimous vote to assess new way points to address what the Committee referred to as the "problematic" Menlo way point. The assessments of new way points need to be done with the FAA to have honest discussions about how alternatives can help eliminate noise in the first place, and if noise is left over, how it can be equitably dispersed. Assessments of alternatives are the reasonable way to achieve the overall intent of the Select Committee, well summarized in the Chair's transmittal letter, here attached. As we have been informed, the FAA is responding with a Feasibility report. The report should embody the Select Committee recommendations - some items will be adjustments to offer more immediately relief, and others are new route designs which take longer. When the feasibility report is back to the communities, the Ad Hoc (or any body to follow up on implementation of the Select Committee recommendations) will be key for Palo Alto to be part of. We must make sure that the guiding principles of the Ad Hoc or any tables we consider joining do not advocate for noise concentration, and that all options (provided they are safe of course) can be considered to solve the problems. As decisions about regional tables are considered, please pursue appropriate guiding principles for these bodies. Concentration is not just "noise", but a serious health matter when this means persistent impact on quality of life of elderly, working people, and our youth being asked to suffer insidious, focused levels of frequent and loud intrusions daily and nightly. These jets, by the way, are getting bigger and their print (at low altitudes) is not the typical jet noise one considers as jet noise from years past. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:14 PM 2 Things have changed, there is a Next generation airspace system at work, and we need to modernize the way we address these impacts. The requests for alternative metrics in the Mayor's letter to DOT, and better evaluation of particulate emissions is also very important. Thank you for your leadership. Best regards, Jennifer Landesmann cell ph 415-810-7342 Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT FIVE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING 70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280-0418 supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervisorsimitian.com November 17, 2016 The Honorable Anna Eshoo Congresswoman, 18th District 698 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 The Honorable Sam Farr Congressman, 20th District 701 Ocean Street, Room 318C Santa Cruz, CA 95060 The Honorable Jackie Speier Congresswoman, 14th District 155 Bovet Road, Suite 780 San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Honorable Members of Congress: With this letter I convey to you the final Recommendations of your Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals. These Recommendations reflect the work of the 12 Member Committee and their 12 Alternates (see Attachment A), empaneled by you, over the course of almost two dozen meetings during the past six months (see Attachment B). While your original charge to the Committee was essentially limited to the six sets of “feasible” actions identified as part of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Northern California Initiative, the Committee also considered other potential solutions suggested during the course our hearings, and offered Recommendations where appropriate (see Section 2). The Committee also identified a number of “longer-term issues” for deliberation and potential action in the future (see Section 3); as well as a number of “process issues” that the Committee thought worth highlighting (see Section 4). Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals Transmittal Letter to Members of Congress November 17, 2016 Page 2 While this report runs almost 30 pages in length, our Recommendations might succinctly be summarized as: x Fly at higher altitudes; x Fly over locations with fewer people; x Avoid noisy flight maneuvers; and, x Implement noise reducing retrofits where possible. While the Committee has not made any effort to “rank order” or prioritize Recommendations, there are two I feel it appropriate to highlight for your consideration. First, the very challenging and high profile issue of whether or not to abandon the SERFR flight procedure/path in favor of a flight procedure/path along the ground track formerly used for the BSR flight procedure/path (see Item 1.2). The Committee did in fact recommend such a change on an 8-4 vote as a near-term remedial action (consistent with other criteria set forth in Recommendation 2 of Item 1.2). It is important, however, to note that the Committee has also recommended (on a 12-0 vote) the identification and development of a better procedure and path for the long-term (as noted in Recommendation 4 of Item 1.2). The Committee earnestly hopes that the need for this longer-term effort will not be overlooked in the understandable desire to provide near-term relief. Second, the Committee also took note of the fact that the creation of an ongoing body to assess and address airport noise issues in the three county area is in many respects essential to the successful implementation of the Recommendations contained in this Report; and to addressing issues likely to arise in the future. Finally, this letter would be incomplete if it did not express thanks to the many who made this effort possible and productive. That, of course, includes you, the three Members of Congress who empaneled the Select Committee, and your staffs, who lent considerable support throughout the effort. Thanks as well to the 12 Members of the Select Committee and their 12 Alternates. It should be noted that in virtually every meeting of the Select Committee all 12 seats were filled; most often by the 12 Members of the Committee, but with exemplary service from their Alternates as needed. At least two thirds of the Alternates participated in the process in some significant way, allowing the Committee to be fully functioning throughout its six month tenure, and providing additional and valuable expertise and perspective to the process. Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals Transmittal Letter to Members of Congress November 17, 2016 Page 3 Technical support was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, whose staff was on hand at each and every one of our three community meetings, 10 working meetings, and five technical briefings to both listen and respond to questions. As you well know, the process began with considerable public skepticism about the ability and willingness of the FAA to engage in a meaningful way. I must tell you that the staff of the FAA was exemplary in its persistence, patience, and professionalism throughout the process. Special thanks to the City of Palo Alto for hosting the Committee’s 10 Working Meetings, and for the considerable multimedia support that entailed as well. But perhaps most importantly, thanks go to the members of the public who first raised these issues, who organized to make themselves heard, who testified in great numbers (approximately 250 in our first three Community Meetings, and approximately 130 at the subsequent Working Meeting of the Committee set-aside for public comment), and whose written comments – in the form of comment cards, letters, and emails – exceed more than 3,500 to date. These various public communications were essential to informing the understanding of the Committee as we crafted the Recommendations we now present to you. Having conveyed these Recommendations to you, we now ask that you continue your engagement with the FAA to ensure their timely