Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170710plCC 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: 7/10/2017 Document dates: 6/21/2017 – 6/28/2017 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 | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:40 PM To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Eggleston, Brad; De Geus, Robert; Nikzat, Sherry; Svendsen, Janice; Nose, Kiely; Perez, Lalo Subject:6/27 Council Questions for Items: 2,6,7,12,14,19 Attachments:Hypothetical HSRAP funding based on 2.6% annual increase - CY.XLSX       Dear Mayor and Council Members:    On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries by Council  Members Holman and Tanaka in regard to the June 27, 2017 council agenda items listed below.      Summarized below are the item numbers,  which council member made inquiries and the number of  questions per item number.    Item 2:    On‐Call Consulting Services – CM Tanaka (6 Questions)  Item 6:    Construction of Bike Boulevard Improvements – CM Tanaka (5 Questions), CM Holman(1 Question) Item 7:    Construction of Secondary Clarifiers – CM Tanaka (1 Question)  Item 12:  Approval of Budget Amendment for Sewer Cleaner – CM Holman (1 Question)  Item 14:  Appropriations Limit for FY 2018 – CM Tanaka (10 Questions)  Item 19:  Adoption of Budget Ordinance  ‐ CM Holman (2 Questions)      Item 2:    On‐Call Consulting Services     Q.1 . Which of these consultants have you used in the past? Were you totally happy with their  service?    A.1. The department has worked with all of the firms listed in the report with the exception of  Michael Baker International and ICF. The department finds the service and work products are of  high quality, technically accurate and timely produced.     Q. 2. What were the main criteria of the evaluation process in order to select the 7 out of 14  proposals?    A. 2. Response: The evaluation was a weighted analysis including the following criteria: Quality,  performance and effectiveness of the solution, goods and/or services to be provided by the  contractor; Contractor’s experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the project,  with engagement of similar scope and complexity; Cost to the city; Contractor’s financial stability;  and, Contractor’s prior record of performance with the city or others.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 2   Q.3. Was there any focus on women and minority owned businesses?    A.3. Response: No. Focus was placed on the criteria provided in the response to Question 2.     Q.4.  While I understand the larger budget gives the City flexibility in its choices, can you please  provide a rough estimate of how much of the $1.9 million the City plans on using?    A.4. For the preceding three year period, the department spent $1.7M on three firms: Arnold  Mammarella Architecture and Consulting, Metropolitan Planning Group, and Placeworks, not  counting work directed to other consultants. The $1.9M is a conservative estimate that reflects  prior trends and the department does not anticipate using all of these funds, particularly because  of improvements that have been made to cost‐recovery procedures.  However, the contract term  is for a three year period and the estimate also addresses unplanned consultant needs.     Q.5. Could you please provide one of two short (specific) examples of how and when these on‐call  contractors have been used in the past?    A.5. The city’s individual review (IR) application is required for most two story residential additions  or new two story homes. The application fee the city collects to conduct this review is a flat fee  and does not cover all costs associated with application processing. The department uses Arnold  Mammarella Architecture and Consulting to assist with conformance review to the IR Guidelines,  provide architectural consulting, plan check review and project management services. This review  augments staff resources and provides a technical critique of projects. A second example includes  Rincon, Dudek and ICF, which provide environmental services and assist the department when  consider the potential environmental impacts associated with work directed by the city manager  or council. Private development that includes cost recoverable applications would not draw from  this contract.     Q. 6. It may be nice in the future if you could include a quick list of the other proposals/candidates  and an outline of your main evaluation criteria and selection process (how many reviews, who has  final say, etc.).    A. 6. Rather than adding to the length of staff reports, perhaps the City Council would like an  informational report on the City’s procurement procedures.                                                                                                                         Item 6:   Construction of Bike Boulevard Improvements    Q. 1.     Why were the specific streets chosen to be enhanced for bikers?    A. 1:  This Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevards Project consists of four corridors  identified in City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.  The City Council approved  concept plans for these corridors in May 2016.        Q. 2.     If passed, when will construction start and how long will it take?    A. 2:  Staff anticipates an approximately twelve‐month construction period for the project starting  as early as this summer. A detailed construction schedule will be jointly developed by Staff and  the contractor, as the contract requires that the project be constructed logically in discrete  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 3 segments to minimize prolonged neighborhood disruption. The construction schedule will also be  coordinated with other city projects and the PAUSD calendar.    Q. 3.     Will the enhanced features for bikes and new bike boulevards have any negative impact for  motorists?     A. 3:  As designed, the impacts to motorists of this Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle  Boulevards Project will be limited to the following:     Tighter turning radii will require motorists to turn at more appropriate speeds for  local neighborhood streets   Additional marked crosswalks and signage may lead motorists to yield to  pedestrians more frequently, and may result in a minor increase in travel time   New roundabouts and traffic circles will likely reduce the number and severity of  motor vehicle collisions at intersections, and may result in a minor increase in  travel time   New raised intersections will likely reduce the number and severity of motor  vehicle collisions at intersections, and may result in a minor increase in travel time  The reversal and removal of STOP signs at intersections may improve travel times  for motorists traveling along the bicycle boulevard corridors, but may result in a  minor increase in travel time for those crossing and/or entering the bicycle  boulevard corridors   The removal of a limited number of on‐street parking spaces near intersections  will result in improved sightlines for motorists   The removal of a limited number of on‐street parking spaces near intersections  may result in motorists being required to walk an additional 25‐100 feet to reach  their destinations after parking   The enhanced signage and pavement markings should provide motorists with  better notification that they are crossing and/or traveling along a bicycle  boulevard, resulting in fewer conflicts and a reduction in stress levels    It is important to note that with the exception of small segments of East Meadow Circle, East  Meadow Drive and Louis Road, the entirety of this project is located on Local Streets, which are  primarily intended to serve as access to abutting properties and are not designed to carry cross‐ city or regional motor vehicle traffic. On the small segments of East Meadow Circle, East Meadow  Drive and Louis Road, which are designated as Collectors, the impacts to motorists will be minimal,  as designated bicycle lanes will be provided. Collectors are intended to carry cross‐city or regional  motor vehicle traffic to and from the Arterials and Residential Arterials.     Q. 4.     Do bike boulevards have an overall positive or negative impact for residents living along  them?    A. 4:  Bicycle boulevards are streets with low motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, designated  and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle Boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and  speed and volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and  create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets. Many of the treatments included  in this project not only benefit people on bicycles, but also help create and maintain “quiet” streets  that benefit residents and improve safety for all road users. The majority of the treatments  included in this project, with the exception of the bicycle wayfinding signage and bicycle boulevard  pavement markings, are considered to be standard neighborhood traffic calming treatments which  enhance the quality of life on local streets. Throughout the concept planning and final design  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 4 phases, dozens of modifications were made to the project to satisfy requests from abutting  residents. For example, the Bryant Street corridor had five major revisions made to the concept  plan before being presented to City Council for adoption.     Q. 5.     Why does the expenditure schedule for future years have to be modified?    A. 5:  As explained in the staff report, staff recommends adjusting the expenditure schedule (and  adoption of a budget amendment) to enable construction of this project in FY18.  The total  expenditures would not change.             Q. 6.  This Consent Item asks for a Budget Amendment of the 2018 Budget while the main event on  Tuesday is to consider the 2018 Budget.  Why is this Item not brought to the Council as part of the  2018 Budget discussion and consideration as opposed to a separate matter that will be determined  prior to the 2018 Budget? The proposal decreases Infrastructure Reserves by $5.7+M.  Please also  indicate how this Item will affect the Budget Council is discussing under Action Item 19.    A. 6.  This item is being brought forward as a separate item from the FY 2018 Adopted Budget  process due to timing.  This item was in an active procurement process during the budget  development timeframe and final details were not known in time to be included in the May  Finance Committee revisions.  However, it is a significant priority of the City Council and staff was  ultimately able to complete the procurement and recommend an award of contract prior to the  City Council recess and staff thought it was important that this project continue to move forward  as expeditiously as possible.       The recommended actions in this report accelerate the funding of the Bike & Pedestrian capital  improvement project from the funding levels proposed in the FY 2018 capital budget, it does not  increase the cost of the total project.  Funding previously planned for fiscal years FY 2019 through  FY 2022 will be accelerated for appropriation in FY 2018 to execute this contract. The implications  of this item on Action Item 19, is this report amends the plan for this specific capital project as  outlined in item 19 and would be a subsequent amendment to the FY 2018 Adopted Budget upon  City Council review and approval of item 19.  Staff strive to include actions like this in the annual  budget process however, the timing of this procurement process ultimately did not align in order  to have it included in the annual budget.      Item 7:    Construction of Secondary Clarifiers  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 5 Q. 1. What about Clarifier No. 4 and No. 6? This bill accounts for No. 3 and 5, and No. 1 and 2 were  already constructed on. Will Clarifier No. 4 and No. 6 need to be maintained as well? Would it be  cheaper to group them into this contract, even if they are years from needing maintenance? They  were grouped together and graded similarly with Clarifiers No. 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the RWQCP Facility  Condition Assessment.  A. 1. Clarifier Nos. 3 and 5 have been prioritized for replacement over Clarifier Nos. 4 and 6. Supply  and installation of each mechanism is about $550,000. There are not significant fixed costs for the  whole project (e.g., mobilization / demobilization). Installing two more secondary clarifier  mechanism would not provide significant project savings as each clarifier mechanism has stand‐ alone costs. Given such a large increase to the construction contract, we would likely require a re‐ invitation of formal bids, delaying the important work to Clarifier Nos. 3 and 5. We cannot replace  all four clarifier mechanisms in one summer, so contractor would have to demobilize and  remobilize for the third and fourth clarifier replacement in any case. Adding Clarifier Nos. 4 and 6  now would therefore require about $1.1 million in additional expense and an additional year of  work.    While needing eventual replacement, Clarifier Nos. 4 and 6 remain operational for duty or standby  service. Onsite maintenance staff will continue maintaining all secondary clarifiers; an on‐call  emergency construction contract is also available to provide repair work to the secondary clarifier  mechanisms. Reasons vary for prioritizing Clarifier Nos. 3 and 5 over Clarifier Nos. 4 and 6. These  are:     Clarifier No. 3 return sludge ring seal is leaking, reducing the effectiveness of sludge  removal from the clarifier; other clarifiers do not have this issue;   Clarifier No. 5 is more out of alignment than other clarifiers and this misalignment cannot  be corrected unless it is replaced;   Clarifier No. 5 has a gouge in the large influent feed column that must be addressed; no  other clarifier has this type of damage on its center feed column; and   Clarifier No. 5 has corrosion on its steel scum lines due to advanced corrosion; the other  clarifiers do not have such a significant problem.   Clarifier mechanisms are typically replaced in dry‐season weather and one season affords  only enough time to replace two clarifier mechanisms, thus negating any benefit from a  single mobilization/demobilization.     While Clarifier Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 all need replacement, Clarifier Nos. 4 and 6 replacement work  does not have to be completed now. The Wastewater Treatment Fund has an ongoing capital  budget authorized by its partner agencies of about $3 million per year. The replacement work on  Clarifier Nos. 4 and 6 can be completed in a later fiscal year (tentatively FY2019) from the $3 million  capital budget authorized by Council.      Item 12:  Approval of Budget Amendment for Sewer Cleaner    Q. 1.   This Item asks for a transfer from the Vehicle Replacement Fund and other actions. This Item  also proposes steps that seemingly would be appropriate to consider as part of the Budget process  for 2018. Please indicate how this Item will affect the Budget Council is discussing under Action Item  19.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 6 A. 1. The purchase of the freightliner combination single engine sewer cleaner was approved as  part of the Fleet Review committee for FY 2017.  Due to the length of time it took to procure the  vehicle the timing did not align neatly with the proposed budget process for FY 2018.  Staff wanted  to ensure that the work to procure the vehicle at the recommended price was not delayed  potentially resulting in increased costs while Council is on recess.  It does not impact the discussion  under Action Item 19, it is reflective of activities that are intended to occur in FY 2017 and the FY  2018 proposed budget already contemplates that the purchase of this vehicle is completed in FY  2017.        Item 14:  Appropriations Limit for FY 2018     Excerpt of history:   Proposition 4 approved by the voters in November 1979 added California Constitution, Article XIIIB.  Article XIIIB limits the level of most appropriations from tax sources that the state and most local  government entities are permitted to make in any given year. The limit for each year is equal to the  limit for the prior year, adjusted for changes in the cost‐of‐living and population. Various other  adjustments are also required.1  http://arev.assembly.ca.gov/sites/arev.assembly.ca.gov/files/publications/Chapter_5.pdf    Q.1. Could using the highest factor lead to higher spending?    A.1. We are limited to available funding sources as the factors are specified by law and provided  by the State of California.  http://arev.assembly.ca.gov/sites/arev.assembly.ca.gov/files/publications/Chapter_5.pdf    Q.2. Why is it an option for the City of PA to use the county’s population factor for PA’s budget?    A.2. The population factor is for the City of Palo Alto, not the county. The FY2017‐18 population  factor is obtained from the state’s Department of Finance.2  http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/    Q.3.Can appropriations limit be adjusted based off of the city and the county’s per income change?    A.3.Please refer to “Calculations of the limit itself” from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000/041300_gann/041300_gann.html    Q.4. Why would the updated information be received after the proposed budget? Doesn’t that  take out the purpose of appropriations limit determining the size of the budget?    A.4. The City’s budget has historically been under the limit therefore, staff brings the annual  calculation concurrent with the budget approval as there is minimal risk.    Q.5. How was the appropriations limit shared with the public? Is it easily accessible?    A.5. Online, in the City Council Agenda, and in the annual Adopted Operating Budget. A Google  search can easily find it and it is also posted on the budget  website:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/budget.asp     Q.6. Has there been any complaints about the appropriations limit for the 2018 fiscal year?    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 7 A.6. None this year, or in prior years    Q.7. The Appropriations Limit for FY 2018 is $158.37 million, isn’t this much smaller than the 2018  fiscal year budget?    A.7. The law restricts which funds are subject to the Appropriations limit both the fund types as  well as expense and revenue types that are subject to this limit.    Q.8. What are some funds subjected in the appropriations limit?    A.8. Please refer to “Which Revenues are Subject to  Limit”  http://arev.assembly.ca.gov/sites/arev.assembly.ca.gov/files/publications/Chapter_5.pdf   Q.9. Compared to other years, how does the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2018 compare?    A.9. The City’s budget has always complied with the appropriations limit. A chart of historic  values is included in the Adopted Budget’s Supplemental Information section annually, under  Appropriations Limit Resolution and Calculation.  For FY 2017 Adopted Operating Budget it can  be found in the following link on PDF page 526  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54083     Q.10. If Palo Alto is consistently going way under the limit will that influence a change in the limit?    A.10. The appropriation limit is calculated by factors set by the State of California and the prior  year appropriation limit.  The level of appropriations actually made by a government entity in any  year does not have any bearing on the calculation of the appropriations limit for the subsequent  years. Each year's limit is computed based on the prior year's limit, not the prior year's  appropriations.1  http://arev.assembly.ca.gov/sites/arev.assembly.ca.gov/files/publications/Chapter_5.pdf    References  1. California State Assembly Publications, Chapter 5 Government Appropriations Limit: Article  XIIIB of the California Constitution  (http://arev.assembly.ca.gov/sites/arev.assembly.ca.gov/files/publications/Chapter_5.pdf)  2. California State Department of Finance, Demographics  (http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/)  3. The State Appropriations Limit  (http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000/041300_gann/041300_gann.html)        Item 19: Adoption of Budget Ordinance      Q. 1.  A list of the City vehicles that are proposed for replacement. This was brought to Finance but  am not finding it in the current Item.    A. 1. This item was provided in the Budget wrap‐up memorandum considered by the Finance  Committee Hearing on May 18, 2017 and can be found in the below link in Attachment H page  41of the report.  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57875    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:42 PM 8 Q. 2.  A history by (budget) numbers of the City’s annual funding for HSRAP. This was provided to  Council last year, I believe it was, in a linear table form that covered the years prior to the last cutback  and to the current year.     A. 2. Attached to this email is a table comparing actual HSRAP funding with hypothetical increase  in fund by 2.5% annually since 2004. Please review, this was initially created by OMB Chris and CSD  Minka, I reformatted for easier readability.         Thank you,        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                  HSRAP Funding Actual funding compared to hypothetical funding if we increased the fund by 2.6% annually since 2004 Fiscal Year HSRAP Funding Percentage change from prior Fiscal Year Hypothetical HSRAP Funding Percentage change from prior 2001 $ 386,245 2001 386,245$ 2002 $ 433,254 12.2%2002 433,254$ 12.2% 2003 $ 444,862 2.7%2003 444,862$ 2.7% 2004 $ 376,485 -15.4%2004 386,274$ -13.2% 2005 $ 375,835 -0.2%2005 396,317$ 2.6% 2006 $ 331,453 -11.8%2006 406,621$ 2.6% 2007 $ 331,453 0.0%2007 417,193$ 2.6% 2008 $ 300,453 -9.4%2008 428,040$ 2.6% 2009 $ 300,453 0.0%2009 439,169$ 2.6% 2010 $ 285,430 -5.0%2010 450,588$ 2.6% 2011 $ 285,430 0.0%2011 462,303$ 2.6% 2012 $ 300,737 5.4%2012 474,323$ 2.6% 2013 $ 300,737 0.0%2013 486,655$ 2.6% 2014 $ 355,324 18.2%2014 499,308$ 2.6% 2015 $ 425,594 19.8%2015 512,290$ 2.6% 2016 $ 436,659 2.6%2016 525,610$ 2.6% 2017 $ 448,012 2.6%2017 539,276$ 2.6% 2018 $ 459,213 2.5%2018 553,297$ 2.6% A. Actual HSRAP Budget History B. Hypothetical HSRAP funding if we increased the fund by a CPI of 2.6% annually since FY 2004 The difference between A (Actual HSRAP funding) and B (hypothetical HSRAP funding if we increased the fund by 2.6% annually since 2004 is $94,084 Note - In FY 2004 Project Sentinel ($68,377 ) was transferred from HSRAP and funded separately by the City, similar to Avenidas and PACCC City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/23/2017 5:45 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 4:12 PM To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office Cc:Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Bobel, Phil; Hay, Jessie; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; Svendsen, Janice Subject:6/27 Council Questions for Agenda Items: 3 and 15 Dear Mayor and Council Members:  On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries by Council Member DuBois  regarding the June 27, 2017 council agenda items listed below:  Item 3: Preventive Street Maintenance CIP   Item 15: Investment Policy  Item #3 FY2018 Preventive Maintenance Project   Q. 1. The Preventive Maintenance Project mentioned University Avenue in the Title but University is not listed  in Attachment B.  Is Lot K the only change along University and if not, what is included?  A. 1. Base repair, crack sealing, slurry sealing and restriping of Lot K is the only work along University  Avenue for the FY18 Preventive Maintenance Project.  Item #15 Investment Policy  Q. 1. Staff is asking to increase investment in "California State, California Local Government Agencies and other  United States State bonds".   Given the unfunded pension liability in California State and local agencies, and if  that system fails its likely to fail for California agencies at a similar time,  can staff comment on the degree to  which risk is diversified investing in California as compared to investing in other states?  Should we have more  specific guidelines in terms of diversifying by investing in other States?  A. 1. All municipal bonds in the City’s portfolio, except $6.3 million of University of California which are  revenue bonds, are General Obligation (GO) Bonds meaning they are supported by a levy on the jurisdiction’s  taxable property (assessed) values. This levy can only be used for bond payments so they can’t be used for  general and/or capital expenses such as CalPERS retirement or unfunded liability payments. In another  example, Palo Alto’s (Library) GO bond assessment for the bond debt service payments can’t be redirected  by the City Council for other uses.   With the City’s Investment Policy requiring all municipal agency bond purchases must have a minimum rating  of double A, the historical low rate of default of all types of municipal bonds, and the current and  (foreseeable) future municipal bond purchases restricted by staff to GO bonds only, the likelihood of principal  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/23/2017 5:45 PM 2 loss is remote; for GO Bonds it’s unheard of. In addition, staff monitors the credit rating on a regular basis  and reports to Council on a quarterly report with details of all holdings.  Thank you,  Janice   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 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:05 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 1:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Approve / Fund Bicycle Projects! Gentle City Council, Simply, please approve the Bike Boulevards contract and ensure funding for the already approved Bike Boulevards and the Charleston/Arastradero Plan. As someone who uses Park Ave down to Arastradero (and then over to San Antonio via Charleston and Middlefield on a daily basis during the school year, i am in strong support for the above. Not only does every cyclist in Palo Alto represent one less car but also reduces our carbon/ energy footprint while improving the health of our citizens. Cycle well, be well, Sven -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645 EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones! See: http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:05 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 6:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments for June 27 meeting Dear City Council Members, Please be sure to approve the bicycle boulevards contract and include funding for the previously approved bicycle boulevards and Charleston–Arastradero projects on Tuesday, June 27. In 2012 Council approved a Bike & Pedestrian Transportation Plan that prescribes a network of bike boulevards and improved arterial connections to provide real connectivity and safer conditions for alternative road users of all ages and abilities. The plan incorporates safer school routes for Palo Alto families and excellent bike and walking routes from Palo Alto neighborhoods to public and private community centers, like the Campus for Jewish Life and the YMCA, the many City Parks & Recreation facilities, shopping centers, libraries, and local jobs. These improvements come at a time when they are very badly needed. The upturn in the economy has brought new jobs and thousands of new car trips into the community. A large percentage of these trips converge with school commute traffic, making routes less comfortable for students and their concerned parents. Bike facility improvements have not kept pace with the needs of increased numbers of bicyclists and safety impacts from growing car volumes citywide. Our 2012 Bike/Ped Plan contains many projects that were in the 2003 Bike Plan but never implemented. In fact, less than 10% of the 2012 Bike/Ped Transportation Plan has been implemented to date. We know that each time we have improved bike facilities (especially to schools); we have drawn greater numbers of bicyclists. Tonight you can approve solid steps toward rolling out Palo Alto‘s future bike network. I’m not sure why we call these “bike projects”. Each one of them contains new facilities for all users. These multi-modal projects are for everyone, creating streets that serve people who drive, walk, bike and use transit. Let’s implement the long-awaited safety improvements families have been calling for. Mode shift will follow. It always has. Let’s get this show on the road—so to speak---to provide needed improvements for safety and comfort that will draw more people to choose active, healthy, and sustainable commutes more often. Please support staff’s recommendations. Thank you for considering my comments. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:05 AM 3 With gratitude for your service to our community, Penny Ellson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:05 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Elke MacGregor <bemacgregor@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 10:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike boulevards Dear council members    Thank‐you for your previous approvals of bike boulevards in Palo Alto.      My family depends on and enjoys many of them.  My husband bikes to work daily along Bryant street and my children  have biked to school (Fairmeadow, JLS and Gunn) almost every day since the grade 5 bike rodeo.  Our 18yr old son is so  convinced that bikes are the best transportation solution that he is uninterested in learning how to drive a car.  My husband and I also bike for fun/ fitness several times per week and often ride out Charleston/Arastradero to get to  the foothills.  The portion of the road between El Camino and Foothill expressway is measurably better with the initial  traffic calming and we look forward to the permanent solutions that you are supporting.    Thanks for making this a proactive cycling community.    Elke MacGregor  55 Roosevelt Circle  Palo Alto        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:05 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:nodiamonds@gmail.com on behalf of philippe@nodiamonds.com Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 6:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Approve funding for bike boulevards and Charleston-Arastradero Plan Implementation Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a concerned citizen of Palo Alto, I urge you to: 1. Approve the Bike Boulevards contract, and 2. Ensure funding for the Bike Boulevards and Charleston/Arastradero Plan is included in the final budget you approve. Thank you, Philippe Alexis 349 Diablo Court, 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Anne Deierlein <mdeierlein@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 12:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve Bike Boulevards and funding for Charleston/Arastradero Plan! Dear City Council, Thank you for all previous approvals on these safety projects. 1. Approve the Bike Boulevards contract, and 2. Ensure funding for the Bike Boulevards and Charleston/Arastradero Plan is included in the final budget they approve. Please support funding these key elements of the planned city-wide bicycle/pedestrian network because: · School route safety improvements were carefully integrated into the plans. · Together, the Bike Boulevards and Charleston–Arastradero projects represent significant steps toward implementing the vision of the city-wide bicycle-pedestrian network that is outlined in the 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan and directed by the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. These projects are for everyone, making a safe place on the street for cars and people who walk and bike. Let's continue to create safety on our streets. Thank you again for all you have done for us! Sincerely, Mary Anne Deierlein 318 Parkside Drive Palo Alto, CA. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Mutz <jennifer.mutz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 8:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:June 27, 2017 City Council Meeting: Support for bicycle improvement funding Dear Hard Working City Council, Our family would like to express our support for an important budget decision you will be making this coming Tuesday June 27, 2017 on funding for two items: Bike Boulevard/Charleston-Arastradero implementations and approving a contract for the construction of neighborhood/traffic safety/bicycle improvements along local roads (Amarilla Ave, Bryant St, East Meadow Dr., Montrose Ave, Moreno Ave, Louis Rd, Palo Alto Ave, and Ross Road). We are a family of four who have lived in our Palo Alto home for over 20 years and all bike. My husband bikes to work in Palo Alto (in addition to taking CalTrain to SF since his company has offices in both locations). Both my teens bike to Palo Alto High School. My teens also bike all around town to their friends’ houses and summer jobs. I bike for work, community service, and pleasure. We are a biking family. Given Palo Alto’s city charter to increase biking and reduce vehicle traffic, the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Program is critical and smart (we’ve seen the car traffic sky rocket living here the past 30 years). Please continue to support the funding towards the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan for these reasons:  school route safety improvements were carefully integrated into the plans. (Especially the Bryant Blvd which gets my kids to Paly safely and the Arastradero corridor which gets other kids to 11 schools safely!) http://paloaltobike.fehrandpeers.net/ and here http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/transit/charleston.asp  Together, the Bike Boulevards and Charleston–Arastradero projects represent significant steps toward implementing the vision of the city-wide bicycle-pedestrian network that is outlined in the 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan and directed by the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.  These projects are for everyone, making a safe place on the street for cars and people who walk and bike. Thank you for previously supporting the funding for these projects and thank you for your continued support. Respectfully, Jennifer Mutz (Andy, Hannah and Sam) 2702 Cowper St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Biking in Palo Alto Dear City Council members,    My name is Arnout Boelens and I work for Stanford University since the beginning of this year. I am originally from the  Netherlands, so I grew up in a biking culture. Arriving in Palo Alto I was pleasantly surprised how bike friendly this area  is. There are many bike lanes and I really enjoy having the right of way while riding on Bryant Street Bike Boulevard for  commuting to work and doing groceries.    I am especially excited about the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard enhancements and the proposed Bryant Street Bicycle  Boulevard extension. While the Bryant Street Boulevard is an excellent biking route, I have found that biking to  Mountain view is not straightforward. With a continuous connection between Menlo Park and Mountain View, many  more people can feel safe biking to work and school. They will hopefully will leave their car at home, thus reducing  congestion in the area.    Thank you,    Arnout Boelens    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Emma Shlaes <emma@bikesiliconvalley.org> Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 4:13 PM To:Council, City Cc:Corrao, Christopher Subject:Support for Bike Boulevards Attachments:170623 SVBC Support PA bike blvd.pdf Dear City Councilmembers, Please see attached a letter from Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition in support of funding for bike boulevards. Thanks, Emma -- Emma Shlaes Policy Manager Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition 96 N. Third Street, Suite 375 PO Box 1927 San Jose, CA 95109 Office: 408-287-7259 Ext. 228 Cell: 650-703-1191 http://bikesiliconvalley.org 96 N. Third Street, Suite 375 Post Office Box 1927 San Jose, CA 95109 Tel 408.287.7259 Fax 408.213.7559 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Amie Ashton Phil Brotherton Gary Brustin, Esq. Ken Chin Ian Dewar Poncho Guevara Peter Ingram James Lucas Daina Lujan Jim Parker Alyssa Plicka Jeff Selzer Lisa Sinizer Cheryl Smith ADVISORY BOARD Andrew J. Ball Partner Ball + Winter Carl Guardino President and CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group Richard Lowenthal Founder and CTO ChargePoint Erica Rogers President and CEO Silk Road Medical Rick Wallace President and CEO KLA-Tencor Tom Werner President and CEO SunPower Corp. PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Shiloh Ballard SVBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization EIN 77-0338658 http://bikesiliconvalley.org June 23, 2017 Palo Alto City Council Via email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Funding Bicycle Boulevards and Safe Routes to School Dear Mayor Scharff and Palo Alto City Council Members: I am writing on behalf of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, a non-profit organization that exists to create a healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling. We would like to support Consent Item 6 on the June 27 City Council agenda, Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Project Construction Contract. We would also like to ensure that the FY 2018 budget includes funding for the Bike Boulevards and the Charleston/Arastradero Plan. Thank you to Palo Alto City Council and staff for providing leadership on bicycle infrastructure for decades and in particular over the last few years with Bike Boulevard project planning. The approval of the Bicycle Boulevard Project Construction Contract would represent significant progress towards the implementation of Palo Alto’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. As you know, creating a robust network of bicycle boulevards in Palo Alto has long been a priority of that plan, local advocates, and city officials. Bicycle boulevards are a cost-effective way to promote bicycling by creating a less stressful route for people who want to bike and encourage many who wouldn’t bike on busier streets to do so. These improvements will collectively help to complete Palo Alto’s bicycle network; improve safety for all users of the street; and promote a mode shift, reducing congestion, parking demand, and greenhouse gases. In addition, school route safety improvements were integrated into the plans through strong coordination with the community and will result in health and safety benefits for students. Thank you again for previously approving these projects at many stages. The final steps are funding and construction. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Shiloh Ballard President and Executive Director City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Morse <rsmorse@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike Boulevards and Bike Safety in Palo Alto City Councilors - My name is Richard Morse and I have lived in southern Palo Alto for the past 5 years. I am an avid cyclist, both for recreation and commuting. I have 3 children who all bike around the city regularly, and ride their bikes to their schools, as well as to their after school activities all over town (Children's Theater, CSMA, PASA swimming, PA Soccer, etc.). The streets here are conducive to riding for our whole family. Thank you for the efforts you have made to date to make Palo Alto as bike friendly as it is. I'm writing to encourage you to continue to invest in bike boulevards and bike-safety infrastructure, as a way to encourage community and promote the safety of everyone who rides in and through the city. I urge you to fully fund the recently-approved bike projects. Of particular interest to me are the , especially Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, and Louis Road projects. All of these projects are not only “bike projects” but safety improvements that address the needs of all road users, including people who drive, walk, and use transit. Thank you again for your support for safe and sustainable transportation infrastructure throughout our city. Richard Morse City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Terry Barton <terry.barton@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 5:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Bike Boulevards and Safe Routes to School/Work Hi Council Members, As a daily bike commuter I know we still need improvements in our bike infrastructure to increase the number of people commuting to school and work. I bike from University Avenue into Mountain View (Google Campus) everyday. Thanks for making Palo Alto a good city, for biking. Please take the next step to make it a great for biking. Better Health Reduced traffic Reduced Green house emissions Safer Communities Are all reasons to support biking. Bryant Street and East Meadow would especially improve my route. Terry Barton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 12:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 11:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:funding for Bike boulevard and Charlston/Arastradero plan implementation Honorable City Council,    I am writing to ask that you make sure funding for the Bicycle Boulevards, and for the implementation of the  Charleston/Arastradero Plan in the city budget, due for approval this evening.     The bike boulevards are exciting to me because they improve connectivity for our children to bike to school.  I am so  proud of the rate of bicycle use as way for our kids to commute to school each day.  Each bike is one less car on the  road, less pollution and green house gasses in the air, and a kid that arrived alert and ready to learn.  These  improvements will also allow increased use of bicycle transportation by adults.    I have been working with the Safe Routes to School program since I was the Co‐PTA president at the newly re‐opened  Barron Park School, in 1997.  We have been working to make it safe for our kids to be able to ride to all of the schools in  the city, especially the 6 schools located along the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor.  This project has taken a challenging  area, and created a solution that improves bicycle and pedestrian safety, and outlined as a goal in our Transportation  Plan and Compressive Plan.      Thank you for your attention to passing a budget that includes funding for these projects. They are good for the city,  good for our kids, and good for the environment.      Best Regards,  Kirsten A. Flynn  471 Matadero Avenue.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 12:06 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:James Sperry <jsperry@pausd.org> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 10:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Funding the Bike Boulevard Projects and the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Project Hi City Council Members,    I’m emailing to express my support of the transportation projects planned around the Charleston Arastradero Corridor  and elsewhere. I’m particularly excited about the bump outs that will reduce the distance needed for pedestrians to  cross at Nelson and Charleston and the calming effect of the median landscaping work. I live on East Charleston Road  and commute to work via bicycle. My kids have also walked and biked to school for years. Many of Palo Alto’s bike and  pedestrian commute routes are great but there are areas for improvement and I’m glad the city council is moving  forward with these.    I understand that you are going to be discussing and voting on the funding of these projects at tomorrow’s meeting. I  want to thank you for already approving these projects and I want to encourage you to please fund these projects as  well.    Thanks!  James Sperry  520 East Charleston Rd  Palo Alto, CA  94306    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 12:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Good grief! Council Members,  I just read the front‐page story in the Post about roundabouts and “traffic calming.”   Has there been an unreported spate of bicycle and pedestrian accidents in Midtown to cause this excessive “calming”?  Lane narrowing, bulbouts, roundabouts, raised crosswalks – why not just close down the streets to all vehicles except  bicycles?  The bicycle lobby has way too much power and the city engineers love to tinker and punish those evil drivers. Who cares  if traffic is already so bad that it’s at a standstill during commute hours, which get longer and longer?  I’ve driven through the recent roundabouts at Stanford, observing cars, bikes and pedestrians stopped, befuddled,  wondering who has the right of way.   The bulbouts on California Avenue make turning difficult, especially if a car is stopped at the intersection.  Middlefield Road was narrowed between Lytton and University because of the small number of people who live in that  section. Is it any easier for them to get out of their driveways now? How much more traffic diverts to side streets? Is  anyone really safer?  When Arastradero was first narrowed, traffic on Maybell increased 24% according to the city’s own numbers.  Why doesn’t Palo Alto just prohibit cars in the city altogether? But do keep approving offices and hotels and residences  where no one will own a car and everyone will take public transit. Dream on.                  Pat Marriott    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bicycle Boulevard Construction Funding Dear City Council,    Thank you for your past support of the many steps we have taken to improve our bicycle infrastructure in Palo Alto.   Starting from passing the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012 BPTP), which envisioned a city wide  network of low stress bike boulevards and bikeways, then through funding design plan lines for many of these streets,  through to the present where we have 100% design plans for several of the streets in the bike boulevard network.    On Tuesday I strongly support moving forward with construction funding on the 6 bike boulevards with completed  design plans, item 6 on your consent calendar, and to continue to plan on funding the additional bicycle boulevards and  the Charleston Arastradero corridor construction in the city budget, when those construction plans are completed.    We continue to make steps forward with our bicycle network, improving connections to neighboring cities, upgrading  streets like N. California with standard width, 24 hour bike lanes, and addressing local impediments.  The overarching  goal for bicyclists in the 2012 BPTP is to make low stress bike connections complete and easy to find across our city, so  that everyone, 8 to 80, who is interested in bicycling can find a safe, easy route that matches their capability.  We will  make a big step in that direction with these projects.    Thank you for your service to our city,    Robert Neff  Emerson Street and Loma Verde  Palo Alto      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Markus Fromherz <markus@fromherz.us> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 9:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Bike Boulevards and Charleston/Arastradero improvements Honorable City Council, As a resident of Barron Park, I would like add my strong support for the improvements proposed for the Bike Boulevards and the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. I ask you to approve the Bike Boulevards contract and ensure that funding for the Bike Boulevards and Charleston/Arastradero Plan is included in the city budget. Sincerely, Markus Fromherz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:33 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Krop <nancy@kroplaw.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Funding for Bike Boulevard and Charleston-Arastradero implementations Dear City Council, On Tuesday June 27, please approve the Bike Boulevards contract and ensure funding for the Bike Boulevards and Charleston/Arastradero Plan is included in the final approved budget. Funding these elements of the planned city-wide bicycle/pedestrian network are important because these school route safety improvements were carefully integrated into the plans. Thank you for previously approving these projects. Now they need your funding approval. I’m sorry I can’t be there in person to speak. Nancy Krop Barron Park Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:33 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 7:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support all Bike Boulevards!!! Dear City Council, I am away and in a different time zone, so I may be late in expressing my support for the Bicycle Boulevards, but I hope you can approve the bike boulevard package that has been long in the works for the Midtown area ( Amarillo Ave., Bryant St., East Meadow Dr., Montrose Ave., Moreno Ave., Louis Road, Palo Alto Ave., and Ross Road.) I also strongly support the improvements for the Charelston Arastradero corridor. All are incredibly important for safe routes to school, but to also enable everyday cycling for all Palo Alto citizens, as well as commuters and visitors from surrounding communities. Elaine Uang Kipling Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 2:45 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Rozak <rerozak@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Inputs for City Council meeting this evening Greetings, We are a family residing in the Greenmeadow community, that depends on the Palo Alto infrastructure for providing safe bikeways. Alison bikes to work (at PAMF), Natalie and Annalise bike to school (Gunn), and Robert and Alison ride to the bars/restaurants downtown and on California Ave and out to the foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains (including Foothills Park!). Please vote to approve the contract providing improvements to the Palo Alto bicycle boulevard network. The Charleston-Arrastradero and Google/PA initiatives are of special value. Best regards, Robert Rozak (along with Alison Van Egeren, Natalie Rozak, and Annalise Rozak) 4060 Nelson Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:David Epstein <davidepstein@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 5:17 PM To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary Cc:fbc-paloalto@sbcglobal.net; info@newmozartschool.com; Charlotte Epstein Subject:New Mozart School of Music at First Baptist Church Dear City Council and Planning Director, We are surprised to learn that the New Mozart School of Music may have to leave the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto due to a technical problem that is within the discretion of the City to accept. The School and the church are located approximately 300 feet from our house at 2192 Waverley Street. This has been our home for more than 28 years. In all this time, the church and its tenants have been quiet and responsible. When walking to the California Avenue shopping district in the late afternoon, we are sometimes aware of children going to music lessons at the school. We are not disturbed by their presence. Parking is usually available. The First Baptist Church of Palo Alto is an asset to the diversity of the neighborhood and to the cultural life of our city. To us, children learning music is a delightful sound. The thought that the church might not be able to benefit from its full property is disturbing. Additional housing might be more in keeping with the zoning, but the neighborhood and the city will become poorer in its cultural life. Sincerely, Charlotte & David Epstein 2192 Waverley Street Palo Alto 94301 davidepstein@sbcglobal.net City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sherry Babvey <shar.bab@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 3:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:New Mozart   They are good at what they do  Please help them be part of the city    Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sachi Hwangbo <sachi_hwangbo@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:New Mozart School of Music Dear Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers,    I'm a Palo Alto resident, mother of two, and a City employee. My children and I have been loyal students of New Mozart  School of Music since its inception. Christine Shin started it as just a small class of children and parents learning to find  joy in music together. It has grown to be the best music school around. We were deeply anxious about the possibility of  the school closing because of the denial of the CPU.  You are doing the right thing by granting the school enough time to  transition to a new location, rather than vacate the First Baptist church immediately.  It will cost her dearly to move, but  to Christine Shin, the livelihood of our music teachers and the education of future generations is worth the risk.     Thank you,    Sachi Hwangbo        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:andrea cervenka <acervenka@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Really disappointing! I am SO DISAPPOINTED at the way New Mozart School of Music has been treated. Our kids have been going there every week almost since the beginning - since 2006! The location is fantastic, and our kids can bike there from Jordan (now that there is a real bike lane - thank you!). Lots of other students and parents we know have also biked to their music classes. Making them move will create more traffic in the city as more people have to drive to class - is that what we want?? Very dissapointing to have the city 'kick out' an institution that is part of what makes our community so special. There is some real talent and energy on display at this school - would you rather have kids playing on iPads??? I think not. Please re-think your priorities. Andrea Cervenka Crescent Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Yunyan G. Li <yunyanl@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 6:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:from a long time parent of NMSM Dear City Council, I have recently heard of the news on Palo Alto Weekly about the tragic news that New Mozart school of music  is about to leave our community! My daughter had her first ever music group lesson with the school founder  Christine at four years old in 2011, which started her passion in music. She has been in private lesson with the  school until today. She’s now almost 10 years old, has been playing and winning awards in piano competition, playing guitar, writing composing her own music… The school leader and staff have always been courteous and generous to the community ‐ donating all the  concert proceeds to community music programs and other organizations; ask us (student families) to be  careful driving/parking and respect the neighbors; closing the windows during music lessons even sometimes when air conditioning were not working during hot days… It’s really disheartening to hear such news that the  community would disown such a great and noble service. I respectably urge the city council to consider this generation of music culture influence this school brings to  the community and keep our community needs at heart. Best, Grace Li Long time NMSM parent City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jack Guydish <Jack.Guydish@varian.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:54 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire; Council, City; Keene, James Subject:RE: New Mozart school Thank you Claire for your response. While I understand the matter has been settled, I believe my points raised below are still very valid in general and I hope will be read by every member of the city council. Furthermore, I also understand the conflict between proposed use and zoning codes, but is it really ‘proposed’ use when the school has been there for 12 years and is being singled out now? I question the fact that the zoning conflicts happen to arise 12 years after the school started operating and also the fact that the New Mozart school was singled out for this action. Thank you for reading, Sincerely, Jack Guydish Varian Medical Systems From: Hodgkins, Claire [mailto:Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org]   Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 4:27 PM  To: Jack Guydish <Jack.Guydish@varian.com>  Subject: FW: New Mozart school    Jack,    I saw that you had commented on the New Mozart School of Music Project in an e‐mail to City Council today. We  appreciate your comments but also wanted to let you know that this project has been formally withdrawn and will not  be heard at this week’s Council meeting. I’ve attached a PDF of the e‐mail from 6/22 that I sent out to all parties that  had previously provided comments on this project letting them know the updated status and agreement that was  reached to allow time for the school to move to a different location. If you have further questions please feel free to  reach out to the contacts listed in the attached PDF depending on the nature of your comment.    