implementation to the fullest extent practicable. The Committee believes these Recommendations have the potential to provide real relief. We hope that relief arrives sooner rather than later. Sincerely, S. Joseph Simitian County Supervisor, Fifth District Chair, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 11:36 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:De Geus, Robert Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 11:31 AM To:Council, City; Tom DuBois Cc:Keene, James; Keith, Claudia; Shikada, Ed; Svendsen, Janice Subject:RE: La Comida Update Good morning Council Members, Council Member DuBois asked that I provide a little more detail regarding the ongoing discussion between the City, La Comida and Avenidas, and City Manager Jim Keene asked that I share this with the full Council, see below: The first step was to get all parties in the same room to talk candidly about our shared interests, which occurred June 14. The good news is the City, La Comida and Avenidas all believe strongly in co-location of a Senior Nutrition Program at the Avenidas 450 Bryant Street site. Furthermore, representatives of La Comida and Avenidas, at our Thursday June 14 meeting, also agreed to recommend to their respective boards to return to mediation to reopen discussions for how a Senior Nutrition Program might work best at the renovated 450 Bryant St. This is an important next step as we focus on service to the community. The Avenidas Board will meet this coming week to discuss the recommendation to return to mediation with La Comida. While this is encouraging for La Comida, it is important to understand Avenidas has been working under the assumption for months that La Comida would be located elsewhere, consequently, Avenidas may well have considered alternative service models which now need to be reconciled with the potential of La Comida returning to Avenidas. This is something we will work through in mediation, I believe taking the time needed to talk through the issues and opportunities will be critical, and should not be rushed. We have more time to work on the long term solution, as opposed to finding an interim location which we need to resolve very soon. I suggested that I be part of the mediation to help find the best path forward, both parties seemed to appreciate that. I will meet with Avenidas and La Comida again this Friday June 23. The agenda will include an update on temporary locations for La Comida, such as: the outcome of the Stevenson House Board meeting, Lytton Gardens, Lucie Stern Community Center and a number of churches that may provide short term possibilities. Further, we will discuss the outcome of the Avenidas Board meeting that will also occur this week, and pending the outcome of that board meeting we hope to advance the discussion on mediation i.e. timeline, selecting a mediator, mediation process etc., regarding La Comida’s possible return to Avenidas after the renovation at 450 Bryant is complete. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions. Rob Rob de Geus | Director Community Services Department 1305 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.463.4951 | F: 650.321.5612 | E: Robert.deGeus@cityofpaloalto.org “Engaging Individuals and Families to Create a Strong and Healthy Community” From: De Geus, Robert Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 4:38 PM City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 11:36 AM 2 To: Council, City Cc: Keene, James; Keith, Claudia; Shikada, Ed; Svendsen, Janice Subject: La Comida Update Good afternoon Council Members, This past week representatives of La Comida, Avenidas and the City met to discuss our common interests in finding both short and long term solutions for the Senior Nutrition Program. It was an important first step in finding a workable path forward, and I was encouraged to hear significant shared interests between the organizations. Regarding a short term solution, for the period of time the 450 Bryant street facility is being renovated (scheduled to begin September 1st); La Comida are close to securing an agreement with Stevenson House in the south Palo Alto to prepare and serve lunches. Stevenson House Board will vote on the agreement on June 22. There is some sensitivity, so La Comida asks that we do not assume this is a done deal until the board votes. Further, the dining space at Stevenson House is limited, and the location will not be convenient for many of the seniors that live in north Palo Alto. Consequently, La Comida is also looking for a location closer to downtown. We discussed several short term locations for a second location in north Palo Alto, including Lytton Gardens and Lucie Stern Community Center. Avenidas and City staff will help La Comida explore these and other potential sites next week. Regarding a long term solution, we agreed at our Wednesday meeting that it would be productive for Avenidas and La Comida to return to mediation to consider how we might best design a sustainable senior nutrition program at the renovated and expanded 450 Bryant St. All parties will meet again on Friday June 23. Thank you, Rob Rob de Geus | Director Community Services Department 1305 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.463.4951 | F: 650.321.5612 | E: Robert.deGeus@cityofpaloalto.org “Engaging Individuals and Families to Create a Strong and Healthy Community” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 7:33 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shaila Sadrozinski <sadro@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:51 AM To:Transportation; Council, City; Mello, Joshuah Cc:Hartmut Sadrozinski; Ashok Sadrozinski Subject:Re: parking permit program in Southgate Thank you, Council Member Kniss, for bringing up the point about stickers vs hang-tags at Monday night's meeting. Is there any reason, besides the fact that that's how it is for the other RPPs, for the one free permit to not be a transferable hang-tag? Some residents have more than one vehicle, some residents have out-of-town guests from time to time, and it would afford more flexibility to have a transferable tag. Making the free permit be a permanent sticker unnecessarily forces homeowners to spend the $50 it costs to buy an additional transferable tag. Please consider customizing this aspect for the Southgate RPP. Thank you. Shaila Sadrozinski, 62 Churchill Ave, (650) 322-8261 From: Shaila Sadrozinski <sadro@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:48 AM Subject: parking permit program in Southgate This evening the City Council will address the proposal to establish a residential parking permit program in the Southgate neighborhood. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I would like to request that the one free permit granted each household be a transferable hang-tag rather than a sticker assigned to a specific vehicle. Thank you. Shaila Sadrozinski, 62 Churchill Ave, (650) 322-8261 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Cody Goodermote <cody@goodermote.net> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Small Cell Installations in Palo Alto by Verizon, AT&T, etc. Dear City Council, I spend much of my time in the beautiful city of Palo Alto. I am aware of the recent debates from residents in Palo Alto about the proposed small cell installations by Verizon, AT&T and other cellular carriers. I would like to add my comments about this issue. Fast cellular connectivity is critical to businesses and residents in today's always connected world. I appreciate Verizon and AT&T's efforts to densify their 4GLTE networks in Palo Alto and prepare for the rollout of 5G technologies. These installations are preparing us for a world of connected self driving cars, IoT sensor systems and gigabit wireless. These technologies seek to enhance our quality of life, security and health. The residents and businesses of Palo Alto are demanding better coverage, speed and reliability from cellular carriers, but many of these same people also want to deny the installation of these small cells based on radiation concerns or asthetics. Studies on the health effects of non-ionizing radiation (like that used by cellular technologies) have found no significant risk to human health. It is against FCC regulations to deny a cell site installation based on concerns about radiation exposure provided that the carriers are operating these sites within the FCC's maximum power limits. Small cells operate at much lower power levels than their macro (cell tower) counterparts because they cover a smaller area. The cellular carriers have faced a double edged sword for years. Residents in Bay Area communities continue to embrace a NIMBY attitude while demanding their mobile connections are fast and have excellent coverage everywhere. Carriers have worked hard with industry leading equipment manufacturers to develop the technology to miniaturize cell towers into small cells. While towers are tall and often blemish the remarkable views of the Bay Area landscape, small cells blend nicely into existing infrastructure and carriers have gone to great lengths to disguise cellular equipment (like the concrete benches or mailboxes that house the battery backups). This is the heart of Silicon Valley. We can't continue to innovate and create the next generation of technology without fully embracing the latest technology ourselves. It's an embarrassment to everyone in our region when visitors from around the world come to expect the latest in cellular technology in Silicon Valley only to find out that coverage and speed are worse here than in third world countries and rural towns in Upstate New York. I urge the City of Palo Alto and it's leaders to approve the installation of small cells in Palo Alto so long as they operate within the FCC's acceptable power limits. Best, Cody M. Goodermote -- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:38 AM 2 ____________________________ Cody M. Goodermote San Francisco, CA  (516) 506-1412 cody@goodermote.net about.me/goodermote linkedin.com/in/goodermote Words by me, typos by iPhone. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Doris Suh <doris.suh@parakletos.com> Sent:Sunday, June 18, 2017 11:53 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Re: URGENT/High Risk Crosswalk Dear Sir and Madam, First, I want to thank the City of Palo Alto for installing the much needed crosswalk on Arastradero near Clemo Avenue. This is a very busy crossing for countless children going to and from Juana Briones Park, Terman middle School and Juana Briones Elementary and the crosswalk is necessary for the safety of our children. However, while I am grateful for the crosswalk, I want to inform you of the insufficient nature of the existing crosswalk lights and the dangerous condition it is creating. The existing lights are too dim and fail to provide adequate notice to the drivers to stop for pedestrians. When the sensor is activated by the pedestrian, there are no blinking lights on the ground or around the signs. Other similar crosswalks in Palo Alto and Los Altos have 1) bright blinking lights on the ground, 2) bright blinking lights on the signs to ensure that drivers are adequately informed of pedestrians crossing, but the one on Arastradero does not. It only has dim signal lights on posts that are hard to see and often covered. Around February this year, a school aged boy was hit in the intersection by a driver which I believe was not reported. Furthermore, in my last 7 observations, 4 involved cars failing to notice the dim traffic lights and driving straight through the intersection while a child was trying to cross, and 2 involved cars screeching to a halt while a child was in the crossing after activating the signal light. None of these drivers were speeding. Again, the existing crosswalk signal on Arastradero near Clemo is insufficient and creates a dangerous condition. It is currently a high risk crosswalk. Please install blinking lights on the ground/crosswalk and around the signs as soon as possible before another child is injured. Please also replace the existing dim signal lights with brighter lights so drivers can see them. Please be advised that I am hereby putting the City of Palo Alto on notice of the dangerous crosswalk and request that prompt action be taken to remediate the situation by adding blinking lights to the signs and on the ground/crosswalk, and replacing the existing signal lights with brighter lights. During late afternoon rush hour, the existing signal lights are hardly noticeable, providing insufficient notice to the drivers. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Doris Suh VP, General Counsel City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Andersen <marylmandersen@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 6:52 PM To:Wolbach, Cory; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (external); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Holman, Karen; Tanaka, Greg; Fine, Adrian Cc:Alaee, Khashayar; Council, City Subject:Regarding Palo Alto City Council's Efforts to Resolve Jet Noise Attachments:2016-1101 decision criteria LETTER to SC v7b.pdf Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I work with flight advocacy groups in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties. It is my understanding that the upcoming FAA response will be a living document subject to further community, city, and county input. As such, the groups that I have been in recent contact with embrace the continued search for a truly regional solution that resolves the problems of jet noise to the greatest extent for the greatest number of residents. As you know, the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals found dozens of solutions that are helpful and without controversy. However, due to the limited scope of that committee, they were unable to find consensus on the SERFR flight path. They were also unable, given their time constraints, to authentically explore the potential for an optimal path yet to be defined. I support your city's efforts to continue to work regionally to solve the problem of jet noise and to look beyond the narrow discussions that solve the problem just for the very vocal.. I've attached a letter signed by 13 flight advocacy groups including Sky Posse Palo Alto, a group that has been instrumental in helping our diverse groups find consensus. Again, the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals failed to address the concerns in the letter. I request that your council continue to expand on the concepts outlined in the letter. . Sincerely, Mary Andersen San Lorenzo Valley 831-335-6500 -- Mary Andersen 831-335-6500 | mobile 831-345-5972 Andersen Media & Communications November 8, 2016 Supervisor Joe Simitian Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Mike Wasserman Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Councilmember Ann Wengert Town of Portola Valley Mayor Elizabeth Lewis Town of Atherton Councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald City of Saratoga Councilmember Jean Mordo City of Los Altos Mayor Pro Tem Gary Waldeck Town of Los Altos Hills Vice Mayor Gregory Scharff City of Palo Alto Supervisor Bruce McPherson Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Mayor Donna Lind City of Scotts Valley Supervisor John Leopold Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors President George Purnell Happy Valley School Board Councilmember Don Lane City of Santa Cruz Mayor Cynthia Mathews City of Santa Cruz Mayor Ed Bottorff City of Capitola Councilmember Dennis Norton City of Capitola Supervisor Dave Pine San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Councilmember Jeffrey Gee City of Redwood City Mayor Mark Addiego City of South San Francisco Councilmember Bob Grassilli City of San Carlos Councilmember Sam Hindi City of Foster City Councilmember Peter I. Ohtaki City of Menlo Park Vice-Mayor Larry Moody City of East Palo Alto Mayor Donna Rutherford City of East Palo Alto Dear Members and Alternates of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, We are grateful for the time and resources you have devoted to addressing the issue of aircraft noise pollution. We know that negotiations with the FAA have not been simple and we thank you for your continued commitment. This letter captures the consensus of citizen groups representing the Mid-Peninsula and Santa Cruz Communities following the Select Committee (SC) meeting in Palo Alto on November 3, 2016. In the interest of transparency and in anticipation of the SC’s final report, we request that the SC share the criteria it will use to make decisions on each FAA recommendation under review by the SC. If such decision criteria have not yet been finalized by the SC, our groups propose the following criteria to guide decision-making: 1. Will this recommendation help bring us back to an acceptable noise baseline? New technology (e.g. navigation, aircraft) should be reducing noise for everyone not increasing it. Letter to the Select Committee November 8, 2016 Page 2 of 3 2. Will this recommendation lead to a fairer distribution of noise? We believe that no community should be asked to bear an unfair noise burden of increased aircraft traffic. 3. Will this recommendation eliminate adverse noise and emissions impacts on health and environment for all communities? Recognizing the extreme negative health impact of nighttime flights, will this recommendation significantly reduce or completely eliminate nighttime flights over any populated area? 4. Will this recommendation mitigate the impact of air traffic concentration (# aircraft per day) above affected communities? We believe that planned dispersion is a potential tool to address this. 5. How will this recommendation be enforced / maintained in the future? We believe that objective, quantitative estimates of potential impact, and quantitative measurements of resultant impact, are needed from the FAA, even for "known" beneficial fixes, so we can compare and validate whether the benefits, when achieved, are as large as expected, or if further adjustments are required. Furthermore, we believe that capacity limits for each flightpath could help ensure the durability of any recommendations. We recognize that other communities in our nation are experiencing similar distress due to increased aircraft noise pollution. We hope we can help create a model process and solution that can be implemented across the country. We are committed to working positively and collaboratively with the FAA to this end. With much gratitude for your support, Quiet Skies Mid-Peninsula Quiet Skies Santa Cruz Michael Fassett Quiet Skies Belmont George Wylie San Lorenzo Valley Advocacy Group Marie McKenzie Sky Posse East Palo Alto Kara Carter Quiet Skies Santa Cruz Jeanne Gadol Californians for Quiet Skies Ladera Andy Van Valer Scotts Valley Donald Gardner Sky Posse Los Altos Charlene Mercadante Quiet Skies Los Altos Hills Letter to the Select Committee November 8, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Bill Evans Quiet Skies Menlo Park Jennifer Landesmann Sky Posse Palo Alto Tina Nguyen Californians for Quiet Skies Portola Valley Trudy Theiss Quiet Skies Redwood City Raymonde Guindon Quiet Skies Woodside cc: Congressional Representatives Eshoo, Farr, and Speier City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:15 AM To:Police; Council, City; City Mgr; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah Subject:RV's on El Camino - Second Notice All, Please see the original note I sent last month on RV's parking along El Camino. Most of the RV's that were there at the time of my original note in May are still parked in the same spot. I would like an answer as to why the RV's are not being tagged and ticketed or even towed. It has been well over a month, and I have received no response to my email. Why is the city unwilling to alter the parking hours on El Camino to ensure that the RV's are not permanent fixtures? I do not feel comfortable having my daughter walk home from work down El Camino anymore. There have been more than a few instances of the residents asking me for money or urinating in the Eucalyptus grove at Stanford. Here is a link to a collection of photos I took today of RV's from Stanford Ave to just north of Churchill Ave. License plates are visible in all pictures. All of the RV's have been there well over 72 hours. https://goo.gl/photos/cBWWpC9RwNuuvK6DA I know the police and the city are aware of this issue, yet you continue to ignore it. As a citizen, I would like an explanation as to why our city and our police department are not enforcing the laws. Please also list for me the other laws that the police choose not to enforce. Thanks Keith Ferrell On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: I'm wondering why the city has allowed the long-term parking of RV's along El Camino. On any given day, I can count close to 30 RV's between University and Park. Most are parked on blocks and have been there for a month or longer. There are some that have garbage piled up outside or are doing their own home improvement projects on the side of the road. There is a 72 hour parking policy in the city. Why is this not being enforced? It should not take a resident to call the city in order for the city to enforce the laws of the city. It has gotten exponentially worse over the past two years. It is not as if those that drive along El Camino, including the police, parking enforcement, city council members and the city manager are not aware of the issue. So, why is nothing being done to remedy the issue? Last year, the city made parking available on the east side of El Camino adjacent to Palo Alto HS. They also installed No Parking 4pm - 6pm signs so that cars did not clog up the area during rush hour. One quick and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:16 PM 2 easy way to eliminate the RV parking is to eliminate overnight parking on El Camino. No Parking 10pm - 8pm signs would eliminate the issue. Several years ago, there was an issue with cars being sold on El Camino. El Camino was lined with cars for sale along the same stretch. The state put an end to that by making it illegal to sell cars on the state highway. The RV's are, in addition to an eyesore, but a safety hazard. As was the case in Menlo Park a few week ago, given that the owners of the RV's are cooking and living in these vehicles, there's a risk of a fire breaking out on the highway. Also, the residents of these vehicles tend to hang around and in their vehicles all day whcih can be distracting to passing vehicles. Finally, no one knows who these people are living in these vehicles, most of which are parked directly across the street from Palo Alto High School and its students. I request that the city enforce the 72-hour parking restrictions for all cars/RV's along El Camino. It should not take a resident to complain and detail specific license numbers to take care of the issue. Thanks Keith Ferrell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2017 5:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:13 PM To:undefined