In brief response to your comments below I do want to note that although those three issues were key issues raised by  many members of the public, the project was recommended for denial due to multiple conflicts between the proposed  use and applicable zoning code requirements.    Regards,  Claire    From: Jack Guydish [mailto:Jack.Guydish@varian.com] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 12:48 PM To: Council, City; Keene, James Subject: New Mozart school   Dear all, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:39 AM 2 I am appalled at the decision to single out and shut down the New Mozart school of music. It seems to me there should be a much better way to handle the situation to keep such a beneficial part of the community. A few residents complain and a hammer comes down without even investigating where the problem is coming from? There are many tenants of the church and yet the New Mozart school is singled out (at least for now). Let me address the complaints: Parking – are the cars parked illegally? If so, then by all means ticket them. That’s why we have parking laws. Closing a school because there are illegally parked cars that you don’t even know belong to the parents of the students attending the school? Really? And if they’re not parked illegally then the residents need to get over themselves – it’s not their street. Traffic – I regularly take my son to class there and have NEVER once noticed much traffic. The New Mozart school has one group class (10 or less) and the rest private lessons. Private lessons and the group class do not get out or start all at the same time so the worst case is maybe 11 or 12 cars leaving at once from the New Mozart school. Is that considered traffic in precious Palo Alto? And if there is ever much more than that then again, it’s not simply due to the New Mozart school. Noise – again there is one group class and the rest private lessons. Nearly all of the private lessons are in internal rooms and I can’t ever hear them when I’m walking down the hall. The group class keeps the windows closed nearly 100% of the time so again I fail to understand how the New Mozart school is causing the noise. Seems to me a few residents are simply creating reasons because they don’t want anyone driving or parking on ‘their’ streets. Has anyone at the city council even gone there to witness the problems and determine the root cause of any issues or if the issues really exist? Is it possible that there is a bad time where multiple tenants are coming and going at once (though I’ve never seen it) where a simple shift in scheduling would go a long way? After you shut down New Mozart are you going to shut down the Choir and other tenants of the church, potentially causing the church itself to shut down? Is this really the way you want to run your community and city? You’ll make a few residents happy to the detriment of the entire community. And then what will go in that space? Something else for residents to complain about? I’m sorry but it sure seems like there could have been a much more amicable solution and it appears none was even discussed. Jack Guydish Varian Medical Systems City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eric K <maestroek@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:07 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Christine Shin Subject:proposed eviction of New Mozart School from No. California St. location Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to urge the City Council to allow the New Mozart School to remain in its current location on California Ave. I strongly support this action. I don't live in Palo Alto, but my connections with musicians and artists in Palo Alto and locally run deep. I'm the founder and music director of Redwood Symphony, now about to begin its 33rd season on the peninsula and a major artistic force in the local music scene. Many of our players are from Palo Alto, and grew up in the wonderfully diverse atmosphere of Palo Alto's classical music scene, including PACO, The California Youth Symphony and the El Camino Youth Symphony. I have had many music students from Palo Alto and I am now in my second year as a teacher at the New Mozart School. With the changes in Palo Alto over the last 35 years, many arts groups, and schools like the New Mozart School, need smaller venues, like churches; these spaces are so important for so many arts groups, and schools like the New Mozart School, to flourish in. I believe that it is incumbent on the City Council to make it easier, rather than harder, for the arts, music education and cultural literacy to thrive; Palo Alto is renowned throughout the world for incorporating these life essentials into the fabric of local daily life. I support allowing the New Mozart School to stay in its current venue and I believe the City Council should too. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Eric K (aka Kujawsky) Music Director of Redwood Symphony Director of Music Ministry, Ladera Community Church Ph: (650) 766-3509 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 8:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From: Tanaka, Greg Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:05 PM To: Minor, Beth Cc: jbulow@stanford.edu; Stump, Molly Subject: Pension ppt to send to the rest of the Council Hi Beth,  Please send this Powerpoint (with notes) on Pensions to the rest of the Council: https://www.clearslide.com/view/mail?iID=TLzbGtCDW8V8fXzKvDfp The ppt is from Prof. Bulow @Stanford who has done a lot of work around Pensions. Here is an excerpt from one of the Prof. paper’s: "The consequence is that Palo Alto, which has experienced multiple economic miracles over the past 50 years which presumably led to a constant stream of higher-than-expected income, finds itself with an unfunded pension debt that is about $1 billion according to the economic approach and $300 million even based on the actuarial calculations. This against an annual payroll of less than $100 million. So the city has effectively rolled up a debt equal to over 10 years’ payroll.  Regardless of what the court decides, that debt of 10 years’ worth of payroll will put the squeeze on Palo Alto’s budget in the years to come, likely sooner rather than later. Palo Alto makes pension contributions equal to more than 29 percent of payroll but because of past sins this amount ($27 million per year) covers less than 3 percent interest on the existing unfunded liability, let alone the cost of any new benefits being accrued by the current labor force. For other places around the state and country with similar debts but without Palo Alto’s economic prospects problems will be even tougher. Let’s say that voters decide they don’t want to continue down this path and instead ask that cities and counties negotiate Defined Contribution plans going forward, so that each year’s pension cost is appropriately accounted for and fully funded. Why shouldn’t they have that right?" This is for Tuesday's budget meeting and can be distributed publicly. Best regards, Greg The "California Rule" and Public Pensions These are three ways in which California public employees would benefit from being allowed to negotiate changes, including downward adjustments in pension formulas for future work: (1) Employees benefit from having greater flexibility in negotiating how their compensation will be distributed between current salary, pensions, medical benefits, and other compensation. (2) Flexibility in choice of investments. Currently a very large fraction of employee compensation is in the form of pension benefits, which are entirely held in the form of annuities provided by a deeply underfunded insurance company (CalPERS) and backed by public employers, many of whom are financially stressed and have questionable ability to raise taxes. Employees might prefer to make other retirement investments, or use money for purposes such as a house down payment. (3) Reduced incentives to "farm out" services currently performed by public employees. The combination of formula changes and lower interest rates mean that employees are receiving a much higher percentage of their compensation in the form of pensions than 20 years ago. If workers on the margin value more salary more than equal cost pension benefits and public employers are required to offer public employees packages with high pension benefits they may find it cheaper to subcontract work to private firms that can hire equal quality workers at lower cost by offering a more attractive mix of compensation.1 So why are unions fighting so hard for the narrowest possible interpretation of the "California Rule"2 ? The answer is that over the last 20 years they have benefitted from the extraordinarily 1 As a related example, Cal PERS itself (CalPERS "2016 Annual Review of Funding Levels and Risks", September 20, 2016) refers to the "Charter Schools Phenomenon", as many new schools find that they can provide a better financial package for their teachers by staying out of the Defined Benefit system and CalPERS. CalPERS focuses on the erosion of the employee base which will spread a fixed debt to retired employees over a "tax base" of a smaller number of active employees. This would not be an issue for an adequately funded plan which would have set aside the money for retirees' pensions during their working careers. 2 Accord ing to the Ca lifornia Rule "The pension offered at hire becomes a "vested right," protected by contract law,that cannot be cut, unless offset by a new benefit of comparable val ue. 1 aggressive accounting that has allowed employers to account for a promise of $100 in benefits at an accounting cost of less than $50. This accounting makes possible deals that give the employees more benefits while the politicians can report lower costs, so everyone wins except the taxpayer. This approach, which has involved kicking the can down the road for decades as unrecognized pension costs have soared, has lead even some prosperous localities to incur unfunded debts equal to the equivalent of 10 years' payroll. It is uncertain that taxpayers will agree to come up with the money to fund such enormous payments for past work, and full payment becomes less likely as the debts continue to grow. But if CalPERS does not reform its accounting and if employers continue to ignore the real economic costs of the benefits they offer rather than j ust looking at the current accounting cost and if taxpayers can eventually be persuaded or forced to pay off all promised benefits in full by making pension contributions that will likely exceed 50 percent of payroll then in fact the employees would benefit from forcing taxpayers to continue to allow the politicians to negotiate contracts with very large pension benefits. Without the accounting issue there would be no incentive for the unions to take their current position on the California Ru le. The accounting cost of any compensation package would be the same to the employer as the economic cost and it would always be in both parties' interest to allocate any given amount of compensation in the way that worked best for the employees (though different employees might have different preferences). In fact, if California voters ever pass a "Truth in Finance" or "Truth in Accounting" proposition that required employers to value newly accrued benefits at their true cost unions and politicians would both want a flexible interpretation of the California Rule (once they lost their litigation fighting the proposition). The pension can be increased, however, even retroactively for past work as happened for state workers under landmark legislation, SB 400 in 1999." Among the questions one might ask are: Does additional salary count as a benefit? If the price of providing a given benefit changes are employee and employer nonetheless obligated to negotiate for the at least the same amount of the benefit? If a city wished to replace its defined benefit pension plan with a defined contribution plan how would benefits under the old and new plans be valued to meet the "comparable value" requirement? 2 The rest of this brief elaborates on these points. The first three sections address the benefits to everyone from allowing a flexible interpretation of the California Rule. The fourth section explains the accounting issues and how they have contributed to the enormous fiscal problems that have developed. Finally, the fifth section addresses the issue of why benefits are increasingly at risk, making benefit accruals an increasingly less good way for employees to be compensated. 1. Flexibility in the Allocation of Compensation A. A simple example with a Defined Contribution plan Assume that an employer has a Defined Contribution pension plan. A representative employee was earning a salary of $100,000 per year but also received a Defined Contribution benefit (like an IRA or 401(k)) of another 40 percent, or $40,000, for a total compensation of $140,000. 3 A new contract is negotiated and over the period of the contract compensation will rise by 10 percent, to $154,000. If the parties are constrained to maintaining the same pension formula then salary w ill rise to $110,000 and pension contributions to $44,000. Without the constraint the parties might alternatively agree to a $114,000 salary and $40,000 in pension benefits ---or for example a $124,000 salary with $30,000 in pension benefits. A restriction on the pension formula does not restrict the overall compensation of the employees; it simply requires that the fraction of that compensation devoted to pensions cannot change ---even if both sides would prefer it. It is simply a constraint that limits the ability of the parties to choose the best allocation of the compensation package.4 The exact same logic applied in this example applies equally well to Defined Benefit plans, even though those plans are typically described in much more confusing ways. 3 Businesses face limits on their qualified Defined Contribution pension plans so they would have to offer no more than 25 percent of salary as a pension contribution in a tax-qualified plan. 4 While the talk about pensions focuses on reducing pensions relative to salary there is a further issue about benefits where it is uncertain about whether employees will want more or less such compensation in the future. For example, say that employees receive a package of medical benefits or tuition benefits. The ideal allocation to these benefits might rise or fall in the future. But if the parties are constrained to never institute a cut then they might have to set current benefits below optimal levels to maintain flexibility. 3 B. An Example for a Defined Benefit Plan Now assume that the employer has a Defined Benefit plan. This plan provides employees with a benefit equal to 3 percent of their final year's salary times the number of years worked. Again consider a representative employee earning $100,000 per year as her salary. The person has worked 20 years so if she retired today her pension would be .60 x $100,000 or $60,000 per year from the retirement age until the end of her life. That $60,000 pension is based on past work and should not (and would not) be reduced by anything this court decides. But what if the person works a 21st year without a raise? The pension would rise to .63 x $100,000 = $63,000. So the employee would be earning an additional $3,000 pension for working an additional year. The value of that additional pension would be based on the appropriate interest rate and mortality table used to discount the future payments. We'll get back to that calculation later but say for now that the economic value is $15 for every additional $1 of pension, or $45,000. Then the employee's effective compensation for the year would be $100,000+$45,000 = $145,000. Another way to provide the same compensation would be to cap the pension at 60 percent of final salary and give the employee a raise to $104,500, increasing her pension by $2,700, to .60 x $104,500 = $62,700. The higher salary would offset the $300 smaller pension increase: total compensation would be $104,500 + 15 x $2,700 = $145,000.5 A third way would be to cap the Defined Benefit plan at $60,000 and pay the additional year's compensation in the form of say $116,000 in salary and $29,000 to a Defined Contribution (e.g. 401(k) or 403(b)) pension plan, the employee choosing amongst various options as to how the money is invested on his or her behalf. 5 As with other benefits such as medical care and college tuition payments each employee's individual compensation each year (including salary and all benefits) will not reflect differences in that year's salary. However, from the standpoint of the aggregate negotiations between unions and employers obviously both the cost and value of the benefits package is considered. So the kind of calculation we do above should be thought of more as applying to the aggregation of all employees in a given year rather than to each employee each year. 4 The two parties both benefit from flexibility in allocating whatever compensation is negotiated. Public pensions are vastly higher than what is negotiated in the private sector. It might be reasonable for employees to choose to accept smaller pension increases in return for more cash than their employers could or would otherwise pay. Think of what happens when long term interest rates fall sharply, as has been the case during the careers of many public employees: The present value of any given pension award becomes much greater and the percentage of an employee's compensation that is composed of pension benefits becomes much higher if a constant formula is employed. Perhaps when interest rates were higher and a $3,000 annuity could be acquired for $30,000 an employee w ith total compensation of $145,000 would have wanted $115,000 in salary and a $3,000 annuity. Is it clear that as interest rates have fallen and the cost of the annuity rose to $45,000 that the employee would want to have her future salaries cut so that the same ratio of salary to annuity could be maintained, as some argue the California Rule requires? Would it not make everyone better off to allow negotiations that permit other forms of compensation rather than insist on increasing the share of compensation that goes to pensions? 2. Flexibility in Choice of Investments To an economist, a Defined Benefit plan is simply a Defined Contribution plan in which the employee has only one option for investing her pension compensation: in deferred annuities sold not by a regular insurance company but by an "insurer" (in this case CalPERS) that does not meet normal insurance company funding standards and is backed by the worker's own employer. Why would anyone want to have all their pension wealth (and in the case of most public employees the vast majority of their financial wealth) entirely invested in such a squirrelly asset? If you wanted to buy annuities why not acq uire them from an insurer that had the assets to back up the promised benefits in conformance with state regulations for insurance companies instead of one that had less than 50 cents on hand for every dollar of promised benefits? Furthermore, many investors might prefer not to have so much of their wealth tied up in annuities even if they felt certain that their benefits were safe. Why not diversify into various other forms of investments? 5 3. Prospect of Jobs being outsourced Consider the above example of a Defined Benefit plan where the employer is constrained to paying the employee $45,000 in pension compensation for every $100,000 of salary. However, employees value this pension benefit at only $30,000 and would rather have more current compensation. A subcontractor can then offer a package that is equally attractive to employees at lower cost by providing more salary and less pension. The contractor will then be able to pass on this saving in bidding for a contract to take over service provision from public employees.6 On the margin this financial incentive would lead to more outsourcing because the private sector provider would be subjected to one less constraint than the public sector employer. 4. Why politicians and unions like Defined Contribution plans and high pension compensation From the above it may seem odd that politicians and un ions negotiate for large Defined Benefit pensions. Why would you want so much of your compensation invested in that one particular asset? The answer lies in the extremely aggressive accounting techniques used for pension financing. These techniques, which have no serious economic justification, allow employers to vastly understate the cost of the benefits they provide relative to the cost of defeasing those liabilities w ith a private insurer or even CalPERS itself and so pretend to run a balanced budget when they are actually far in deficit. Throughout the system for every $100 of pension debt employers have taken on (based on the insurance company cost) CalPERS has only recorded an "actuarial" debt of about $60. Furthermore, because of various other CalPERS accounting techniques for determining pension contributions ---techniques that go well beyond those allowed in the private sector ---only about 70 percent of the lesser amount, or about $42 of that liability has been funded and so counted towards employers' past budgets7. 6 This is purely the benefit that the contractor would have in not being bound by the California rule. Of course there may be other efficiencies or inefficiencies from transferring service provision to the private sector but those are unaffected by the interpretation of the California Rule. 7 CalPERS had a 69 percent funded rate based on its actuarial calculations on June 30, 2016. See "CalPERS Annual Report Details Fund Finances", January 5, 2017. 6 The difference between the real liability and the amount paid was extra compensation that the politicians were able to pay without accounting for it. So for every $100 in benefits promised to employees about $58 ($100 minus $42) has yet to be accounted for in employer budgets. If the politicians are willing to pay more in real compensation if more than half the costs can be kicked down the road then a big Defined Benefit plan is a way for the employees to negotiate a larger compensation package while allowing the employer to cla im lower labor costs. For example, let's say that the employees only value at $80 benefits that cost the employer $100 to provide. They still will be very happy to sacrifice $70 in current salary for those benefits. The politician who only cares about the current accounting cost rather than the economic cost will regard providing $100 in benefits that are only accounted for at $42 or even $60 as an attractive alternative to paying $70 in cash. Of course these costs ultimately come home to roost. How are the values of pension liabilities calculated? Economists, insurance companies, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) all do the calculation in roughly the same way: They calculate an amount roughly equal to what it would cost the employer to buy an annuity from an insurance company to cover the future benefits or else calculate the amount that would have to be set aside in high quality bonds to cover the expected cost, given mortality tables. Similarly, if a city (such as Carmel) wishes to withdraw from the CalPERS system, CalPERS calculates the cost of the city's promised benefits using the high quality bond approach in determining the debt pay-off amount. In the current environment this approach leads to discounting future obligations at 4 percent or even less. CalPERS itself currently uses a 3.25 percent rate to discount terminated liabilities.8 However, for the purposes of calculating an actuarial liability CalPERS uses an interest rate of over 7 percent, versus the 4 percent rate the PBGC uses and the even lower rate that CalPERS itself uses in determining debt pay-off amounts for cities that wish to exit. This accounts for the difference between $100 and $60. Much of the remaining difference (between $60 and $42) is caused by the difference in how the system treats surpluses and deficits relative to actuarial expectations. If the stock market is good 8 See CalPERS "2016 Annual Review of Funding Levels and Risks", September 20, 2016. 7 and plans have excess assets, as in the turn of the century tech bubble, the surplus can be dissipated (through contribution holidays and benefit increases) as fast as the politicians want. For example, in 1998-99 when the appropriate interest rate for discounting liabilities was 5 to 5.50 percent CalPERS, using an 8 percent rate, declared its plans to be overfunded by over 40 percent. 9 Using the Schools plan as an example, contribution rates of over 13 percent in 1980-81 fell to 0 for 1998-2002. At the same time benefit formulas for many plans were increased over the years, with many increases applied retroactively to past service. After two slightly down stock market years, the plans became underfunded even by CalPERS actuarial standards. But when the plans went into deficit did contributions increase sharply in the same way as they dropped in good times? Hardly! CalPERS uses double and sometimes triple "smoothing" accounting techniques that mean that for every $15 million in losses that the pension fund suffers employers are only asked to contribute about an extra $60,000 the first year, and not much more the second, according the CalPERS actuary.10 It is only in 2016-17 that School Plan contribution 9 See e.g. CalPERS "Schools Pool Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2015" pp.25-26. 10 See "CalPERS Potential Changes to Your Contribution Rates", December 7, 2010, video transcript. According to David Lamoreaux, CalPERS Deputy Chief Actuary, "What we've been using for years is we have a method where we basically spread gains and losses over a 30 year period and then we amortize those over 30. Now j ust to help you better understand what that really means is, let's say we lose $15 Million in one year. So the 15 years spreading means that we're going to take that 15 million and we're going to spread it over 15 years. So, year one we recognize one million. Then that one million we don't charge the employer for it right away, we amortize that over a 30 year period. And the 30 year period comes out to be about 6%. So, 6% of one million is about $60,000. So you can see that if we lose $15 Million, in year one we ask the employer only to pay $60,000 toward it. So you can see how it's really smoothed over time. And the idea behind this is that hopefully it's, you know, it's, we know that gains and losses are meant to cancel one another over time. So the idea behind it is in year two if we had a gain of $15 Million, then the whole thing gets wiped out and we really never had to increase rate that much for employers. So that's the whole idea behind smoothing. Now what really happened is, if you recall, this works great when you have like, you know, small gains and small losses from year to year. But what we really saw in 2008 and 2009, if you recall, CalPERS lost 24%. Our return was negative 24%. That was 32% below what we assume as actuaries. We, our long term expected return is seven and three quarters, about, almost 8%. And we had a negative 24. So that's a 32% difference. And what we found out is the methods we were using to smooth the rates were not, would not have been able to cope with such a big decline and it would have caused dramatic increases to employer rates in 11/12. So, what our board did is in June 2009 they adopted a temporary change to our method that's basically phasing the impact over a three year period." 