Cc:Court Skinner; WILPF Alto; Council, City Subject:supply and demand determines pricesIn answer to ArLyne Diamond'si In answer to ArLyne Diamond's sensible question "Why don't we do what people do in other states, develop housing of all sizes?" It's because the people who put immigrants in the Bronx welcomed the cheap labor which was intended to build industrial might , but in California, the ruling Anglos were the immigrants and wanted to get rid of the poor Mexicans, like my husband's great grandparents, who owned the land, which they did by assessing them a tax bill based on what the land would be worth if more enterprising owners used it for farm and dairy instead of hides and tallow. This worked so well they kept on doing it, until Prop. 13, and some cities built money- making offices and factories without worker housing so as to save on school expense Santa Clara did that when Agnews closed, never asking where all those poor sick people would go. They'll change only when we make them. Stephanie Munoz 101 Alma, apt. 701, Palo Alto 94301 650 941-3589 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:02 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Joesimitian Info Subject:Surveillance technology and its use Council member and other, Thank you for adopting this reasonable and sensible use of surveillance technology in our city. Special thanks to Supervisor Simitian for instigating similar policy county-wide. There will always be those who will grip either because government is doing too much, or not enough. While at this point in time I have little faith or trust in our national government administration, I am grateful that our local government agencies are adopting a solid, middle ground stance. Richard C. Placone, Sr. Chimalus Drive Palo Alto/Barron Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 4:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:sujata verma <vermasujata@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 12:19 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Traffic on Arastradero Hello All, My name is Sujata Verma and I am writing to you about traffic on Arastradero Road. I live on Arastradero Road and in the past one year or so, I have noticed that there is a "Google" bus passing by my house EVERY 10 MINUTES--even at noon, 1 p.m. or 3 p.m. You would think that these may be more regular during office commute hours, but that is certainly not the case. These are the huge buses with dark windows. I am calling them Google buses though they don't have any company identification--companies have become smarter:) Anyway, these definitely don't stick to the speed limit, and are a source of hazard to children and others who use Arastradero to bike and walk. I urge you to please investigate into this and take action if the findings support my observations. Thank you so much for being our representatives for the city of Palo Alto. Best, Sujata City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 5:41 AM To:Brian Welch; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Council, City; David Angel; Watson, Ron; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary Subject:Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Please under this. I want nothing but to be declared Factually Innocent* concept unheard of in our criminal justice system today of those whom have been falsely accused... *And a check for $5000.00 nothing more or less... Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 6/19/17, 6:25 AM #Victim of @SantaClaraDA Rosen's #Brand of #CriminalJustice #System ! Vote out of office or file detailed @StateBarCA complaint U can do it! pic.twitter.com/4xoTop96Bm Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Doris Suh <doris_suh@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 11:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:URGENT/High Risk Crosswalk Dear Council Members, First, I want to thank the City of Palo Alto for installing the much needed crosswalk on Arastradero near Clemo Avenue. This is a very busy crossing for countless children going to and from Juana Briones Park, Terman middle School and Juana Briones Elementary and the crosswalk is necessary for the safety of our children. However, while I am grateful for the crosswalk, I want to inform you of the insufficient nature of the existing crosswalk lights and the dangerous condition it is creating. The existing lights are too dim and fail to provide adequate notice to the drivers to stop for pedestrians. When the sensor is activated by the pedestrian, there are no blinking lights on the ground or around the signs. Other similar crosswalks in Palo Alto and Los Altos have blinking lights on the ground, on the signs as well as the traffic lights to ensure that drivers are adequately informed of pedestrians crossing, but the one on Arastradero does not. Around February this year, a school aged boy was hit in the intersection by a driver which I believe was not reported. Furthermore, in my last 7 observations, 4 involved cars failing to notice the dim blinking lights and driving straight through the intersection while a child was trying to cross, and 2 involved cars screeching to a halt while a child was in the crossing after activating the signal light. None of these drivers were speeding to my knowledge. Again, the existing crosswalk signal on Arastradero near Clemo is insufficient and creates a dangerous condition. It is currently a high risk crosswalk. Please install blinking lights on the ground and around the signs as soon as possible before another child is injured. Please also City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:35 AM 2 replace the existing dim lights with brighter lights so drivers can see them. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Doris Suh Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:24 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Greg Mckenna <valleylist@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 2:18 PM To:Greg Mckenna Cc:CLA NoCal Lawyer Referral Service Subject:"valleylist" v429.music----leon russell the stranglers and blood sweat and tears . . valleylist(sm) v429.music----leon russell the stranglers and blood sweat and tears [friday 06.16.2017] high tech products companies consumers | valleylist index | internet top 10© | internet top 10© syndication | "VALLEYLIST" MUSIC SHARING SITE© . NEWS +top 10 leon russell songs (ultimateclassicrock.com) +the stranglers official site (thestranglers.net) +top 10 blood sweat and tears songs (ultimateclassicrock.com) +leon russell the stranglers and blood sweat and tears news (yahoo.com) +top 10 steve winwood songs (utimateclassicrock.com) . LEON RUSSEL THE STRANGLERS AND BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS. a continuation of my very popular article "valleylist" v404 r.1----digital music videos [reprise]. a landmark article featuring the innovative "top 10 keyboard artists" of all time. digital aesthetic. keyboard artists. only me. andy warhold marshall mcluhan and me. pop culture analysis of the music industry. digital could be anything. sound like anything. any input device.very flexible. before the interface before the computer wars before the mp3 player or the itunes downloader only works with apple itunes player there was... . leon russell. . first and foremost an artist. a studio musician nobody can believe. albums are a treasure. studio work highly sought after. actually wrote a lot of #1 songs for super great artists. then there was bonnie delaney and friends (featuring leon russell) and the joe cocker smash hit "little help from my friends". what an arrangement. pure genius. we're still not over joe cocker and it was leon russell in the background doing all the arranging composing playing piano and other instruments. mr leon russell is among the industry's most treasured musicians songwriters performers. . the "digital music videos" article is a landmark look at digital media and what shapes our aesthetic today. a reprise? what a good idea. now what? . "valleylist" music sharing site©. a new product this year. picking up where napster left off. what would andy warhol listen to? Leon Russell. The stranglers. Blood sweat and tears. Steve winwood. right on the internet. streaming video and music from my youtube account and to all your favorite social groups. very popular. millions daily. . facebook(vllylst) myspace(vllylst) twitter(vllylst1) youtube(vllylst1). post your video or message to the "music sharing site" discussion. publishing. for publishers. and for publication. high tech. pop culture. "valleylist" fills the need. give the music industry what they want. . "what it takes to be #1". . special video City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:24 PM 2 gimme some lovin’ (1966) steve winwood earliest effort wins #1 at very young age with this spencer davis group single [steve winwood (ft. warren haynes) "gimme some lovin'" mountain jam viii 6/3/12] isn’t youtube funny! . top 10 keyboard atists (cont) #.song (year) artist 1.with a little help from my friends (1969) joe cocker leon russell and friends 2.tight rope (1972) leon russell 3.out in the woods (1972) leon russell 4.no more heroes (1977) the stranglers 5.hanging around (1977) the strangers 6.spinning wheel (1969) blood sweat and tears 7.i can't quit her (1973) blood sweat and tears 8.smiling phases (1968) blood sweat and tears 9.while you see a chance take it (1981) steve winwood 10.valerie (1981) steve winwood ---- top 10 keyboard artists power pop playlist© ---- top 10 analysis favorite songs artists lead up to digital electronic media. with a little help from my friends (1969) joe cocker leon russell and friends did such a remarkable remake of a famous ringo starr original it's popular all around the world immediately. tight rope (1972) leon russell is himself again and after the top 10. #1. weeks. months. forever. out in the woods (1972) leon russell himself is still laughing at dick cheney for almost getting shot out in the woods over greg mckenna and his republican party incident. still alive out there? no more heroes (1977) the stranglers take it all the way to the bank with a #1 hit so fabulous you can't believe it. british power pop ska influenced top 40 radio. it played for weeks and weeks months and finally years and years. i think i heard it again today in fact. hanging around (1977) the strangers again take it to the bank with a totally original sound almost punk rock. spinning wheel (1969) blood sweat and tears got us all started again with good songwriting and classical technique after years and years of hard rock. british rock anybody? i can't quit her (1973) blood sweat and tears does a remake of a blues standard to make it back to the top. #1 again. and it feels so fine. smiling phases (1968) blood sweat and tears tiptoes into the area again of totally original songwriting. and wins! i can't tell you how much i like these artists and their #1 songs. while you see a chance take it (1981) steve winwood industry pioneer came back with a standard synthesizer and went #1 with 4 pop rock albums and particularly popular power pop songs like this one and my favorite. valerie (1981) steve winwood wins with keyboard technique and songwriting you can't argue with. i added steve winwood as an afterthought to bring it up to the digital age. from traffic to blind faith to solo act later in life i say buy their albums. i recommend it!. . digital or digital television it's the aesthetic that changes. each of these songs is a #1 hit and very successful on the charts. before look and feel. before digital aesthetic. is it a good song? no problems just success. what does leon russell have to say to keyboard wonders like the stranglers or blood sweat and tears or steve winwood. stay tuned. . next edition "valleylist" v429.television----television's golden age (06.19.2017) . "valleylist" publishing schedule----yahoo----google . conclusion these pioneering musicians are so talented they swayed the music industry and consumers with their new sounds. probably first going all the way back to honky tonk or rock and roll or big band or solo artist singer composer you have very talented artists innovating and entertaining. i have a stranglers concert story you won't believe. on stage 15 minutes "i'm sorry that's it" and they left the stage. total silence. minutes slowly erode the moment. then slews of people leave. small groups. large groups. most of us fans stay. the concert must go on. the stranglers themselves return to the stage "we are happy the posers left". "thrown out" is a better phrase. so now the band can continue. complete the live concert at the punch line night club at san francisco's embarcadero center. amazingly i met a friend of the stranglers "reed". somebody to hang around with. turned out it was nightclubbing. though i love live concerts especially in nightclub setting i did not get a chance to see any of the other musical geniuses live. . City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/16/2017 2:24 PM 3 like you i bought their albums. like millions of people i love their music. . "valleylist" . . greg mckenna publisher valleylist valleylist@... . all rights reserved City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Barry M Katz <bkatz@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2017 12:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:Vehicle dwellers in Ventura district To the Palo Alto City Council About one month ago I wrote to the city Council to express my concern about the growing population of people living more-or-less permanently in vehicles parked along Park Blvd. and adjacent neighborhood streets. Although I understand from the City website that correspondence to the City Council is acknowledged, to date I have received no acknowledgement or response to what I believe to be a legitimate concern. I am writing again to request that Council initiate regulations to limit parking along Park Blvd., between Page Mill Road and Lambert Ave., to 4 hours, and to prohibit dwelling in vehicles on the surrounding residential streets. I believe that this would be a simple, inexpensive way of addressing a problem that, by its very nature, will only get worse: The presence of vehicle-dwellers in a given locale signals to others that this is an acceptable location, and this is exactly what has been happening. Although I am a strong advocate of research-based policy in regard to homelessness, I do not believe that people who choose to park massive campers in residential neighborhoods, to use (or not use!!) public facilities, to run their generators at all hours, and to pay no taxes, should reflexively be considered “homeless.” Their lifestyle choice, if that is indeed what it is, severely compromises the quality of residential life that the rest of us work very hard to maintain. Large vehicles parked on narrow residential streets such as Birch, Ash, and Orinda are a safety hazard to pedestrians and cyclists, an environmental hazard, a public nuisance, and constitute unsightly visual blight. And let’s be honest: their presence would not be tolerated for one day in Crescent Park, Old Palo Alto, or any of our other gracious and privileged neighborhoods. Ventura and doubtless other communities are being asked to absorb a problem that is the City’s responsibility to solve. I would appreciate some manner of acknowledgement that this message has been received and, hopefully, acted upon. (Dr.) Barry M. Katz 233 Margarita Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94306 m: 650.644-8697 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2017 7:42 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 19, 2017 5:39 AM To:Wagner, April; Bonilla, Robert; Ryan, Dan; Lum, Patty Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; Council, City; Minor, Beth; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Brian Welch Subject:You and others belong in jail...Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter I'm sure city council is very proud of your work at terrorizing the community and beyond... Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 6/19/17, 5:01 AM @mldauber Your thoughts on @SantaClaraDA Rosen invoking Statute of Limitation on a alleged vicious RAPE rather then investigate. #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/b12HYvlaaa Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad -.. .. Q 16 CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JUNE 19, 2017 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16-PUBLIC HEARING: HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF THE 2017-18 ACTION PLAN AND ASSOCIATED 2017-18 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL VEAR 2017-18 CONSISTENT WITH THE HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION Please find attached an updated version of Attachment C: Fiscal Year 17-18 CDBG Funding Recommendations. The attachment included in the Council's Packet was based on estimates. On Thursday, June 15 staff was notified by HUD regarding actual CDBG allocations. The actual allocations provide an increase of $56,832. Based on the new information provided by HUD, staff has also updated its recommended funding amounts based on the HRC recommended contingency plan. or Planning and Community Environment J of 1 \ AGENCY CITY OF PALO ALTO CDBG APPLICATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2018 Funds Available Available for Public Seivice (15% Cap) Available for Planning/Admin (20% Cap) Available for Economic Development/Public Facilities PROGRAM NAME FY 2017 FINAL $ $ $ $ FY 20 18 REQU EST 901,415 85,014 114,472 701,929 Attachment C-Revised 6-19-17 HRC CONTINGENCY PLAN RECO M MENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS j · Pubflc Services (15" CA~= $85,014) . ---~ . --I -. Palo Alto Housing Corp. SRO Resident Support Program $ 22,983 $ 49,457 $ 21,000 $ 23,327 -- Catholic Charities of Santa Clara long-Term Care Ombudsman $ 5,012 $ 10,000 $ 7,000 $ --9,327 lifeMoves (formerly Inn Vision) Opportunity Services Center $ 35,592 $ 50,000 $ 35,000 $ --37,328 YWCA/Support Network Domestic Violence Services $ 8,020 $ 10,000 $ 8,489 $ --10,000 Silicon Valley Independent Living Housing and Emergency Services $ 5,012 $ 5,032 $ S,000 $ --5,032 Public Service Total $ 76,619 $ 124,489 $ 76,489 $ 85,014 Pl~nnlng & Administration (2°" CAP= $114A72J Project Sentinel Fair Housing Services $ 30,941 $ 32,012 $ 28,810 $ 32,012 City of Palo Alto CDBG Administration $ 77,310 $ 85,000 $ 74,295 $ 82,460 Planning & Administration Total $ 108,251 $ 117,012 $ 103,105 $ 114,472 Economic Developmet_rt. Downtown Streets Workforce Development Program $ 290,723 $ 336,400 $ 336,400 $ 336,400 - I Economic Develoe_ment Total $ 290,723 $ 336,400 $ 336,400 $ 336,400 Public FacUttles/Housliig Rehabilltatlon ----- Community Working Group Opportunity Center Rehabilitation $ -$ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ -220,000 City of Palo Alto Minor Home Repair Program $ -$ 108,589 $ 108,589 $ 145,529 -- Public Facilities/Housing Rehab $ 278,825 $ 328,589 s 328,589 $ --365,529 GRAND TOTAL $ 754,418* $ 906,490 $ 844,583 $ --901,415 *Includes $278,825 in FY17 CDBG funding for Midpen Palo Alto Gardens rehab project $45.00 $40.00 $35.00 53000 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 s- 2017 Refuse Monthly Rate Comparison Minican -20 gallon cart $24.50 $20 05 $27.96 $28 84 s 25 40 $25 47 526·48 $35.52 $36.BB $40.43 2017 Rates for Cities with Only 32 gal Carts Compared to Palo Alto's Weighted Average (minican + 32gal) $50.00 $40.00 $38.23 $38.29 530.17 $31.00 $32.07 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 s What happened to Menlo Park? Their mlnlcan rate ($13.991 is currently being evaluated to ensure that It complies with Proposition 218 requirements. The current rate does not Include many costs embedded within the Palo Alto rate, Including: Zero Waste Services, Street Sweeping. and Landfill costs. ZERO WASTE PROGRAM COSTS FY 2018 ESTIMATE $30.6 MILLION Zero Waste Services 5% Added Services 9% Includes HHW and Street Sweeping Legacy Costs 13% Includes Landfill Related Expenses Baseline Services Solid Waste 25% Recycle 13% Compost 18% Allocated Charges 8% Salary & Benefits 9% April 17, 2017 1 Zero Waste·-·Rate Comparison and Breakdown -Draft Palo Alto's Refuse Fund Supports a Wide Array of Zero Waste Services Zero Waste Services {Not normally offered at every jurisdiction) • Process all solid waste (the black cart) at the Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station to recover recyclable and compostable materials before being transferred and landfilled. • Provide Commercial and Residential Food Scrap Collection, which is not widelv offered in Santa Clara Countv. The material Is processed at a dry anaerobic digester facilitv producing both energv recovery and compost. • Fund fo.ur env,ironmental outreach staff at GreenWaste who provide zero waste technical support services to businesses and multifamilv customers on how to sort waste properlv and easllv. Thev provide comprehensr.ie outreach collateral (such as newsletters, posters, container tags, door hangers, collectron guidesl, while educatrng customers on the Citv's Zero Waste programs and requirements. • Provide technical support for specfal events throughout the Citv. • Fund and support the Santa Clara Countv Composting Education Program providing free compost bins to Palo Alto residents who attend a workshop. • Support a varietv of Food Waste Reduction efforts, which include, connecting grocery stores and restaurants with local donation options, assisting In the development of a Countywide food rescue plan, training residents on Food Waste Reduction at the themed Familv Fun Dav at the YMCA, and funding cooking workshops to help reduce food waste in homes. • Fund and support single-use disposaJ reduction programs, which include the plastic bag ordinance, GoBox for to·go packaging, Rethink Disposables for restaurant waste, Citywide Yard Sale, and City-sponsored Zero Waste Party Packs that have been used 164 times in 2016 for approximately 4,000 people for place settings. • Encourage the reuse of goods by Provldlng financial and logistical support to the Repair Cafe Palo Alto and Trans~tion Palo Alto's Share Faires. • Train community members on proper sorttng through the Zero Waste Champion program supporting neighborhoods, schools, and City departments and the neighborhood Cool Block program. • Support RecycleWhere, an ontine search tool to help residents and businesses find out where to reuse, recycle, and properly dispose of just about everything. Additional Services (Not norma•lv offered by every jurisdiction) • Provide Same-Oay·Response for trash pick·up related issues. • Fund two addltional GreenWaste Supervisors to enhance responsiveness for residential and commercial customers (total of S supervisors • residential routes, commerciar/roll-off routes, pool; operations supervisor, mechanic shop supervisor, ptus general managerl • Provide four customer service staff at GreenWaste to respond to customer and refuse bill inquiries, which includes three customer service