8 rates even matched 1980-81 levels. However, because the can has been kicked down the road for so long as the deficit has continued to build, rates are now beginning to soar. As an analogy to the CalPERS procedures for quickly dissipating gains and foot dragging when it comes to making up losses, think of a man who supplements his income by trading stocks. He budgets in that he will make $10,000 a quarter to help cover his fixed expenses. The first quarter his luck is good and he makes $100,000 so he is $90,000 ahead. But instead of saving that $90,000 against possible future losses he quickly dissipates that surplus, much as CalPERS and the politicians did in 1998-2002. The next quarter he loses $80,000. He has still made as much as he expected (a net of $20,000) over the two periods but because he spent the first period surplus he must now go into debt for the $90,000 he overspent in the first period. If the stock trader follows CalPERS procedures for dealing with deficits he will pay in $360 the first year and little more the second; far less than the interest that will accumulate on the debt. This is how even on an actuarial basis CalPERS plans have managed to ri ng up big deficits even in periods when on average their investments have made their expected return. CalPERS' actuarial system has so many odd provisions to "smooth" contributions that in some cases the system calls for negative contributions or a negative amortization rate of an unfunded liability. When that happens Ca lP ERS institutes an ad hoc process which it calls "Fresh Start" to throw out the calculations and limit the obvious craziness.11 The consequence is that Palo Alto, which has experienced multiple economic miracles over the past 50 years which presumably led to a constant stream of higher-than-expected income, finds itself with an unfunded pension debt that is about $1 billion according to the economic approach and $300 million even based on the actuarial calculations. This against an annual payroll of less than $100 m illion. So the city has effectively rolled up a debt equal to over 10 years' payroll.12 11 See CalPERS "Actuarial Amortization Po licy" p.5. 12 Data from www.pensiontracker.org . The actual numbers for Pa lo Alto in 2015 (the most recent available at this writing) were: payoff (market liability) $1.791 billion, actuarial liability $1.075 billion, offsetting assets $0.736 billion for a deficit of $1.055 billion on a market basis. This compared with a payroll of $92.8 million, so the deficit was 11.37 times the annual payroll. 9 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 5:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David   From: greg tanaka [mailto:gltanaka@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 8:50 AM To: Minor, Beth Subject: Fwd: CAFR infographic Hi Beth, Can you please forward this to Council for tomorrow's meeting: On Tuesday, the Council will discuss the 2018 Fiscal Year Budget. Overall, the budget demonstrates a focus on sustainability, livability, and economic growth. However, we are concerned by the structural 8% growth in expenditures, coupled with a structural 6% growth in revenue, thus a 2% sustained gap. Because of this concern, we decided to examine the 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) to better understand previous spendings and surface areas of concern. Included in the infographic attached below are numbers that stood out to us . Let’s keep these in mind moving forward. The "Market Pension Debt" included in the infographic is pulled from Stanford professor Joe Nation’s website “Pension Tracker” and represents the present value of future benefits for current pension participants, discounted at a market rate of return. Currently, Palo Alto is 10th out of 500 cities in California for highest market pension debt per capita. Hopefully we can soon get the ball rolling on potential solutions. All other numbers come from the CAFR, which can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54744" If you have any concerns with the numbers, I have included the page numbers and source for each stat, if you choose to take a deeper look at it: 1. Market Pension Debt: Link to Pension Tracker Website(http://www.pensiontracker.org/agencySummary.php?id=1437&selYear=2015&varName=field47) 2. Total Primary Government Outstanding Debt: Page 151 of CAFR (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54744) 3. Total Direct Debt: Page 152 of CAFR 4. Interest on Long-Term Debt: Page 138 of CAFR 5. PA's Share of Overlapping Debt: Page 152 of CAFR 6.. Unfunded Retiree Health Care Benefits: Page 95 CA Best regards, Greg City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nickel, Eric Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 10:24 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Keith, Claudia Subject:Emails related to the Fire Department Budget Honorable Mayor and Council Members,    On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, I am passing along a letter that has been provided to the 12 community members  and one reporter (Gennady) who have written to express concern about the Fire Budget and the proposed $1.3M  reduction. Here is the text of the letter:    The City Manager has asked me to respond to your letter to the City Council.    Thank you for your email. There seems to be a misperception about the proposed FY 2018 Palo Alto Fire  Department’s budget and here are some facts to set the record straight:   For FY 2018, the City is facing up to a $2.6 million gap in reimbursements under the Stanford Fire  Services contract. In the Proposed FY 2018 Budget, $1.3 million of that gap has been specifically  allocated to the Fire Department. Even with that budgeted reduction, the Fire Department’s budget for  FY 2018 is actually increasing overall by 9.8%.    It would have increased by 14.3 % without the reduction. That would have been by far the largest  departmental budget increase, nearly 30% more than the next closest department, Police. The increase  is due primarily to wage and pension costs. In fact, the Fire Department’s budget has increased by more  than $5 million in the past two years.     Most important to the concerns you have raised is that this budget does not make any changes to  current staffing models. It anticipates them, but as we are still in discussions with our labor union, we do  not have a final proposal. If and when we do, that proposal will need to go the City Council for full public  discussion and Council approval, which will not occur until this fall.    Every model the City is considering does not reduce effective service levels. It does expect that we will  be able to do some things differently.      Given significantly rising costs, especially in public safety, we have to be open to doing some things  differently, more efficiently and effectively. According to CalPERS, the City’s direct costs for pensions for  public safety will grow from 45% of salary in FY 2017 to 72% of salary in FY 2023. Those percentages  could get even worse.     Again, the FY 2018 budget doesn’t propose any changes to service levels at this point in time and will  not have any impact on response times. Service levels are maintained at current levels.    We hope this information has addressed your concerns, and please be assured that our community will have  ample opportunity to get informed and provide input into any actual proposed changes to the City Council, who  will make that decision when that time comes. Again, that will not occur before this fall.     Sincerely,  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:24 AM 2    Chief Nickel      Eric Nickel, EFO, CFO, CFC | Fire Chief  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Desk:  650‐329‐2424  Email:  eric.nickel@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Nextdoor    The 13 emails received and replied (there were duplicate email written to the City) were:  amilne@tidebreak.com Andrew Milne   enidpearson1@gmail.com Enid Pearson   andyberschauer@hotmail.com Andy Berschauer  shannonrmcentee@gmail.com Shannon Rose  McEntee  deborah@plumleygroup.com Deborah Plumley  t.c.patterson@comcast.net  Tom Patterson  hitchingsh@yahoo.com  Hamilton Hitchings  ajecpa04@yahoo.com  Anne Ercolani  shep8283@comcast.net Rosalie Shepherd   eager@eagercon.com Michael Eager  fbalin@gmail.com  Fred Balin  x40trout@gmail.com Whit Heaton  gsheyner@paweekly.com  Gennady Sheyner    Thank you for your service to the community.    Regards,    Chief Nickel  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 7:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Parking permit pricing input Attachments:Permit Increase Feedback-Final.pdf Council Members,    Find attached, correspondence from the public pertaining to the proposed parking permit fee increases.    This information, along with other emails you have received regarding the budget will be at your place for the Council  meeting Tuesday night.            David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org       Area Name Comments Cal Ave Naomi Bancroft I rely on my car to get to work, and I have an annual permit for the California Ave area. The proposed parking permit fee increase is huge. 490% for an annual permit! In my opinion that is way too much. Increasing the cost by 50% annually would be much more reasonable. Cal Ave Christi Wendstal Please do not increase parking fees. How does the increase improve the driving and parking experience for those of us who are paying additional fees? We are a small business in the California Ave area (on Sherman Ave). I saw a notice at the Parking Lot on Sherman Wednesday 6/14 around noon, stating the increase in parking permit from the current $149 to a staggering $730. On the same afternoon, the sign was changed: the parking permit fee will be increased to $365 and with daily parking to go from $8 to $25. I saw a notice at the Parking Lot on Sherman Wednesday 6/14 around noon, stating the increase in parking permit from the current $149 to a staggering $730. On the same afternoon, the sign was changed: the parking permit fee will be increased to $365 and with daily parking to go from $8 to $25. The more than 100% increase in parking fee is excessive. The new Visa campus on Sherman Ave adds more than 300 employees, plus residential spaces. Yet, the City did not impose sufficient parking spaces for the new construction (in fact, we discussed at our office at that time about the parking space per square footage requirement for the site). Our concern is borne out by the observation that the underground parking garage is ALWAYS full with parking guard turning away tenant parking for the Visa building. The City knew that the parking requirement for the then new Visa campus was inadequate when it computed the parking space per square footage requirement. The new police department in the area will certainly add pressure IF insufficient parking spaces are planned. So, please do not impose additional burden on small business owners given the area rents are already sky‐rocketing. In addition to annual parking fee increases, the increase of daily permit from $8 to $25 will hurt businesses which have frequent client visits. We implore you to empathize with the financial burden imposed on small business owners and scale back the parking fee increase. Thank you for the quick response. I have reviewed the link in your email: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57884 and I would like to reiterate the following points: One of the reasons for increased parking demands in the California Ave business district is the over‐flowing parking needs from the new Visa Campus, which should have been a known factor when the construction was approved. The new demand for parking because of the proposed police station should be a burden shared by all Palo Altans, and not just the California Ave District. I agree with the need to reduce private car commute if it is feasible. However, the operative word is “feasible”. Given the nature of our business requiring frequent client site visits, we have done our best to provide such incentives wherever/whenever it is feasible. I am sure there are other businesses in the district which share the same challenges. Cal Ave Sam Chiu Page 1 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments We have seen three different pricing for a new California Ave district permit in three different places: notices at the parking lot in Sherman Ave being $730, 365 and the one mentioned in the link from your email – which has a new price of $280. So, which is the correct one? I am surprised at the lack of consistency in communications from the City of Palo Alto to its constituents. When should we take seriously communications from the city? We understand the need to provide funds for capital improvements in the California Ave district. However, the new police department serves the city and not just the district. The city council should also consider both revenue and cost: are we spending too much on many of the paving projects in the city (we have seen many decent street surfaces being paved over not knowing the metrics used to determine necessity/maintenance). Even in this time of rising construction costs (Palo Alto Online December 6, 2016), is it a good policy to speed up construction projects to “stay ahead of” rising construction costs? We do not have the answers to these questions and we implore the Council to think them through while balancing various interests (and in our case, the interest of small businesses being squeezed). We hope that the City Council will consider seriously the impact of parking permit fee increases on small business given the crushing burden of ever increasing rent. We have been at the same location for 18 years and have been working very hard to stay above water during the several bubble bursts in those years. Cal Ave James Newman This parking fee or Tax is unnecessary and should be discontinued. Employees are burdened enough and are simply parking in public streets. They work hard and everyone is on a tight budget with the gas taxes and high state taxes. There is only so many parking spots along the public streets and you are favoring homeowners who choose not to park their own cars in their garages. They like the permits because is allows them to park their own vehicles in the neighborhood rather than having to use their own garage. All for free, while forcing other public citizens to subsidize the luxury of not having to use their garages. Why are you discriminating against employees who work in local businesses that provide services, retails and restaurants for the people of Palo Alto. Think about it council members, you are encouraging residents to not use their own garages to keep their vehicles and so you choose to penalize workers who are only their from 8am to 5pm . You are providing the 1% with exclusive use of public street parking for their convenience of parking their vehicles on public streets rather than using their garages for the intended purpose. Enough is enough. Our employees do not park overnight and we provide ample parking for customers who seek out our businesses which are 90% Palo Altans. The neighbors should support the local businesses who provide services for them and also generate revenue for the city. Please suspend your ill advised parking permit plan and conserve city resources . The city council should address the 35 parked RVs and vans along El Camino with Caltrans. This is the biggest blight on the city elcamino beautification project which is horrible. Fix your priorities and stop picking on the 99% who are hard working employees in Palo Alto. Cal Ave Ben Cooper I also want to add that if public transportation was a viable option, then I would take it. But many people like myself commute from the Central Valley or the east bay. As of now, driving is the more viable option. Cal Ave Christopher Gaines Please receive this message as a request to keep the prices the same. I drive to Palo Alto each day from Scotts Valley because it's too expensive to live in the area for me and my family. If I could ride my bike, I would. If I could take the Caltrain, I would. The Caltrain doesn't run frequently enough, nor does it's path intersect with mine. My story is not the only one. I work with many people who are in a similar circumstance and can only imagine how many other people who are working on California Avenue would be affected by such an increase. A price increase like this one, after forcing the RPP this year (which is technically also a price increase) seems unfair and inconsiderate to the people who commute long distances to serve the Palo Alto community on California Avenue. Page 2 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments Cal Ave Bob Davidson I'm emailing to you to voice my protest on the proposed 250% increase for the parking permits. Because most of our employees are earning around $25. per hour they don't live close to their jobs here in Palo Alto. Only one of our employees lives close to the train in San Jose, but three times a week he also has to go to another job after working on California Ave. It makes it impossible for fellow employees to ride together when there are only five of them they work different hours and live in four different directions. In most cases our employees would need to take three different modes of transportaion to get to work. Almost 2 hours in each direction. I would also like to know what the new non‐profit transportation management association would do with this money. sounds like more money for management salaries. Cal Ave Philippe Lehot I completely agree with you and find it shocking that the city continues to show an incredible lack of understanding and lack of consideration with respect to (1) all of us, Calavers, small business owners and residents, and (2) all our customers and employees. Cal Ave Kristy Wentzel Below we’ve explained some of the costs and impact these proposed changes would have on Branch. More broadly, though, there will be substantial negative impacts on the area in general. For example, by raising the daily permit prices to the proposed amounts, we ‐ along with many other businesses ‐ will opt instead to have people move their cars every two hours. This will substantially increase the car traffic around California Avenue as more people circle the blocks regularly looking for parking. Recruiting‐As a startup looking to grow, we are actively interviewing candidates each day. On average, we host four candidates daily. Because the parking lots have a two hour limit and an interview lasts approximately 4.5 hours, we provide each candidate a daily hangtag. We do this so that they do not have to interrupt their interview and circle around the lot looking for another available parking spot. Current annual hangtag budget: $8,000 Increased annual hangtag budget: $25,000 Difference: an additional $17,000 per year New Hires‐Due to the fact that there are no RPP permits available for purchase and there is a year long waiting list for annual permits, our new hires have no place to park. As you can imagine, this is already a large burden and cause of worry for them. To mitigate this, we provide daily hangtags for their first week. On average, we have 7 new hires starting per month. Current New Hire hangtag annual budget: $3,360 Increased New Hire hangtag annual budget: $10,500 Difference: an additional $7,140 per year Page 3 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments Cal Ave Parking Permits‐With the restrictions that the RPP program has put into place, combined with the fact that the RPP permits immediately sold out, eradicating this option for all future hires, the only realistic option for our employees is to apply for a parking permit. While it impacts our budget, we collectively as a company made the decision that if an employee applies for an annual permit and waits out the almost year‐long queue, Branch will cover the cost of a parking permit. Our Finance Manager takes this into account when forecasting the yearly budget. Because the annual parking permit price is almost doubling (I was assured over the phone that the signs posted in California Ave are incorrect and the price is not $730), we will have to re‐evaluate if we want to continue this process. As you can see, this will impact our company morale as well as direct individuals. Our employees regularly buy breakfast, lunch and dinner on California Avenue as well as support the local exercise and office supply businesses. We often bump into friends from other local business in the area who also frequent these locations. As Branch has grown, we’ve occupied a variety of buildings up and down California Ave. We consider it our home and love that we are based here. There comes a point, however, where we will have to take into account the financial implications and overall restrictions that come with operating a business on California Ave. I urge you to take into consideration the financial impact that this will have on growing companies, individuals and collective morale in California Avenue before making any decisions. Cal Ave Holly Paulsen I am emailing in regard to the proposal to raise the yearly parking pass for the California Avenue from $149/year to $365. This is a significant increase (more than double), which I would strongly oppose. I work at a small non‐profit and do not earn what many employees in tech or other businesses in the area do. This increase is very significant for those of us on a tight budget, and just adds to the feeling that the Bay Area is slowly pricing many of us out from living here. I also see that the goal is to use the increase to help fund the new non‐profit (TMA). However, from what I understand currently this is only for downtown employees, and the notice posted did not give a clear time frame for when it would be extended to Cal Ave employees (only something about in the next few years). It seems very unfair to make such a significant increase before employees in this district could even benefit from these programs. In addition, one of the programs (free transit passes) has an income requirement that seems quite low for this area, and would still not benefit many of us. Lastly, for the parking passes, I understand that there is a reduced‐price option for those who earn less than $50,000. If the price is going to be raised so significantly, I feel this income requirement should either be raised, or there should be a 2nd tier with a price that is in between (perhaps at $75k or $80k, for example). Thank you for considering my feedback. I hope that mine (and others feedback) will truly be considered and not just be collected as a matter of course for a decision that has already been made. Cal Ave Karen Price My name is Karen Price I work on Cambridge near California Avenue and I wanted to give you my feedback on the proposed more than doubling of the parking rate for this nonprofit that may or may not ever eventually impact this California Avenue and I think it’s a terrible idea. I think it’s ridiculous. I think it makes no sense whatsoever to more than double the rates for nonprofits that may or may not have some impact in the future. I think these things can be studied without money and all in all I’m completely against more than doubling the parking rates for something that may or may not have any benefit. I live and work in Palo Alto, there are no other options for me but to drive and please but my vote in that I think this is just a terrible idea. Page 4 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments NA David Andrews My parking permit is covered by my work. With health care fees increasing, increasing property rental costs in Palo Alto and the generally high cost of doing business in California, will they still be able to cover it? Or will that fee be passed on to me? I live in the north bay and work in Palo Alto. While I understand the idea of reducing single person travel. Sometimes it is not possible. In my case, no one who works at my company lives close to me. As it is, I bought a hybrid that qualifies for the HOV lane, so that I could commute in the HOV land and reduce emissions over my commute. Ultimately, the point is not one person per car, but emissions per person. The proposal hits low and high occupancy vehicles equally. That is against the stated purpose of the fee and will generate different results than desired. The fee will simply pack the garage with people who can afford the high fee, and not shift traffic to high occupancy vehicles. Bottom line, is that neither the fees nor the new agency can help my situation. And the likelihood is that it will make my commute more expensive. My alternative proposal is that you tier the fees based on distance of travel (e.g. where the applicant’s home is located) and based on HOV status. That is, the farther someone has to travel the lower the fee, and if someone has an HOV sticker, they also get a lower fee. In this way, you don’t penalize people who don’t have the option to carpool, and you don’t penalize people who have made environmentally‐friendly vehicle choices. And, ultimately, this sync’s better with the proposal. University Ave Diane Johnson If I purchase permits prior to July 1, am I expected to pay additional fees? What about annual fees? University Ave Denise Curti In consideration of raising the permits for employees working at companies in Palo Alto, I think it only fair to raise the low income threshold, by the same percentage. Or if 63% sounds outrageous, as does the increase of permits, a more reasonable amount of say 25% should be done. I did not see any mention of raising the threshold in the email. There are plenty of people that serve the Palo Alto area citizen's that do not make 6 figure incomes and they should be valued just as much. The current low income amount is: $50K per year, raise that by 25% = $62,500 (which is close to Menlo Park's threshold of low income for this extreme cost of living area we are in) University Ave Ryan Miller The proposed price hike for daily and annual parking passes is absolutely absurd! How could the city with a minimum wage of $11 an hour justify charging someone $25 a day, or $60 a month to park their car in this city? $60 a month, or ~$730 a year is the same cost as most peoples internet and cell phone bill. You will not achieve the goal of lessening the amount of cars parking in the city lots and garages. You'll only cause more pain to those that work in the city that do not work in tech and make more than $50 an hour. Page 5 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments University Ave Sean Ness A bump from $466 to $730 is a 56% increase in one year. Any way to keep that lower would be greatly appreciated! University Ave Robyn Del Fierro I just was told of the proposed 57% increase of our parking permit fees for next year. This is absolutely outrageous. I have worked in downtown Palo Alto for over 10 years. I do not have the option to carpool or use general transportation due to my job function. This increase hurts the working population who not only pay the parking permits each year but also support the local businesses with our discretionary dollars. I cannot imagine any reputable business increasing their fees by 57% in one year. If any company did this, there would be utter outrage at the gouging that is happening to their target market. Epipen is an excellent example. For those of us who have the privilege of working in Palo Alto, this announcement definitely does not feel like we are valued by this city but rather being penalized without much representation. At the end of the day, I may be forced to pay this increase but personally, I will make a conscious choice to spend my discretionary dollars elsewhere and will also encourage my company to do the same. I want to also bring to your department’s attention that the two notices posted on the first floor are not really visible to all permit holders. If I had not been informed of this notice, I would not have taken the time to look for it. This notice should be posted on each floor in areas visible to any permit holder to allow them sufficient time to submit a response. Additionally, it is alarming that our office manager has not received any communication regarding this increase given that we have always received notifications related to the garage. With this topic up for discussion in one week and notification has been extremely limited, it appears that the City is trying to slip this by without community involvement. In reviewing the attachment, I see that the city is increasing their budget by $98k to cover the increase in permit fees to the City’s employees. If this fee increase is to cover a non‐ profit to support carpooling and alternative transportation wouldn’t be a sound decision to encourage your employees to use public transportation/ carpool rather than subsidize their out of pocket costs? At the end of the day this increase is being carried by individuals who do not have the luxury of a company or City Hall paying for their parking permits and puts the burden on a select few. University Ave David McLaughlin I saw a notice in the Cowper‐Webster Garage that the annual fee may jump from $466 to $730 next year. It’s an absurd policy to make such a such a drastic jump in one year, and shows a blatant disregard for the people that work in Palo Alto. I need my car during the day to get to client appointments, meaning I am at your mercy. Exclusive use of public transportation is not viable for me and my company does not and will not pay for my parking. This increase is coming out of my pocket. Please reconsider this. University Ave Aileen Manasan I am writing to you in regards to the proposed fee increase for the annual garage parking. Not only has recent construction and projects have made getting in/out of the structure challenging; now we get news of increased fees! As noted, the City of Palo Alto does not guarantee a parking spot with annual passes. How do you justify doing business in Palo Alto? For employees that do not have disposable income and heavily rely in going in the office in order to earn a living, to include our personal safety – the increased fees is far too excessive.This will impact employees of retail stores and restaurants since people that work in Palo Alto could not afford working here. Please reconsider this fee increase as it will impact area businesses and its employees. This is not a revenue generating move for the city. Page 6 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments University Ave David Lim I was recently notified that there may be a potential price increase of 57% in 2018 of annual parking permits. I am obviously not happy to hear this news as I rely on driving to get to working on a daily basis. I hope that this proposal will not passed as this is an unreasonably proposal. University Ave Joyce Bremer I was disturbed to find a posting in Garage R (attached) in downtown Palo Alto regarding a proposed huge increase in rates for daily and monthly parking permits. I park in Garage R on High Street and thankfully, I arrive to work early (7:30a) and am able to secure a parking space. I find it unconscionable that folks arriving after 10:00am have their cars double parked by a valet, routinely on the ramps making it dangerous for anyone trying to drive up or down the ramp. It is appalling that when you purchase a parking permit, you are not guaranteed a parking spot—this was not disclosed at the time I purchased my permit. Not everyone who works in Palo Alto is fortunate enough to be in close proximity to a train station. I live remotely in the Santa Cruz Mountains, I have a colleague who resides in Pacifica and one who resides in Woodside. None of us has access to mass public transportation or we would be utilizing it. What is additionally upsetting to me is the increase in permit fees will not be used to create additional parking structures, but will be used to create yet another bureaucratic agency that will only “promote transit use and reduce commuting by single occupant vehicles” likely by making the fees so exorbitant that those folks in single occupant vehicles will need to look elsewhere for employment. One colleague takes the train to work each day from San Jose. Routinely, when she departs the office to catch a train home, the trains are so overcrowded by the time they reach the Palo Alto Station, they do not stop to pick up additional riders or if they do, they are so packed that she cannot make her way onto the train. She indicated that there is a lot of frustration by the riders due to overcrowded train cars. A better solution to hiking the rates for those of us who are not able to take public transportation would be to add additional cars to the existing trains or add additional trains which would make it a more pleasant experience and would promote its use. Page 7 of 8 Pages Area Name Comments University Ave Chris I do not support the rate increase. I do not see a need for the TMA or any additional funds funnelled into programs that do not improve my commute. University Ave Diego Rodriguez I am writing in regard to the proposal to raise parking permit fees for Downtown garages and lots. I have been purchasing a garage parking permit for several years. I am a resident of Palo Alto and work four days a week in downtown Palo Alto. I drive most of those days. It is difficult to believe that increasing parking permit fees will reduce single occupancy commuting in any significant sense. The price elasticity for these spots is quite high, I believe, because the alternative of biking to downtown Palo Alto represents such a poor experience, and there are so many people with enough money in their pockets to keep paying for parking no matter the cost Biking in Palo Alto is much more dangerous than it should be. So to encourage fewer auto trips, make it easier to cycle. For example, there is no good, safe way to traverse Palo Alto if one's commute involves crossing El Camino and using any of the major arteries such as Stanford Avenue. Drivers do not respect painted bike lanes. Even dismounting and crossing El Camino as a pedestrian at Cambridge, Stanford, or at the PAMF crossing can often result in close‐calls and angry gestures and words from motorists trying to make left turns. In my experience, what would go a long way to encouraging bicycle trips to downtown Palo Alto would be a connected, contiguous network of protected bike lanes. These bike lanes could be protected by moving parked cars away from curbs to provide shielding from vehicular traffic, or they could be built‐up lanes sitting between sidewalks and car lanes. Both of these solutions have been proven in locales as diverse as Copenhagen and New York. I would like to direct the members of the Palo Alto City Council to two sources of information on enhancing pedestrian and cycling experiences for citizens of cities: Streetfight, by Janette Sadik‐Khan (available at the Palo Alto City Library): http://www.jsadikkhan.com/streetfight‐the‐book.html Copenhagen now has more bicycle use than car use, even though a residential car permit is only 100 euros: https://www.fastcodesign.com/3065696/copenhagen‐now‐has‐more‐bike‐use‐than‐car‐use I am all for promoting transit use via a nonprofit. But I would rather see our tax and sales revenue be used to make infrastructure improvements which result in behavior change, rather than trying to change behavior via influence.University Ave It's possible that critics of this approach will demand to see proof of demand for cycling, or describe all the ways in which dedicated cycling lanes will hurt business or make it more difficult to drive. To those voices, I must defer to the noted city planner Brent Todarian, who says: "Remember, when proving bike lanes or ped crossings are "needed," it's hard to justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river." Thank you for your consideration. Page 8 of 8 Pages City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Delfierro, Robyn <robyn.delfierro@citi.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:22 PM To:Tong, Reanna Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Complaint against increase of parking permit fees Reanna, I want to also bring to your department’s attention that the two notices posted on the first floor are not really visible to all permit holders. If I had not been informed of this notice, I would not have taken the time to look for it. This notice should be posted on each floor in areas visible to any permit holder to allow them sufficient time to submit a response. Additionally, it is alarming that our office manager has not received any communication regarding this increase given that we have always received notifications related to the garage. With this topic up for discussion in one week and notification has been extremely limited, it appears that the City is trying to slip this by without community involvement. In reviewing the attachment, I see that the city is increasing their budget by $98k to cover the increase in permit fees to the City’s employees. If this fee increase is to cover a non-profit to support carpooling and alternative transportation wouldn’t be a sound decision to encourage your employees to use public transportation/ carpool rather than subsidize their out of pocket costs? At the end of the day this increase is being carried by individuals who do not have the luxury of a company or City Hall paying for their parking permits and puts the burden on a select few. If the City really wants to support the study, take the $98K and use it toward this effort and not at the expense of the workers in Palo Alto. Thank you, Robyn Del Fierro From: Tong, Reanna [mailto:Reanna.Tong@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 3:35 PM To: Delfierro, Robyn [ICG-CPB] Subject: RE: Complaint against increase of parking permit fees   Hi Robyn,    Thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto.     We highly value your input regarding daily and annual permit fee increases and your comments/questions have been  documented. All public feedback will be transmitted to the Council for consideration at their June 27th meeting.     If you have additional questions or would like to review the municipal fee schedule, you can view the June 27, 2017 City  Council item at www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58337.      Regards,  Reanna  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:20 AM 2     Reanna Tong| Transportation Program Assistant Planning & Community Environment – Transportation   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2568 E:  reanna.tong@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.      Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.    From: Delfierro, Robyn [mailto:robyn.delfierro@citi.com]   Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 2:54 PM  To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Complaint against increase of parking permit fees    I just was told of the proposed 57% increase of our parking permit fees for next year. This is absolutely outrageous. I have worked in downtown Palo Alto for over 10 years. I do not have the option to carpool or use general transportation due to my job function. This increase hurts the working population who not only pay the parking permits each year but also support the local businesses with our discretionary dollars. I cannot imagine any reputable business increasing their fees by 57% in one year. If any company did this, there would be utter outrage at the gouging that is happening to their target market. Epipen is an excellent example. For those of us who have the privilege of working in Palo Alto, this announcement definitely does not feel like we are valued by this city but rather being penalized without much representation. At the end of the day, I may be forced to pay this increase but personally, I will make a conscious choice to spend my discretionary dollars elsewhere and will also encourage my company to do the same. Sincerely, Robyn Del Fierro ______________________________________________________________ Robyn Del Fierro Director Citi Private Bank 535 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 MLO# 541228 Direct Tel: 650-329-7067 Fax: 650-248-2051 Important Disclosures Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group Over 45 years of commitment to the legal industry City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:20 AM 3 The National Law Journal Best of 2017 Law Firm Group - Voted Best  Private Banking Services  Wealth Management/ Financial Asset Advisory Provider  Business Bank  Attorney Escrow Services Important Information       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Fourteen years of unanimous approval To the Honorable Mayor Greg Scharff and City Council Members: I am writing you today as you are soon to vote on the new budget. Please ensure that funds allocated to the approved Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project are included in your final approved budget so that the hardscape portion of the project can move forward. For the past fourteen years, the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in its various phases has received unanimous approval from every City Council who reviewed it. The performance measures for the trial have been met. However, the safety features that were built into the design will not be fully realized until the hardscape is in place. The primary goal of the project - to create a safer environment for our school children to walk and bike to eleven public and private corridor schools and for other road users– will not be achieved until the hardscape is in place. It is imperative that the job be finished as designed…..and it needs to be finished now…for our kids. I don’t ride a bike any more myself, but I do walk and drive on the corridor frequently. I continue to see that the previously approved improvements are acutely needed. Many citizens like me have worked hard with the City for fourteen years to create the best possible plan to balance the needs of all street users. That is a very long time. Please follow though on the promises made fourteen years ago. A nexus study was done, multiple phases of striping trial were implemented and reviewed. Staff has almost completed final plans. Citizens (including me) have attended countless community meetings and public hearings. I’m not sure I can attend the upcoming budget hearing, but I feel I should not have to. At this point, I feel the City is obligated to follow through on the commitments made related to this project…expediently. In addition, the Corridor factors into the City’s Safe Routes to School goal network of bike and pedestrian routes as well as helps in making the City a premiere bike friendly environment. Please don’t leave the project hanging. Please approve the funding to finish this important project that implements the vision of our Comprehensive Plan without any further delay Thank you. Sincerely, Nina Bell Los Palos Ave., Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:04 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Anne Ercolani <ajecpa04@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 7:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Budget for next year Dear Council Members, I understand that you will be discussing the budget and likely vote on it Tuesday night. One item that has been brought to my attention is that there is a $1.3 million "budget adjustment" in the fire services deployment section. There is, however, no explanation of what this adjustment entails. Before you pass a budget with this item in it, I think the public should informed how the proposed fire department service cuts will be implemented or, if still undecided, the specific options under consideration. We need to fully understand the impact it may have on our community and public discussion of it should be allowed before voting. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Anne J. Ercolani 360 Iris Way Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:04 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 7:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fire Services Transparency Diversion: "Not a $1.3M decrease, a $2.8M increase." Council Members, I am disappointed to write that a diversionary and misleading argument is being disseminated by an elected official in response to the public’s concerns about the city’s failure to date to provide details of its plan to reduce fire department services, which are intended to eliminate $1.3 million in salary and benefit costs. In the event this argument has been communicated to you, this email serves as clarification: 1. The proposed $1.3 million reduction in fire services is not made something that I made up; it is written in the FY 2018 Proposed Operating Budget. (See Budget Adjustments No. 5, on Document Page 242 or PDF Page 256, within http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=57411 ) 2. It is true that $2.8 million is the calculated increase between the Proposed FY 2018 total expenses for the Fire Department compared to that of the Adopted FY 2017 budget. (See Budget Summary, Total Dollars by Expense Category, on Document Page 236 or PDF Page 250, within link above.) But this has nothing to do with the public’s right and your responsibility to be fully informed well prior to a major decision that involves public dollars and public safety. The public cannot adequately review and comment, and you can not in good conscience discuss and debate the merits of the trade-offs between safety and dollars without knowing how the cuts may be implemented and how response times and services will be impacted. Hoping to enlist the entire council's support for complete disclosure of the implementation plans or considered options for the proposed cuts in fire services. Thank you, Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:04 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 11:47 PM To:Council, City Cc:Brand, Richard; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Item 19 June 27 agenda Item 8186 Council members: I urge you to approve the Staff budget recommendation on this item. Specifically, I support the vision expressed by Staff to start providing funding for technology solutions for parking enforcement. As an RPP Stakeholder I have watched how the Cerco team has struggled to read the many variations of employee RPP permits and locations. What is needed and would also decrease the number of enforcement officers required is the purchase of portable license plate recognition equipment. Today the Cerco as well as the CPAPD Parking Enforcement attendants, must manually enter a license plate number into their hand held tracking devices. Other cities use a hand held device that can read a license number and log it and not require the attendant to manually enter the license number. The implementation and use of this technology will substantially expedite the logging and then citing of cars without a permit parked over the posted limits. Staff has done their homework and I urge you to support their good work. Richard Brand 281 Addison City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:10 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tom <t.c.patterson@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Fire Service Reductions Dear Council Members:    It is imperative that (1) the city inform the public how the proposed fire department service cuts will be implemented or,  if still undecided, the specific options under consideration, and (2) that the public have sufficient time to react.    It is very important to the entire Palo Alto community that the specifics of the proposed service cuts be released  immediately.    Sincerely,    Thomas Patterson  318 Leland Ave.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:10 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Plumley <deborah@plumleygroup.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 10:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Details needed for the $1.3 million budget adjustment in fire services: how will this be implemented Dear Palo Alto City Council: It has come to my attention that you plan to cut Palo Alto fire services by $1.3 million in the proposed 2018 city budget. However, you have not detailed how this cut in fire services would be implemented. This email is to urgently ask you to:  Detail the implementation of this proposed cut in fire services making this information public to the citizens of Palo Alto OR making public the alternative implementations being considered  Allow time for citizen review and comment on the proposed implementation I live in College Terrace near Fire Station 2 and hope that services at this fire station will NOT be reduced! Fire Station 2 Mayfield 2675 Hanover Street As the weather heats up more due to global warming, it is of particular concern to me that our fire services are not dramatically cut! with best regards, Deborah Plumley 2080 Harvard Street Palo Alto Resident of College Terrace since 1973 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:10 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Paul Feng 馮友樸 <paulfeng@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please reconsider the higher parking-permit fees, particularly for hourly workers Dear City Council, I read recently that the council is planning on voting to drastically increase parking permit fees for downtown workers. From what I can tell of the proposal, there is virtually no consideration in this plan for the valuable retail, restaurant and service businesses in the University and California Avenue. One needs only to walk down University Avenue to see that they are already having trouble hiring and retaining staff - this will only make that problem more acute. Are there actually ANY safeguards for these businesses? Or are we literally just more than doubling their costs (for workers making in some cases $10-20 / hour) and crossing our fingers that somehow they will find the money? I would urge the council to reconsider this plan until there are better safeguards for these businesses, which are vital to a vibrant and dynamic downtown. -Paul Feng City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:10 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Rosalie Shepherd <shep8283@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 5:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reduction in services via PAFD To all city council people,    I am becoming anxious about some cut backs in the fire services we have in Palo Alto.  Many people are having serious  concerns.    1.3 million is a lot of money and could mean the loss of an engine and men to operate it.  There are other possibilities  of  serious things that could happen if an area is short‐handed.      When will we be hearing more details about the cuts in our fire department?    Sincerely,    Rosalie Shepherd  Tennyson Ave.        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:10 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 3:01 PM To:Keene, James; Council, City Subject:Budget Deliberations - Fire Department Dear City Council, City Manager James Keene, and Fire Chief Nickel: I understand that the budget you are about to review includes reductions at the Fire Department, but there are no details for the public's review. Please make it clear for all residents what, if any, Fire Department reductions you are planning. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee 410 Sheridan Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking fees Having just read the latest proposal to increase parking fees 145%+, I am astounded at the self- serving Palo Alto city administration and council, especially the heartless Councilmember Fine. Why do the burdens of paying for developers profits fall on Palo Alto residents and the 99%, especially the low income shift workers? This will not affect the 1% at all. Making a wild guess: whose expenses are not going up 145%? The employees of the city of Palo Alto who make up a significant percentage of parking permit holders for the cost of $0. At a minimum, Palo Alto should charge its employees for parking stickers. If they get a discounted rate, they should be restricted to spots that are less central and unlikely to be busy. To make sure spots are not left unfilled when they don't come to work, make them (and for that matter all monthly parking permit holders) reserve a spot the day before and charge them if they don't show up. Surely someone can make an app for that and interface the system for checking parking plates. If Palo Alto doesn't want to charge employees, then offer all Palo Alto employees who park downtown and at CA Ave. an extra $50 a month and a free transit pass if they don't use a parking pass. Fund it out of next year's pool for raises or bonuses. Another way to free up parking spots is to insist Avenidas move to Cubberley permanently, rather than add space downtown. Millions of dollars are being spent to make space for Avenidas to get rid of La Comida, a low income service, most likely replaced by spiffy new administrative offices and more space for classes that cost money, so as to provide more money to pay for Avenidas administrators, and their pensions. Private developers are donating millions to rebuild the Junior Museum - and included with the plan is charging admission for the first time. $5 a kid and $10 for an adult - pocket change for the 1% - but not for the many low and middle income parents who used the Junior Museum. I used to take my grandkids for a couple hours after school - who would do that when it costs $20? Who does this help? The 1% who no longer will have to worry about their kids hanging out with regular kids. Many of us living in Palo Alto are not the 1% but I guess the city no longer feels the need to serve the rest of us. Kathleen Goldfein Resident and homeowner since 1989 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:43 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 9:38 AM To:Council, City; Nickel, Eric; Keene, James Subject:RESEND: Fire Department Service Cuts I am concerned that reductions in the Fire Department budget are being planned which will result in reductions to  critical services.  This appears to be being done in secret, without any opportunity for public input.    Please disclose all information about the proposed budget reduction and what impact this will have on fire service.    ‐‐   Michael Eager  eager@eagercon.com  1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650‐325‐8077    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 12:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 11:56 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Re: Budget Input - Ventura Neighborhood Association Hello Again: A point of clarification - With regard to funding animal services, when I said it "is something some people can't stand funding"... I meant to say that some "city staffers" don't care for but it's LOVED by the community... so if it's of value to the community then that should play a part in the funding process. Sorry to send you add'l email when you have SOOO much to read already. Kind regards and apologies. Thank you. Becky On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members: 
As you weigh budget considerations, here are some interests that the Ventura Neighborhood Association has: 1. Coordinated Area Plan - Ventura Neighborhood Association Request - What would it be like if you linked Frys to Boulware park by having the CAP go all the way down to Lambert Avenue. Can you budget something like that for us, so that we can be part of the solution there? We all want to build something we can be proud of. 2. Boulware Park - Ventura Neighborhood Association Request - Is there any way to budget a study session or citizens group to help us work with community stakeholders and non-profits and AT&T to acquire that building? Could that be folded into the CAP for Fry’s? 3. Strengthen Business Services - Ventura Neighborhood Association Request - How can we get more community serving retail into the community? Remember Tommy Fehrenbach? Was his position eliminated? Can we get someone on city staff who’s measure of success is to get community serving businesses back into our ground floor retail spaces? Palo Alto is such a great place to do business. But we need someone actually doing the legwork to identify the kinds of businesses a community needs and making the calls. I mean such a person might be able to persuade Coupa Cafe to open up a small coffee shop near my house instead of the Warehouse masquerading as CC Kitchen Supply that is never open and purports to sell broken down kitchenware. I mean they could keep the warehouse going if they offered some service we could enjoy. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 12:08 PM 2 4. Code Enforcement Budget - Ventura Neighborhood Association Request - In parallel to a Economic Development staff person, maybe we could have increased budget for code enforcement so that Code Enforcement could apply pressure on sites like CC Kitchen Supply to actually provide a real service or to relocate. If the lack of code enforcement in and around Ventura is due to lack of funding, then let’s fund that department. 5. Strengthen Event Planning - My Request - As I look around the City’s website, I don’t see anyone in charge of event planing per se. Is there someone who oversees all the civic events? My impression is that there seems to be less money for promotion and outreach of our time honored traditions like the May Fete Parade, etc. Maybe that’s just an impression but because I couldn’t find any one person responsible, I am wondering if that would be a good position to designate and pump some funding into. 