representatives and one supervisor • Altew residential customers to have three recycling and/or compost carts at no additional charge and provide four cart sizes for all three waste streams (soUds waste, recycling, and compost). This necessitates GreenWaste to carry a larger inventory of carts. Many Cities offer variety of sizes for garbage only. • Provide kitchen buckets for food scraps to all residentiaJ customers and recycle buddies for multifamily households. • Allow for the recycling of electronic waste curbside in the blue, recycling cart. • Provide backyard service and residential alrey collection (the standard ~s curbside coltection for other cities). • Provide collectlon service to residential hard-to-service areas at no additional cost. • Provide physical limitations collection program at no charge for garbage, recycling and compost for residents who cannot physically move their containers to the curb. • Bill for Refu5e on a consolidated Utility Silting w ith the water, wastewater, gas, electric, stormwater, and fiber Utilities for customer convenience. • Support a fast response to illegal dumping bv City staff. • Provide a construction and demolition discount at Zanker Recovery to Palo Alto residents that is typically distributed on newsletter once per year. April 17, 2017 2 ICO~Nf,~ ~~NG [ l laced Before Meeting [ Received at Meeting (i )squadz __ _,... Promotton Market ovonable sports facnities. Advertise and cross promote venue programming and events. Addlflonal Revenue Increase revenues through bookings. Sustain existing community centers and develop additional programs. Track Usage Understand formally how spaces ore being used. Invest In spaces based on actionable data and feedback from the community. Streamline facility rentals. increase participation, and maximize utilization. Easy-to-use, Web-based Venue Portal -- ---•I --lllil - • ::=~-:!:...----===-- Venue Lis1ing Dashboard Schedule II. Avcilobilty Desoiptions Rovlews henl> & P•ogram1 ... ond mo1el Mobile Listing View for Users Free to use. Insurance provided. No IT or infrastructure changes needed. June 16, 2017 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION REQUESTING TO CHANGE RATES FOR THE RECOVERY OF ENERGY PURCHASES AND THE RETURN OF REVENUES FROM THE SALE OF GREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCES (A.17-06-005) Summary On June 1, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2018 Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA} F!Jrecast Application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval to change rates for the following: • Recovery of $3.6 billion in costs related to the fuel needed to produce electricity as well as costs of buying energy from third parties. • Setting certain charges for departing load (Dl} customers, including the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), Ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC), and Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM). • Return of $428.4 million to eligible customers for the sale of GHG emission allowances (including the California Climate Credit for residential customers). Exact amounts are subject to change and CPUC regulatory approval. PG&E will provide the CPUC with updated amounts later In the year to ensure the most current information is used to set customer rates. Background The ERRA is used to record fuel and purchased power costs which can be recovered in rates. While this may result in an increase in rates, PG&E recovers these costs with no markup for return or profit. The purpose of this Application is to forecast costs of obtaining energy for customers and also to apprelte the>!1 amount to be returned to customers from the sale of GHG emission allowances for the calendar ~r of4~ 2018. If the CPUC approves this Application, PG&E will begin to recover its costs in electric rates E Ji]-< o 2!... .,.. ~ effective January 1, 2018. At the end of 2018, PG&E will compare actual costs to the amounts forecast -u in this Application and will incorporate any differences In next year's Application. ~ g> ~ ~r ~ :c-u;o How wm PG&E1s Application affect me? ~ 0 J::> ., Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric gener .. n, :::tj3 transmission and distribution services. A summary of the rate impact for these customers was pro\l#fed i0i0 in a table In the bill insert announcing this filing that was sent directly to customers in June and Julp,' rrl> including the effect of the California Climate Credit for resldential customers and GHG allowance returns for eligible non-residential customers. Based on rates currently In effect, the bill for a typical residential Non-CARE customer using 500 kWh per month would decrease from $110.77 to $106.22 or 4.1 percent. Actual impacts will vary depending on energy usage. Twice a year, in April and October, eligible residential customers will also receive a California Climate Credit in the amount of approximately $39.68. How will PG&E's Application affect non-bundled customers? Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers only receive electrlc transmission and distribution services from PG&E. PG&E does not purchase energy for these customers. However, this Application addresses the cost of transporting energy for these customers through PG&E's electrical system using the PCIA, CTC and CAM. Residential DNCCA customers also receive the benefit of the California Climate Credit. In addition, eligible non-residential DA and CCA customers receive the benefit of the GHG allowance returns. The Impact of PG&E's Application on DA and CCA customers Is an average increase of $0.04, or 0.3 percent. Another category of non-bundled customers is DL customers who do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or CPUC decision, including the PCIA, CTC and CAM. The impact of PG&E's Application on DL customers is a total decrease of $163,019, or 0.4 percent. 1 How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDD/TTY (speech-hearing impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detaUes llame al 1-800-660-6789 • ~mijJX11 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2018 ERRA Forecast Application (A.17-06-005) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is afso available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by appointment only. For more information. contact aljcentralfllesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's Applfcation (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. CPUC process This Application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These evJdentiary hearing are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearlngs, the assigned Judge will Issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting. The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this Application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possibte rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, ptease call 1-415-703-1584, email ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www .ora.ca.gov. Stay Informed Jf you would fike to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPU C's free subscription service. Sign up at: http:l/subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the Application, or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office. (PAO) webpage at http:l/consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: public.advfsor@cpuc.ca.gov Mall: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (tolHree) or 1-415-703-5282 If you are writing or emailing the PAO, please Include the proceeding number (2018 ERRA Forecast Application A.17-06-005). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff, and will become public record. 2