 In closing we recognize the city is struggling with budget gaps. It's poor form, however, to underfund civic engagement on the one hand while handing out money to say the owners of 2755 ECR. That is money lying on the table. That’s a PF space that can be used for PF activities. That parcel is ready made property for civic life. Just like the AT&T property. If we allow these parcels to be purchased on spec by a developer and then given a free upzoning in the name of relieving the housing crisis, we really have our values upside down. If 2755 is housing, then publicly owned public serving housing it should be. For instance, I know funding animal services is something some people can’t stand doing, but it doesn’t make any sense to defund stuff the citizens love while handing developers windfalls through upzoning. I hope you see the logic of this and put residential interests on a par with business and developers. We ask that you protect, serve and fund our interests. 
Thank you and good luck with this budget cycle. 
Becky City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 12:08 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Whit Heaton <x40trout@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Nickel, Eric Subject:Fire department deployment levels Dear council members,    I am writing to express my concerns about plans to reduce fire department deployment levels in the new budget. In the  interest of transparency and public input, it is vital to know just what these adjustments are to be.    With the large number of new homes being built just in my immediate neighborhood (College Terrace), the prospects of  diminished fire protection are troubling.    At a time of great city growth, reduction in fire department deployment just doesn't make sense.    Sincerely,  William Heaton  2345 Bowdoin St.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fire Station My concern re a proposed $1.3 million budget reduction in fire services deployment is that it is not apparent to the council or the public what the adjustment is. Does this mean that the fire station #8 in Foothill Park is not going to be in service at all, or that it will be all the time, or only on high fire days? Also, can the public expect that our neighboring cities will respond to help as in the past or is that also part of the reduction? Or will they be the only fire services that will respond or be capable of. Or are there other cuts in service that the public might not be aware of? Fewer firemen? Less equipment? what else? Is this part of the budget adjustment re fire going to be discussed prior to expected adoption? The last thing I would guess that the public would want is to see our foothills unprotected in this unusual season - lots and lots of rain and subsequently huge growth in all vegetation. And now we are having unusually hot weather. Sounds like it is not the time to be cutting back on fire services. It would help if this subject had more light and a lot more public discussion. Don't avoid this subject by placing it on the concent calendar. Sincerely, Enid Pearson, former PA City Councilmember City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:14 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Rick Howard Smith <rhowsmit@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 3:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:'price@padailypost.com' Subject:parking cost increase The city of palo alto seems to be at war with the residents. From the recent narrowing of Middlefield Road that mainly  harms those of us unlucky enough to live outside the city boundaries. This group of people including many employees  serving palo alto residents, the gardeners, maids, and restaurant workers who live in more economical Redwood City, or  even Hayward and points east.  How thoughtful is this for these loyal service providers?   Now the City is proposing a giant cost for parking while at the same time reducing parking spaces available. This all  sounds wonderful in the council chambers, (how nice to be SO green). You all get free parking. What about those of us  that need to drive to work from distant places? What about those of us that need to drive as part of our job? What  about those of us that cannot afford these enormous fees. Is palo alto for rich people only?     Let’s try to remember the job title “public servant”. I think that each day, all palo alto employees should say upon arrival  at work a pledge allegiance to the citizens of this city, a pledge that will include as one of the stanzas, “first do no harm”!   Sincerely,  Rick Smith   University Ave office worker    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 5:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Andrew Milne <amilne@tidebreak.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 4:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Followup to Council Meeting Oral Communications June 5/12 -- Fire Budget / EMS resource deployment plan Attachments:Council remarks - Milne - Jun 2017.pdf Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, Councilmembers DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kou, Tanaka, and Wolbach: I wanted to thank you for taking the time to listen to my statements concerning EMS resource deployments earlier this month. Due to the time constraints of the oral communications periods, I dispensed with normal pleasantries; I hope you will forgive my apparent abruptness. For your reference, I am attaching a copy of the remarks I made over the span of the two council meetings, June 5th an 12th. As you prepare to review and approve budgets for 2018, I would again ask that you consider spending some extra time to examine in detail the impact of the proposed fire department budget cuts and consider how it would translate into services availability and performance. In the months since my cardiac arrest emergency I've learned much about how EMS resources are deployed and the rate at which emergency services are called. The fire component of the EMS system seems to be already working under strain, with overtime hours and "forced" shifts being commonplace. As I pointed out in my remarks, in the most recent 7 year period with data available, medical service calls increased 20% while line staffing decreased by 13%. These numbers alone seem to counter the idea of cutting resources further. Putting this in human terms, had resources been cut before I experienced my emergency, according to what I understand to be the most likely redeployment plan, the crew would have arrived at my house 1-2minutes later, and in that case the outcome would likely have been very different due to the low quality of the bystander CPR I was receiving. If at any point you should decide to look into this further and would like to include citizen participation, I would be willing to serve in some capacity at the pleasure of the council. Thank you again for your careful attention to this issue. Respectfully submitted, Andrew J. Milne, Ph.D. CEO Tidebreak, Inc. m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ity of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 5:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Umang Sanchorawala <usanchor@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Permit Increase hike is too much   Dear City Council Members!     I am a resident of Palo Alto and my work place is in downtown Palo Alto.  I had parking permit in the past.      The proposed rate increase is too much and is not fair.   I vote against it.     Thank you!  Umang Sanchorawala 1299 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.960.5363(Cell)   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 5:27 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Denise Simons <dsimons@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:permit fee increase Dear City Council members,    I am sending this email to complain about the fee increase being proposed for the Cowper‐Webster  garage.  This increase seems quite high and unreasonable.  Please vote this down.    Thank you,  Denise    Denise Simons Alain Pinel Realtors 578 University Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.269.0210 - Cell Lic # - 01376733 dsimons@apr.com DeniseSimons.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 10:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support bike and ped projects in the budget If you build it, they will come. I would like to thank the council and past councils for funding and building the bike & pedestrian projects in Palo Alto. With an over all mode share between 8 and 10% with much larger shares in the schools of 44 to almost 50% - this is a big success story! Bike and pedestrian infrastructure is perhaps the most cost effective way to reduce traffic, congestion and GHG emissions while increasing the livability and quality of life in Palo Alto. I am reminded of what Gil Friend said earlier this month about voting for sustainability with every dollar we spend. Please keep this in mind as you consider the up coming budget and the success of the safe routes to School and bike ped projects. Thanks again for your support and please fully fund these efforts going forward. David Coale City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 10:06 PM To:Nickel, Eric Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Keith, Claudia; Council, City Subject:Re: Cutting Fire Department Services in new fiscal budget? Eric, Thank you very much for the response. I'm all for being more efficient as long as it doesn't reduce effective service levels. I'm glad to hear that service levels are not being cut and if there is a proposal it will go to the city council and public for review first. It's also encouraging to hear the city's commitment via increased budget for the fire department. In terms of rising pension costs, I understand this will be a big problem and will compete with service levels in the future so there needs to be some solution so that the CalPer pension costs are not rising faster than city income but it's not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable in so leave the solution to others. When you were talking about a community meeting on our increasing elder population and how that will impact the Palo Alto fire departments budget the first thing I thought was that problem was compounded by the unfunded liabilities pension issue. Thanks again. Note, I've cc'd the city council. Hamilton Hitchings On Monday, June 26, 2017 9:42 PM, "Nickel, Eric" <Eric.Nickel@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Dear Mr. Hutchings, The City Manager has asked me to respond to your letter to the City Council. Thank you for your email. There seems to be a misperception about the proposed FY 2018 Palo Alto Fire Department’s budget and here are some facts to set the record straight:  For FY 2018, the City is facing up to a $2.6 million gap in reimbursements under the Stanford Fire Services contract. In the Proposed FY 2018 Budget, $1.3 million of that gap has been specifically allocated to the Fire Department. Even with that budgeted reduction, the Fire Department’s budget for FY 2018 is actually increasing overall by 9.8%. It would have increased by 14.3 % without the reduction. That would have been by far the largest departmental budget increase, nearly 30% more than the next closest department, Police. The increase is due primarily to wage and pension costs. In fact, the Fire Department’s budget has increased by more than $5 million in the past two years.  Most important to the concerns you have raised is that this budget does not make any changes to current staffing models. It anticipates them, but as we are still in discussions with our labor union, we do not have a final proposal. If and when we do, that proposal will need to go the City Council for full public discussion and Council approval, which will not occur until this fall. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:26 AM 2 Every model the City is considering does not reduce effective service levels. It does expect that we will be able to do some things differently.  Given significantly rising costs, especially in public safety, we have to be open to doing some things differently, more efficiently and effectively. According to CalPERS, the City’s direct costs for pensions for public safety will grow from 45% of salary in FY 2017 to 72% of salary in FY 2023. Those percentages could get even worse.  Again, the FY 2018 budget doesn’t propose any changes to service levels at this point in time and will not have any impact on response times. Service levels are maintained at current levels. We hope this information has addressed your concerns, and please be assured that our community will have ample opportunity to get informed and provide input into any actual proposed changes to the City Council, who will make that decision when that time comes. Again, that will not occur before this fall. Sincerely, Chief Nickel Eric Nickel, EFO, CFO, CFC | Fire Chief 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301Desk: 650-329-2424 Email: eric.nickel@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Nextdoor From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:40 PM To: Council, City Cc: Lydia Kou Subject: Cutting Fire Department Services in new fiscal budget? Fred Balin has informed me there is the possibility that the Palo Atlo Fire Department may be cutting services in 2017-2018 based on the new budget but since the cuts are not transparent, we don't know. While the budget may increase due to new employment agreements, services may actually be cut. I think before the city council approves the new budget the Fire Department should be very clear if there will be any cuts in service including, peak capacity, number of staff and vehicles on standby and response times. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings Palo Alto Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadr Essabhoy <nessabhoy@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 7:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking fee increase To Council Members, I work downtown and have a yearly parking permit. Please do not raise the already high cost of parking. Sincerely, Nadr Essabhoy Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Lizbeth Rhodes <lrhodes@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 6:47 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lizbeth Rhodes; Bob Gerlach Subject:Parking garage increase I think it is a sad occurrence that you would be considering raising the parking permit yet again.  The garage is in  appalling condition, with the homeless people living there, hanging out in the garage, and all of their garbage and  bedding.  My opinion is that you are not managing the property now, and you want to increase the rate, to maintain the  deplorable condition?  I never want to go into the garage after dark, as I feel unsafe.  I believe if any of you had to park  in the Cowper Webster garage you would think twice about having the audacity to raise the rate.    Sadly this is an example of City government at its’ best.  Raising the rates without a plan of action to make it a more  reasonable solution. I was born in Palo Alto, and I am embarrassed to see how it has become so corrupt and  mismanaged.  You will raise the rates because you can.  At some point politicians need to exercise common sense and  practicality if that were to happen you would be hailed as trendsetters who really care.  Just a reminder, you are working  in the best interest of your constituents, not your personal gain.  I have been parking in the garage for 23 years, and I am  sadly familiar with all of the negatives the garage has to offer. The City that knows how, has been sadly remiss.    Regards,    Liz Rhodes    Liz Rhodes BRE#01179852 Alain Pinel Realtors 578 University Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 650-722-3000 Lrhodes@apr.com www.lizbethrhodes@apr.com     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Kathleen Wilson <kwilson@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking permit To whom it may concern,    Just because i work in downtown PA doesn't mean i am able to pay almost double to park my car in the  Webster garage.  I will have to consider working elsewhere if you go through with your increase.    Please do not increase the garage fees. Maybe $50‐$100 at best.    Thank you,    Kathleen Wilson  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:John Forsyth James <john.james@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 6:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking fee increase Importance:High To whom it may concern,    I am a Realtor and work at Alain Pinel Realtors in Palo Alto. I have had a parking pass for myself and my personal  assistant for several years. I am not in favor of increasing the parking fee by almost double the current rate. As an agent I need to show properties and need my car. My assistant does also. Taking VTA is not an option for me.     I strongly oppose a parking permit rate increase.     John Forsyth James  Alain Pinel Realtors   650‐218‐4337 Cell    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Terry Rice <trice@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Fee Increase To Whom It May Concern: Please do not increase the parking Fee! It is expensive to live and work in this area and I feel we will drive people away. It is an excessive increase! Vote NO! Terry Rice 340 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Larry Fretto <lfretto@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Garage Parking fee increases Dear Sir/Madam,    Are you kidding me!!!  I am strongly opposed to the proposed doubling of parking fee for Webster garage.    Best regards,    Larry Fretto    Sent from my iPhone      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:31 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Derk Brill <dbrill@apr.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 5:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Garage price increase As a multi year parking pass holder, I object to the proposal almost doubling the the fees charged to park in the Webster Street garage. I am told that the fee increase is designed to dissuade people from commuting with their autos. As a realtor, my job requires me to carpool with clients to show property. There is no way for me to use mass transit to perform my duties. I would ask that the rates not be increased. Yours, Derk Brill ...sent from my iPhone. Derk T. Brill e-pro, Certified Relocation Specialist Alain Pinel Realtors 578 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 DRE# 01256035 Direct 650.543.1117 Mobile 650.814.0478 Fax 650.323.1143 www.DerkBrill.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:45 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:09 AM To:Neilson Buchanan Cc:Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; Council, City; Rob George; Wendy Silvani; Planning Commission; Sandra Slater; Elaine Uang; John Guislin; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; Brand, Richard; Allen Akin; Norman H. Beamer; Wolfgang Dueregger; Christian Pease; Beth Rosenthal; Holzemer/hernandez; Planning Commission; Malcolm Beasley Subject:Re: Wisdom and Fortitude I have lived downtown since 2005 and worked downtown since 1969.    I agree with Neilson that the TMA and adequate funding are important.    Downtown is used by residents, visitors, customers and employees and businesses.    We have a shared interest in a successful transportation management/parking system. ALL participants in downtown  activity benefit from a successful TMA whether they live, shop or work downtown.    It has been 30 years since I was involved in transportation studies and so defer to your consultants BUT I do remember  that origin/destination studies were an important foundation for planning.    I fill out the business registry form and do not remember it providing sufficient info.    Might it be possible to ask employers to share at least the zip code of their employees or more detailed origin data  without names?    Neilson is correct that not everyone using downtown can avoid driving.   But drivers benefit if there are fewer of them just like CalTrain eases highway traffic a bit.    Unlike Neilson i do have confidence that the council can develop and fund a high quality TMA.    Personally I do not find the blaming one group or another needed or helpful. To me the only path to success is realizing  that we rise or fall together and have a shared fate if we fail.    May the force be with you on this important but complex task.    Steve    On 2017‐06‐27 08:39, Neilson Buchanan wrote:  > Dear Jocelyn and Gennady,  >   > RE:  Palo Alto Online's parking webcast  >   > After listening to your webcast discussion on paid parking, I realize   > this morning how few citizens and even the Council members understand   > the function and potential of the TMA.  >   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:45 PM 2 > Allow me to focus on the TMA which is one leg of the over‐quoted   > 3‐prong transportation reforms.  These reforms are remain conceptual   > without adequate funding and council leadership.  Maybe this fall we   > will see stronger leadership from the council and business community..  >   > Potential of any new TMA is a gamble.  It is a calculated risk just  > like any start‐up restaurant or tech business.   It has a basic  > business plan and a request for funding from the city's treasury.  In   > an ideal world our business community would be a significant funding   > partner with the city, but city council does not have the wisdom and   > fortitude to hold the business operators and the property owners   > accountable.  >   > Consequently the council tonight may decide to limit or deny TMA   > funds.  This would be a mistake.  ROI from a TMA is slow, especially   > for a small business TMA.  >   > The TMA Board, city staff and council actions do not demonstrate their   > understanding of the TMA potential. Low energy advocacy is recipe for  > failure.   This failure is unlikely to be corrected during tonight's  > omnibus budget discussion.  Allow me to illustrate lack of   > understanding with just one example.....  >   > During your website you cited that some Cal and Univ core workers   > commute from homes and are unlikely ever to use TMA services.  This is   > true.  No TMA is organized to serve all workers in a given commercial   > area.  >   > TMA is a percentage game.  A well‐managed TMA has funds to monitor the   > commute needs of thousands of workers who are dynamically changing.  > Eventually TMA management systems lock into a set of transportation   > needs and programs are designed to serve a set of workers' needs.  >   > Palo Alto's TMA can be just as functional as the University's and   > Research Park's TMAs.  It will NOT be as efficient or as glamorous.  > It is a small biz TMA.  It is like herding kittens.  If the business   > registry was really functional, we might learn that 10,000+ workers   > are in the geographic area of our two downtowns*.....from dishwashers   > to Palantir executives.  Also we dont know how many of those workers   > are candidates for TMA services.  >   > Only a certain percentage of workers would be beneficiaries.  Workers   > commuting from Half Moon Bay would be immediately eliminated  in the   > start up phase.  Ideally the TMA will self‐examine its Board and staff   > and find the right set of skills for the difficult start‐up years.  > With generous startup funding TMA programs will match thousands of   > workers' transportation needs with multiple, tailored programs such as   > Go Passes, Scoop, et al.  Bottom line: When TMA is viable everyone   > wins...including the non‐participating worker from Half Moon Bay.  >   > I am convinced it will take at least 3‐4 years for this TMA to mature   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:45 PM 3 > into a successful, financial viable organization.  It will take wisdom   > and fortitude from the pubic and private sector.  City government must   > shift funding from the city treasury to the community of business   > operators, workers and commercial property owners.  >   > TMA is the tip of an iceberg.  This coming fall staff and council must   > find a comprehensive funding plan to match the complex parking   > management plan under development.  The Dixon and city staff plan is   > not just parking....it is a plan to manage Cal and Univ Avenue traffic   > too.  >   > TMA has been idling for lack of internal and Council leadership.  This   > morning I have the gut feeling that Council does not have wisdom and   > fortitude to increase permit parking fees to market rates.  This will   > be another setback so well documented by your 2012 and 2014 editorial.  >   >   > Editorials are attached to jog memories.  The last half of the 2014   > editorial documents the root cause of Palo Alto's traffic problems. At   > best city staff and council are searching for funding in 2018!  >   > Sooner or later council must to start a foundation for transportation   > fees to fund the complex programs in the upcoming parking/traffic   > management plan so well designed by Dixon.  >   > *lost in the budget is the concept that residents living near the two   > downtowns could voluntarily pay for and receive TMA benefits.  This   > concept must be tabled until the workers' needs are being met.  >   > Neilson Buchanan  > 155 Bryant Street  > Palo Alto, CA  94301  >   > 650 329‐0484  > 650 537‐9611 cell  > cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Thomas Jordan <tsj474@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:40 AM To:Neilson Buchanan Cc:Council, City; Bill Johnson; Dave Price; Jacqueline Lee; John Guislin; Michael Hodos; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Brand, Richard; Gennady Sheyner; Jocelyn Dong; Jen Nowell; Planning Commission; Steve Levy; Sandra Slater; Beth Rosenthal; Holzemer/hernandez; Pearson, Enid; Renzel, Emily; Marion Odell; Ted Davids; Debbie Wolter; Marion; Tricia Dolkas; Markevitch, Pat; Bruce Heister; Nancy Adler; Vita Gorbunova; Malcolm Beasley; Norman H. Beamer; Neeraj Pendse; Tim Knuth; Timothy Gray; Tim Lindholm; Keith Bennett; Keith, Claudia; Jeff Levinsky; Paul Machado; Christian Pease; Wolfgang Dueregger; Tommy Derrick; D. Michael Griffin; Cheryl Lilienstein; Fred Balin; Joe Baldwin; Joe Hirsch; Melvin Matsumoto; Glanckopf, Annette; Peter Giles; Peter Taskovich; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Jim Mimmack; Linda Anderson; LaNell Mimack; Laura D. Beaton; Allen Akin; KJ and Fred Kohler; Janine Bisharat; Paul Karol; Meryl Karol; Jan Merryweather; Patricia Marriott; Mark Nadim; Hetterly, Jennifer; Summa, Doria; Becky Sanders; Rob George; Wendy Silvani; Furth, Wynne; Ross Bright; Richard Willits; Roger McCarthy; Roger Smith; Roger Petersen; Sally-Ann Rudd; Ronjon Nag; Lauren Burton; Irv Brenner; Fred Bisharat; Patrick Butler; Brian Susan Anuskewicz; Susie and Gary Hornbeek; Pat Devaney; Mary Dimit; Arthur Keller; John Erving; Kristine Erving; David Schrom Subject:Re: June 27 Council Meeting time for wisdom and fortitude Thank you for what you are doing, have done and continue to do. I do follow what you send and do care as much as I ever did that Palo Alto be a better place than it is — and I have no doubt that the ingredients are there that it can be. I do not add my voice publicly to yours only because it would be too easily discounted — in spite of my 50+ years there as an active Citizen — because of my current time and mileage distance from PA. I have always been puzzled that the high education level of PA citizens does not show very often in the Election Results — witness the last Council Election where two candidates obviously misrepresented their positions on important policy issues and it should have been clear to all who cared, yet were elected. Here in Chico, a City of 87,000 the Residentialists (same split on policy here as in PA) have three seats on a seven member Council, but it is completely clear from looking at who the candidates will be that they will move to 4-3 or 5-2 or even 6-1 in the 2018 election. They are getting it done here in an area that is generally much more conservative/business oriented than PA. And the only daily newspaper in town is firmly in the developers/business pocket. Why Chico can do it and PA did not in 2016 is a complete mystery. The comparison is not a good one for PA voters. Best wishes for success, Tom Jordan On Jun 27, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote: Attached is a 4-page position statement from John Guislin and me. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:46 PM 2 We consulted as many resident leaders as feasible after we learned that significant opposition to parking and traffic reforms may evolve tonight. Most of the major leaders are unavailable due to out of town vacations and family/person conflicts. Many of the "rank and file" residents are in disbelief that Council might falter on long discussed plans to improve parking and traffic. We are not planning a turnout of residents. At this time Michael Hodos and I will make short, simple statements. Attached is a 4-page summary of our opinions. Since your Council time is so limited, we ask you to read the last half of Attachment B ... the Palo Alto Weekly editorial from Aug 2014. If you have more time, please read the now infamous 2012 editorial...Council's Kicking The Can. If your deliberations tonight reduce or eliminate funding for transportation reforms, on behalf of Palo Alto residents we ask that the Council convene at your earliest possible opportunity a study session to determine business community responsibility to fund Palo Alto's long sought transportation reforms, the Dixon parking/traffic report and the role that the Parking Assessment District plays in aggravating traffic and parking imbalances. Michael Hodos, John Guislin and I want to say now that we appreciate the FY18 budget that pushes forward so many good, often forgotten improvements for Palo City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:46 PM 3 Alto...from sewers to roads..from trees to safe routes......TNTC too numerous to count. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com June 27, 2017 To: Palo Alto City Council From: Neilson Buchanan, John Guislin Subject: Budget Ordinance for FY2018 Traffic and parking in Palo Alto's two downtowns are unacceptable and deteriorating. This is not in dispute. Current transportation infrastructure cannot support our continuing growth. For example, from 2013 through 2015, the traffic volume on a major downtown commute arterial doubled. The underlying cause is clear -the city's long history of approving under-parked commercial development. This year's city budget signals great opportunity for continuous improvement when coupled with a bold, multi-year parking management proposal later in 2017. * Until recently residential neighborhoods have pa id the price with: -increasing traffic congestion and lost time for everyone -pollution -aggressive driver behavior -saturated parking on residential streets The slow gestation of multiple RPP programs has created visible signs that positive impacts are improving. But RPPs are remedia l. Pushed for more than a decade by activist residents, the City Council is finally on a path to address the impacts of too much t raffic. Here are five areas for immediate benefit to all stakeholders: 1. RPP's must be allowed in any neighborhood that is impacted by commercial parking. These programs must be easy to request, fast to implement and include annual reductions in permit sales until neighborhoods no longer look like open-air, t ree-lined parking garages. Note: the 85°/o occupancy standard for a commercial garage is NOT an acceptable standard for neighborhood streets. 2. It is essential that the TMA be funded at a level that enables solutions proven effective in this region. Based on recent history it is unlikely that commercial interests will voluntarily offer sufficient funding. Ra ising the cost of parking permits is a legitimate approach to fund transportation solutions. TMA for both downtowns is an overdue, long-term play. It requires patient, incremental investment and a reinvigorated Board and management. 3. For decades, businesses and property owners have pushed parking costs and negative impact onto residential neighborhoods. If downtown workers are experiencing hardships, business leaders should act immediately and proactively. Transferring costs to city government and residential neighborhood is passe. The obvious solution: each business has the option of supplementing permit costs for employees and writing off the cost. Say it together now: Parking is part of the cost of doing business. Government parking subsidy is the worst solution. Shoup said it best "The High Cost of Free Parking!" 4. If there is one thing that businesses are familiar with, it is market forces. The City's report states, "The cost of Palo Alto's annual employee permit is far below neighboring cities' in the region." Given more demand than supply, the logical action is to increase prices. This is exactly what the City is considering and what businesses do every day. 5. June 27 is the day for the business leaders and commercial property owners to demonstrate leadership by example. Lobbying city government to slow down efforts to address parking problems cannot continue into 2018. Instead, business leader must demonstrate leadership immediately. For example, Why aren't businesses incentivized to participate in TMA funding? Why should city treasury and debt fund 100°/o of the proposed Hamilton/Waverley garage for business tenants and customers? It is no longer prudent for city treasury to subsidize commercial parking. City Council has two choices. Create incentives for business leaders to become solutions instead of problem generators. When will this massive economic transfer to businesses exhaust the patience and goodwill of Palo Alto residents and their elected officials? It is time to break the cycle of parking and traffic mediocrity ~--~ documented by the Palo Alto WeeklY. in 2012 and 2014. See ARRendix 'A and ARRendix B. ~PPROVE THE 2018 CITY BUDGET AS PRESENTED. *See Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session June 14 2017 Downtown Parking Management Implementation #1 (ID#8132) https ://www .cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/ documents/ 58206 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:46 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 12:48 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:June 27, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #19: FY 2018 Budget Adoption, Packet Page 548 Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    June 27, 2017    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      JUNE 27, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #19  FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET ADOPTION, PACKET PAGE 548  BUENA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK FUNDS      Dear City Council:    The staff report for the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Adoption (ID # 8186) on Attachment A, Exhibit 2 Page 13 (Packet Page 548) appropriates $7,700,000 from the Commercial In-Lieu Commercial Fund for the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.    Exactly a year ago, on June 27, 2016, I expressed my concern that it is inappropriate to expend money from the Commercial In-Lieu Fund to address the existing housing problems and needs of Buena Vista, because the Commercial In-Lieu Fund is for the housing needs of the new working population in new non-residential structures.    Using the Commercial In-Lieu Fund to directly pay for Buena Vista could subject the Commercial In-Lieu fee to legal challenge.    A copy of my letter from last year is forwarded to you with today's letter.    However, if funds from the Commercial In-Lieu Fund are loaned to the Residential In-Lieu Fund, the Residential Fund could then expend those funds directly to Buena Vista with the intent of repaying the loan to the Commercial Fund.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:46 PM 5 The City Council often approves loaning money from one Fund to another Fund.    As long as the Commercial In-Lieu Housing Fund actually uses a substantial portion of the Fund's proceeds for the housing needs of the new working population in new non-residential structures, I don't believe the Commercial In-Lieu Fund would be at risk from legal challenge.    However, if the main function (or only) function of the Commercial In-Lieu Fund is to loan money to the Residential In-Lieu Fund, then there would be a question of whether the Commercial Fund is being used for the purpose that the fees were collected.    I urge you to consider making expenditures from the Commercial In-Lieu Fund for Buena Vista in the form of loans to the Residential In-Lieu Fund that would be obligated to repay the Commercial Fund when the Residential Fund is able to do so.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock       From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 10:03 PM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: June 27, 2016, Council Meeting, Item #18: Buena Vista Mobile Home Park        Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302     June 27, 2016     Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301        JUNE 27, 2016, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #18  BUENA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK        Dear City Council:  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:46 PM 6 I have previously expressed my concern that you are prohibited from using Commercial Housing Development Fees for this project and that doing so would create a reason for someone to challenge the validity of the fee requirement.  You have adopted a Resolution that purports to justify the use of those fees for this project, but that Resolution was not based on a new nexus study, did not amend the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and was not approved as an amendment to the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). A new nexus study could not retroactively justify the use of any fees collected prior to the adoption of the new nexus study.  Here is what the HCD approved 2015-2023 Housing Element says about the Commercial Housing Development Fee on Page 112 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element:  "A Jobs-Housing Nexus Analysis for the City of Palo Alto was prepared by Keyser Marston Associates in 1993 and updated in 1995 and 2002. The nexus study was conducted to meet the requirements of AB1600, as amended to Government Code Section 66001, in support of the City's housing linkage fee program. The City studied the number of low-income jobs generated by different types of employers. The housing impact fee is based on the cost to provide affordable housing for those employees who would choose to live in Palo Alto if housing was available. As a result of the nexus study, the fee level is set to recover approximately 20 percent of the cost of providing such housing.  "The nexus analysis focused on the relationships among development, growth, employment income, and housing. The analysis yielded a causal connection between new commercial/industrial construction and the need for additional affordable housing. The analysis did not address the existing housing problems or needs, nor did it suggest that development and its relationships were the only cause of housing affordability problems and the development community should bear the full cost of addressing affordability problems. The study focused on documenting and quantifying the housing needs for the new working population in the non-residential structures." (Emphasis added)  At the Council's prior meeting regarding the project at 567 Maybell Avenue, speakers were asked to comment on whether the residential housing in-lieu fee from that project should be targeted for the Barron Park neighborhood where the project is located.  The Buena Vista Mobile Home Project would not be able to receive any of the $14.5 million of housing fees that are the subject of this agenda item if those fees had been targeted for use in the neighborhoods of the projects that paid the fees.  Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Andrew Milne <amilne@tidebreak.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 12:59 PM To:Nickel, Eric Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Keith, Claudia; Council, City Subject:Re: Followup to Council Meeting Oral Communications June 5/12 -- Fire Budget / EMS resource deployment plan Chief Nickel, Thank you for your detailed note. I appreciate all the points you made in your outline. I have tried to be careful in all my remarks not to advocate a particular answer to the budget question, but rather to recommend careful consideration of the specific impact of the changes before the council makes a final decision on the budget allocation. My primary concern is that cutting the budget without first having a finalized operations plan that all parties have settled on would back the city into a corner when it does come time to determine how to meet the $1.3M reduction requirement. While I appreciate there would be an opportunity for public comment on the final plan later in the year, at that point there would be no chance to discuss whether or not there should be a cut at all. (I would imagine it would be politically difficult, if not impossible, to do what would look like "adding" money to the budget at that point.) I certainly appreciate that the city, and other cities, face challenges with respect to the CalPERS situation. That seems to be a problem that needs to be tackled at a much higher level. At the city level, it seems to be a matter of making sure we budget according to priorities that most impact those who live (and work) in Palo Alto. I recognize that it is a balancing act to navigate those challenges. As I'm sure you know, I (along with my family) greatly appreciate all that you and your staff at the Fire Department do on a daily basis for all of us in Palo Alto. I hope that comes across through my contribution to this discussion. Best regards, Andrew Milne On Jun 26, 2017, at 9:59 PM, "Nickel, Eric" <Eric.Nickel@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Andrew,   The City Manager has asked me to respond to your letter to the City Council.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:47 PM 2 Thank you for your email. There seems to be a misperception about the proposed FY 2018 Palo Alto Fire  Department’s budget and here are some facts to set the record straight:  For FY 2018, the City is facing up to a $2.6 million gap in reimbursements under the Stanford  Fire Services contract. In the Proposed FY 2018 Budget, $1.3 million of that gap has been  specifically allocated to the Fire Department. Even with that budgeted reduction, the Fire  Department’s budget for FY 2018 is actually increasing overall by 9.8%.    It would have increased by 14.3 % without the reduction. That would have been by far the  largest departmental budget increase, nearly 30% more than the next closest department,  Police. The increase is due primarily to wage and pension costs. In fact, the Fire Department’s  budget has increased by more than $5 million in the past two years.    Most important to the concerns you have raised is that this budget does not make any changes  to current staffing models. It anticipates them, but as we are still in discussions with our labor  union, we do not have a final proposal. If and when we do, that proposal will need to go the City  Council for full public discussion and Council approval, which will not occur until this fall.    Every model the City is considering does not reduce effective service levels. It does expect that  we will be able to do some things differently.     Given significantly rising costs, especially in public safety, we have to be open to doing some  things differently, more efficiently and effectively. According to CalPERS, the City’s direct costs  for pensions for public safety will grow from 45% of salary in FY 2017 to 72% of salary in FY  2023. Those percentages could get even worse.    Again, the FY 2018 budget doesn’t propose any changes to service levels at this point in time  and will not have any impact on response times. Service levels are maintained at current levels.   We hope this information has addressed your concerns, and please be assured that our community will  have ample opportunity to get informed and provide input into any actual proposed changes to the City  Council, who will make that decision when that time comes. Again, that will not occur before this fall.   Sincerely,   Chief Nickel   <image002.jpg> Eric Nickel, EFO, CFO, CFC | Fire Chief 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA  94301 Desk: 650‐329‐2424 Email:  eric.nickel@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Nextdoor City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Budget Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> 1:36 PM (2 minutes ago) Dear Council Members, I am a Palo Alto resident and I don't work Downtown nor on California Avenue. But cannot sit back and not state how unreasonable it is that you have increased office development and by doing so, increased the number of high paying office workers in buildings where zoning does not allow for the large number of employees. Effectively, by your proposed ridiculous increase parking permit rates by over 150%, you will cause for small business hardships. Enough valuable retail and personal businesses have already left Palo Alto to operate in other cities, allowing for other cities to collect sales tax revenues that could have been Palo Alto's. You are also raising utility rates, on residents who have been conserving water, and we're being burdened with higher costs? You did not raise the rates on refuse or water on commercial properties. They already get too much of a break because of Prop. 13 and it's treating commercial property the same as residential property owners.. Now residents pay 72 percent of the taxes, because they move more often and commercial 28 percent. Residents are carrying most of the expense of the general fund. We want City Services to improve not to be of less service . You also might wish to check out round a bouts, apparently Menlo Park had them, caused a lot of up roar, and they had to take them out. So find out if it is really worth all that money, and how much it cost to take them out. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 4:04 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Permits and reponsibility If the issue is about whether or not to increase permit fees for non low income permit holders, I support an increase.    If the issue is about " responsibility", I support shared responsibility.    As a downtown resident, I benefit from the services provided by many downtown businesses and their relatively poorly  paid workers. More generally, customers benefit.    Most residents who,live nearby have far more resources than these workers and often more than the many small  business's owners.    Larger organizations (not all are "businesses") have a mix of low, medium and highly paid workers.      Many branches of large businesses, say Walgreens or CvS or the banks, have many low paid workers AND customers  who benefit.    Many businesses rent their space from owners who may be long time or brand new.    I think a focus on a single group as "responsible" is misleading and pits groups against each other.        On 2017‐06‐27 10:53, Neilson Buchanan wrote:  > Attached is a 4‐page position statement from John Guislin and me.  >   > We consulted as many resident leaders as feasible after we learned  > that significant opposition to parking and traffic reforms may evolve  > tonight.  Most of the major leaders are unavailable due to out of town  > vacations and family/person conflicts.  Many of the "rank and file"  > residents are in disbelief that Council might falter on long discussed  > plans to improve parking and traffic.  >   > We are not planning a turnout of residents.  At this time Michael  > Hodos and I will make short, simple statements.  Attached is a 4‐page  > summary of our opinions.  >   > Since your Council time is so limited, we ask you to read the last  > half of Attachment B ... the Palo Alto Weekly editorial from Aug 2014.  >  If you have more time, please read the now infamous 2012  > editorial...Council's Kicking The Can.  >   > If your deliberations tonight reduce or eliminate funding for  > transportation reforms, on behalf of Palo Alto residents we ask that  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 4:04 PM 2 > the Council convene at your earliest possible opportunity a study  > session to determine business community responsibility to fund Palo  > Alto's long sought transportation reforms, the Dixon parking/traffic  > report and the role that the Parking Assessment District plays in  > aggravating traffic and parking imbalances.  >   > Michael Hodos, John Guislin and I want to say now that we appreciate  > the FY18 budget that pushes forward so many good, often forgotten  > improvements for Palo Alto...from sewers to roads..from trees to safe  > routes......TNTC  too numerous to count.  >   > Neilson Buchanan  > 155 Bryant Street  > Palo Alto, CA  94301  >   > 650 329‐0484  > 650 537‐9611 cell  > cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:57 PM To:Palo Alto Airport Cc:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Airplane Noise Airplane Noise The list reports those airplanes that I both heard and saw flying over or very nearly over our house in Barron Park. More planes flew over during the times and dates listed, but they were not seen so they are omitted. June 16 8:03 PM 8:09 PM (low) 8:11 PM (low) 8:14 PM(low) 8:23 PM 8:30 PM 8:37 PM 8:59 PM (low) June 18 8:05 AM (low) 9:16 AM (low) 9:19 AM (low) 7:21 PM 7:30 PM 7:54 PM 8:04 PM 8:07 PM 8:08 PM 8:09 PM (low) 8:17 PM 8:32 PM (low) 8:36 PM (low) June 19 3:01 PM 3:04 PM 3:12 PM 3:27 PM 3:30 PM 3:39 PM 3:41 PM 4:34 PM 4:41 PM June 21 4:06 PM 4:14 PM 4:22 PM 4:27 PM 4:34 PM 4:39 PM 4:42 PM 4:43 PM 4:49 PM 7:33 PM 7:36 PM 7:39 PM 7:40 PM 7:42 PM 7:43 PM 7:45 PM 7:49 PM 8:05 PM (very low) 8:16 PM (low) 8:19 PM 8:20 PM (very low) 8:26 PM 8:27 PM 8:30 PM (very low) 8:41 PM 87:43 PM (very low) As you know, we have an airplane noise problem that we didn't have three years ago, before the Next Gen landing plan was activated. This data gives some quantification to the problem, for example 16 noisy flights over Barron Park today in 70 minutes, or one every 4.4 minutes. All responsible agencies should be notified about this excessive airplane noise in residential neighborhoods. Please feel free to include this message with any correspondence to the FAA, Senators, Representatives, or staff to verify and strengthen formal objections sent objecting to the large amount of airplane noise in our city and our neighborhoods. Sincerely yours, Bob Moss City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 5:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 3:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC Subject:AT&T Says It May Soon Charge You Extra For Privacy Council members, Something to mull over while you're on vacation. 06-26-17: "AT&T Says It May Soon Charge You Extra For Privacy" http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Says-It-May-Soon-Charge-You-Extra-For-Privacy-139840 Thanks. Jeff City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:10 AM Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 9:16 AM To:Stump, Molly; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Scheff, Lisa; Lum, Patty; Keene, James; Press strong; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Brian Welch; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; sdremann@paweekly.com; Wagner, April; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; Bonilla, Robert; Keith, Claudia; Carnahan, David; Minor, Beth; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; mldauber@stanford.edu; Dave Price Subject:California Public Records Act This is the document I requested and which was denied... by city attorney Molly Stumps bogus response. The entire City of Palo Alto CPRA system and response is a complete disaster and should be scrapped Shame on you Mr. Perron you knew sir I was entitled to this document and others. You and others make it a practice to obstruct transparency and the law denying documentations citizens are otherwise qualified to receive period! Go directly to jail! Or perhaps you can with DA Rosen's support, invoke qualified annuity. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPhone CALM ca.org Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana June 21, 2017 Dear Elected Official, CITY OF PAL O ALTO. CA CIT Y CLERK'S OFFI CE 17 JUN 27 AM IQ: 33 The two most important responsibilities of elected officials at any level of government are first and foremost to protect the people, and secondly, to manage tax dollars. Making marijuana, a very dangerous drug, readily available threatens your ability to do either. Young people aged 12-25 have the highest consumption rate of marijuana. This group is under the threshold of a mature brain. Marijuana causes physical changes in the developing brain reducing cognitive skills, memory, and motivation. It can cause a permanent loss of IQ by up to 8 points which moves a student a full category-from average to below average. Marijuana users are 5 times more susceptible to suicide, and 7 times more susceptible to mental illness. It is a causal factor in psychotic breaks leading to violent acts, mental illness including schizophrenia, paranoia, bi-polar disorder, addiction, birth defects, and impaired driving. All of this translates to more crime, homelessness, academic failure, traffic deaths, and incalculable damage to our environment. Obviously there is huge money in illicit drugs. The cartels prove that. Cartels are not concerned with public health and safety or the related social costs. As with alcohol and tobacco, the social costs are 10 times the tax revenues. Increased marijuana use will be no different. Colorado's experience has shown that actual taxes on marijuana are significantly less than what was projected. And they do not come close to covering the increased costs of law enforcement, ER visits, DUI traffic accidents, regulation and crime. Additionally, the great increase in use by youth leads to very high school drop-out rates. You only have until January 2018 to establish local ordinances to restrict retail growing and distribution of marijuana for any use. After January, only the State will have the power to grant licenses to grow, distribute, and regulate marijuana regardless of the consequences to your community. You will lose your local control over this issue. Basing the economic future of your community at the expense of the lives and intellect of your constituents is not a good idea. The enclosed Brochure spells out what you can do now before it is too late to protect your citizens. ACTNOWI Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana P.O. Box 2995 Carmichael CA 95609 Phones: Northern CA 916 708 4111 Southern CA 619 990 7480 Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, (CALM), is an all-volunteer Political Action Committee dedicated to defeating any effort to legalize marijuana in California. Campaign ID# 1326759 Watch the Marijua1na Societal: CO·STS Soar when you Legalize it Increased Child Exposures Increased Addictions Increased Marijuana Driving Fatalities Increased Homelessness Increased Black Market Increased Teen Use Increased Emergency Room Visits Increased Low Birth Weights Just like Tobacco and Alcohol -for every $1 in Marijuana Taxes Received will COST Society $10 Increase Poison Control Calls for Marijuana Poisonings BHO Building Explosions Increased Hospitalizations Increased Environmental Damages Increased Violence Increased Marijuana Positive Birth Rates Increased Crime City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lorraine Brown <lobrown170@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:30 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James Subject:Castilleja's CUP Proposal Dear Mr. Keene, Members of the City Council, and Mayor Scharff, I am writing you to reiterate and expand upon my comments from the June 19 City Council meeting when I spoke during Open Session about Castilleja’s CUP proposal. First, a little about myself: I first moved to Palo Alto in 1974 and went to both Jordan and Paly. My husband and I have raised our family here in Palo Alto; our kids grew up attending Palo Alto’s public schools. Like others, I’ve seen dramatic changes in Palo Alto. The traffic and parking can be terrible, it seems difficult for small retailers to survive, and housing prices have surged such that I can’t fathom my adult kids being able to afford living here. What I continue to love, however, is the innovation and brainpower in our area and the outstanding public and private education available to our kids, including Castilleja. For the past 6 years I’ve worked for Castilleja in our Admission department. I have the rewarding and difficult job of helping to shape our incoming classes. It’s in the context of my work at Castilleja – as well as being a lifelong Palo Altan ‐ that I want to express my thoughts to you. Because I work at Castilleja, friends and neighbors frequently ask me about our CUP application. Without exception, I’m frustrated by the misinformation that they’ve heard. Opponents to our CUP tell people that we’re killing healthy trees, that Castilleja will require a lane of Embarcadero to be closed and that we’ll bring more cars into the neighborhood. They cite a ridiculously high and incorrect number of cars that will drive to and from Castilleja every day. I think a good public discussion of Castilleja’s CUP proposal is important, but it is so frustrating that our opponents often rely on spreading misinformation to gain support. It’s particularly ironic, because they’ve accused Castilleja of being dishonest. I also want to comment briefly about our Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program. I think it’s important for Council to know how seriously Castilleja employees take our TDM efforts, and how carefully we communicate parking expectations to prospective families. Since our TDM efforts began, expectations for employees have been crystal clear, and we follow them: we bike, we carpool, we take the train, we park remotely. Many of us commit to weekly traffic monitoring, wearing the yellow vest and making sure drivers don’t park on the opposite side of the street, do u‐turns, etc. And, for our prospective families, we in the Admission department communicate clearly from our very first encounter with new City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:25 AM 2 families what our expectations are around neighborhood parking and driving. I emphasize this, because when I hear our opponents speak, they never seem to acknowledge the dramatic changes we’ve made since 2013 in reducing our impact on the Bryant, Kellogg, Embarcadero, and Emerson blocks. Also wearing my admission hat, I want to dispel misinformation that Castilleja is a school for only privileged and rich kids. Every year, more than 20% of our students receive tuition assistance. At Castilleja, we have a significant number of students from local underserved communities who will be the first in their family to graduate high school and go on to college. Castilleja will create opportunities for these girls that are life changing. I’m not here to testify to Castilleja’s education, but I want to underscore the socioeconomic diversity we work very hard to achieve. In closing, I hope to continue a constructive dialog with our neighbors, but I ask that it be based in fact and integrity, as we ourselves promise to do. Sincerely, Lorraine Brown 170 Walter Hays Drive, Palo Alto Lobrown170@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:05 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 12:45 PM To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Council, City; Stump, Molly Subject:Cost of report... Attachments:clerk's - info item.pdf Mr. Gennaco, We have asked of you previously for the total cost of producing this report. This will be the last time Sir. We will are giving 24hrs to produce this information and if not forthcoming, we will estimate these costs ourselves bases on an hourly rate, of $400 an hour... http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/18904 Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR'S REPORT Palo Alto Police Department's Response to Concerns Regarding Bias- Based Policing February 16, 2010 Prepared by Michael Gennaco OIRGroup www .laoir.com Independent Police Auditor Report PAPD's Response to Concerns Regarding Bias-Based Policing On October 30, 2008, remarks made in a public forum by the then Police Chief roiled the Palo Alto community. Some viewed the remarks as proof that the Department had a systemic practice of bias based policing. Others found the remarks at least racially insensitive. And still others had no significant problems with the Chief's remarks or thought that her comments had been taken out of context. Regardless, the remarks did resonate throughout Palo Alto and beyond and caused City residents and their elected leaders to commence a dialogue about the remarks and the relationship between the police department and the minority community. In the aftermath of the remarks, the City's elected leaders were most interested in what type of response was called for by the Police Department in order to address the concerns raised by some members of the community. Shortly after the remarks were made, the Chief of the Department retired, leaving the development of that response to the interim Chief. In addition to requests by City governance that the Police Department formulate a response to the concerns raised about Department relations with the minority community, the City Council also requested that the Independent Police Auditor ("IP A"), entrusted with oversight of the Police Department, also participate in and track those responses and report back to the City Council with independent observations and assessments about any such initiatives. This report by the IP A is intended to respond to that request. I. Introduction: The "Remarks" in an Historical Framework As observed above, the remarks of the former Chief were interpreted by many as either demonstrating evidence that bias based policing was being practiced by the Department or at least displayed racial insensitivity to the community. Rather than continue further here about the potential problematic nature of those remarks, it may be more helpful at this juncture to consider briefly the history of police relationships with the minority community in this country in order to better understand the nature of the response that those remarks generated. Unfortunately, for too many years the United States labored under a de facto, and in some communities, a de jure practice of treating members of the minority community differently from the majority community. While the most infamous of those practices were evidenced in the Deep South through the enactment and enforcement of Jim Crow laws targeting African- Americans, the practice was not limited to that area and did not solely impact on the African- American community. Discriminatory treatment based on race or ethnicity by government officials was virtually nationwide and persons of color were not provided the same government services or opportunities as the majority class. 2 Of course, the historic roots of this discrimination first emanated from the legally sanctioned practice of slavery that existed for the first eighty years of this country. Even after the laws of slavery were repealed, government leaders soon enacted laws and practices designed to keep different races and cultures apart from each other, and moved to use the force of law and custom to divide communities by race or ethnicity and caused them to live in different neighborhoods, attend different schools, and have unequal access to governmental and societal benefits. This system of segregation and differential treatment endured for scores of years and was endorsed by the highest Court of our land. Even after the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education that reversed that jurisprudence, many states and cities resisted the Court's finding that "separate but equal" was unjust and tried hard to continue to enforce Jim Crow laws in housing, employment, education, and public accommodations. The efforts of civil rights leaders to end these discriminatory laws were often met with strife, violence and resistance to change. It was under this rubric that local police were called upon by elected officials to continue to enforce the Jim Crow laws. Police were instructed throughout the country to use their police powers to impede civil rights leaders and to sustain the segregation laws and customs through arrest and discriminatory law enforcement. It was the police that were called to do society's unjust bidding and who were on the front lines in the conflict between a more just society and those elected officials and communities who held on to the discriminatory ways of the past. The United States continues to struggle with the aftermath of a system that did not provide equality to all and made judgments based solely on the color of one's skin or ethnicity. One of those lasting effects is an understandable skepticism by persons of color about the fairness of governmental systems today, including concern about the practices oflaw enforcement. In light of the historical context, it is not surprising that certain members of communities believe that present day law enforcement continues to practice bias-based policing. Only a few generations ago, law enforcement was mandated by their elected leaders, laws, and custom to do so. It is thus within this historical framework that one must consider the remarks of the former Chief. That sad history lingers and contributes to the concern that modem day police departments continue to practice bias based policing. Whether the practice is a current reality or not, the perception in many communities is that such discriminatory police practices continue. 1 The comments in question were thus viewed by some within this historical prism. Certainly, as we discuss in the next section, police departments must remain vigilant to whether. bias based policing actually occurs, as difficult as that may be to detect. However, just as important, police departments and their leaders must also recognize that, even without hard and fast evidence that such policing is occurring either with individual officers or more systemically, 1 To support this notion, one Gallup poll found that 55 percent of whites and 83 percent of blacks believe racial profiling is widespread. In an informal survey of a small sample of Stanford students, over one quarter of the students reported that they believed that the P APO engaged in racial profiling. 3 a reasonable perception may remain with some that such discriminatory acts are still occurring. As a result, as important a task as ferreting out instances of bias based policing is, in many ways, it is equally critical for progressive police leaders to be mindful of, address, and endeavor to eliminate the perception that such acts are systemically occurring. For this reason, as explained below, any law enforcement response to these issues has to be holistic in nature and address police/community relations on a wider and more sustained scale. II. Ferreting Out Bias Based Policing: The Hurdles A. The Limitations of Data Collection and Systems Analysis Over the past twenty years. law enforcement officials, sociologists, psychologists, statisticians and other professionals have struggled with the daunting task of attempting to establish whether, and if so, to what degree any particular department practices bias based policing. The hurdles in doing so are extremely daunting. The most frequent way that police agencies have attempted to learn whether bias based policing is systematically occurring is through institution of vehicle stop data collection systems. Such systems require officers to document the .perceived race or ethnicity of each individual stopped. That data is then accumulated and tabulated. While the collection of stop data presents its own challenges, the largest obstacle for practitioners in this field is the difficulty in analyzing the qata. In the short history of this research, professionals have had more challenges than successes in determining conclusively whether any data sets either proved or disproved the existence of bias based policing. It is now commonly h~ld that simply comparing unadjusted census data is insufficient to learn whether bias based policing is or is not occurring in any particular jurisdiction. As this issue has matured, researchers have noted that a fair comparison and accordingly, a conclusive determination are extremely difficult to achieve. For example, simply because the data shows that African Americans are stopped disproportionately to the census demographics of a city fails to account for other variables such as the census numbers not necessarily reflecting the number of drivers or a potential influx of drivers from other municipalities. As one attempts to take into account these other factors, the more complex the research becomes, and the more difficult and costly it is for analysts and municipalities to attempt to assess the data. More often than not, jurisdictions that have attempted to analyze stop data in the past, have been left unsatisfied and unable to draw any firm or widely accepted conclusions. Even more problematic, in some jurisdictions, the same data has been assessed by competing analysts to reach opposite conclusions about whether bias based policing has occurred. In Palo Alto, the Police Department has collected stop data for almost a decade and publicly reports such data to the City's Human Relations Commission. In early 2008, the reporting requirement was suspended by agreement with the City Manager's Office and City Council but in November 2008, after the then Chief made her controversial comments, the Council directed the Department to reinstate the reports. 4 In 2006, an African-American Police Chief renowned as an expert in racial profiling studied the data and reported to the City's Human Relations Commissioners that, based on his review, he did not believe that Palo Alto Police were practicing racial profiling. In 2007, students from Stanford University's Public Policy Program also conducted statistical analyses of the data and concluded that the statistical analysis supported the claim of the Department that there was not a current problem with racial profiling. However, putting these reviews aside, to the Auditor's knowledge, the data has not been subjected to the type of multi-regression analysis and multi-variable benchmarks that current leaders in this field believe needs to be figured into the calculus. Additionally, a private citizen with a background in statistics has worked tirelessly to try to glean meaning out of the data and has concluded that, for example, minorities are the subjects of discretionary stops more so than non-minorities. During this review, the Auditor spent time talking with the private citizen and reviewing his detailed reports and found him a person of good will who continues to try to fathom meaning from the numbers. To what degree the private citizen's analyses proves or disproves bias-based policing, his conclusions certainly are important to the discussion and do not provide comfort to those who retain the perception that bias-based policing is occurring in the City of Palo Alto. The experience of other cities that have invested many more resources into analyzing data than has Palo Alto has been that such statistical analysis does not often provide any generally acceptable and firm conclusions regarding this issue. As a result, for the City of Palo Alto, it may well be that the resources that would be needed to perform such complicated analyses are better well spent by assuming that there is a perception, if not a reality of bias-based policing and then addressing the issue of bias based policing with the community head on. That being said, we do not advocate the termination of collecting the stop data that continues being collected by PAPD nor do we recommend ceasing the promulgation of this data to the Human Relations Commission. Regardless of the shortcomings, complexity, and expense of data analysis in this field, the collection of stop data has other important benefits. First, data collection conveys important messages both to the community and within the police department that the City is concerned with the specter of bias based policing and is not shy about providing to its public such stop data. Moreover, even if data collection cannot at present prove or disprove bias based policing, it can produce important information that an agency should have regarding the work of its officers. Over time, the data can also provide Department leaders with important indications of trends in the behavior of their officers and the community they serve. Finally, as the science of analyzing bias based policing matures, there may come a time in which such data can be analyzed more facilely with more definitive outcomes and conclusions. Assuming this possibility, the City will be well-served to have a history of data collection that can then be available to those future analysts. 2 2 Of course, we are cognizant of the significant resource constraints on all public entities during the nation's current economic downturn and leave to City leaders to rate this program against other valuable resource outlays that may be on the budgetary chopping block. 5 During our review, we also discussed the importance of ensuring that the data collection being undertaken is accurate and timely. We learned that the Department continued to be challenged by officers who fail at times to complete the card in a timely fashion or supervisors who failed to ensure a timely completion by officers under their command. That being said, our review found that the Department's professional staffremains vigilant in having this data collection obtained and current to the degree possible. As noted above, the Department has continued to collect the stop data. In fact, to facilitate the data collection process and to address the isolated shortcomings identified above, the Department developed a new system whereby officers are able to enter the requisite data directly into the Department's record management system, thereby eliminating the need for manual stop data cards and subsequent data entry by staff. The IP A has reviewed the current system and procedures devised by the Department to reconcile the data and found that the direct entry provides for more accurate and timely recordation of the data. B. Investigation into Individual Allegations of Bias Based Policing As difficult as it has been to prove or disprove systemic bias based policing, establishing that any individual officer racially profiled a driver on any particular date is even more challenging. Because police officers have wide discretion to stop motorists, it is not difficult for officers to provide a non biased reason for any particular stop. Moreover, in investigating a particular allegation that a stop was racially motivated, without a "confession" by an officer that he or she stopped the motorist because of skin color, the Department is oftentimes left at the conclusion of the investigation with the motorist that believes the stop was racially derived and an officer who vehemently denies such and offers a race neutral reason for the stop. I As we have reported in the past, the Department does have investigative tools that are not available to most other police departments, namely the mobile audio in car video, to assist in investigating allegations of racial based policing. When such an allegation arises, the Department has a video record of the encounter from which to derive other clues that might either.indicate or refute the allegations of bias based policing. Finally, per IP A's suggestion, in cases involving allegations of bias based policing, the Department has reviewed the subject officer's stop behavior prior to the one complained of to see whether there is an unusual pattern of stops based on the racial makeup of the motorists. That being said, proving or disproving allegations of racial profiling are extremely problematic because of the difficulty in discerning the motivation of officers. This is perhaps why one major police agency in California reported receiving scores of complaints of bias based policing yet never being able to sustain a single complaint. As long as police agencies are required to use the human race as their hiring pool, it must be assumed that some hires will harbor racist tendencies and may practice discriminatory policing. However, a growing body of literature has also shown that even well meaning people might be unconsciously biased in the way in which they consider and deal with others. Researchers have found that many people unconsciously make quick stereotypical 6 generalizations that impact their behavior and the way in which they react to certain racial groups. For example, researchers have identified implicit bias linking minorities and crime even in people who test as non prejudiced and are otherwise consciously tolerant. Perhaps the most important result of this research is the indication that people who are made aware of their implicit biases can reduce their impact on behavior. This teaching points directly to the importance of training for officers that assists them in recognizing this phenomena and correcting for it. 3 In light of this, one alternative that should be considered by the Palo Alto Police Department in addressing complaints of individual racial profiling is to consider mediation as a supplement to the investigative processes. Providing the officer and the motorist an opportunity to dialogue regarding the stop could provide a more complete perspective to the complainant about the acts of the officer. The ability of the motorist to articulate the bases for his or her concern regarding the officer's actions could provide insight into whether certain implicit biases may have impacted the officer's behavior. Such a dialogue at least will provide a window for the officer about the perception of bias based policing that formed in the motorist's view as a result of the encounter and perhaps present alternative ways to avoid such perceptions occurring in the future. III. Addressing Potential Realities and Perceptions: A Needed Holistic Response For the reasons stated above, progressive police departments should adopt a multi-faceted sustained approach in dealing with concerns about bias-based policing. First, a clear and unequivocal anti-bias based policing policy should be adopted by the police agency and repeatedly briefed to its personnel. Second, training should be deployed to reduce actual and perceived racial bias in policing. Third, recruitment and hiring should endeavor to increase diversity among the police department as well as to ascertain and detect any attitudes of applicants that suggest problematic attitudes or bias. Finally, continued outreach and dialogue with diverse communities regarding relations between the police and its constituency is requisite. IV. Addressing Potential Realities and Perceptions: PAPD's Response A. P APD's Enactment of a Fair and Impartial Policing Policy Shortly after the controversy, the Department and the IP A discussed policy revisions that 3 The vestiges of once having been a discriminatory society also impact policing today. For example, it is too often that police departments receive citizen telephone calls requesting the police to "investigate" persons of color sighted in the neighborhood because the caller is skeptical of whether the person "belongs" in the neighborhood. Training and awareness for both dispatchers and police officers is necessary to ensure that law enforcement agencies effectively resist this modem day citizen request for, what is in essence, a summons to practice discriminatory law enforcement. 7 might address the concerns raised about bias based policing. The IP A suggested incorporating in any such revised policy a requirement that officers provide more timely and complete information about the reason for any stop. Since then, the Department implemented the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy. The policy instructs officers that race or ethnicity shall not be motivating factors in making law enforcement decisions. In order to reduce the perceptions of biased based law enforcement, the policy requires officers to explain to persons the reason for the stop as soon as practical. With regard to vehicle stops, the policy requires that this be done even before asking the driver for license and registration. The policy also requires that the officer provide his or her name and identification number when requested in writing. The unequivocal statement in the policy that bias based policy will not be tolerated provides a clear message about the importance of this tenet to the Department's officers. As important are the prophylactic measures designed to reduce the perception that bias based policing has occurred. Too many officers in America do not feel the need to explain why they have stopped motorists or pedestrians. Instead, the officer demands information and identification without informing the citizen of the reason for the police action. In cases that do not result in a citation or arrest, the citizen leaves the encounter wondering why he or she was stopped in the first place. For persons of color, the paucity ofinformation provided by the officer leads some to a conclusion that he or she was stopped because of race or ethnicity. Requiring officers to inform citizens of the reason for the stop provides information to those citizens that helps dispel any belief that the stop was racially based. Moreover, if an officer recognizes that at the time of the stop he or she will have to articulate the reason for the stop, he or she will be less likely to have based that stop on the race or ethnicity of the citizen. Finally, the policy encourages the police to explain their actions to those stopped so that citizens can evaluate the police actions based on more information rather than less. Thus, the policy serves as a prophylactic measure that will reduce the likelihood of bias based policing from occurring, provide the citizen at the time of the stop the reason for the stop, and will assist all in a better understanding of the police citizen encounters that occur daily in the City of Palo Alto. B. Training Designed To Advance Fair and Impartial Policing Since the controversy, training has been initiated by the Department to advance concepts of fair and impartial policing. The training most relevant to addressing bias based policing was a multi day class hosted by the Department entitled Policing Racial Bias. Dr. Laurie Fridell, a leading scholar and expert in the area, facilitated the discussion. In attendance was command staff of the PAPD, members of the City's Human Relations Commission, and command personnel from neighboring police agencies. The IPA was also present during a part of the class. Dr. Fridell's class is the gold standard for addressing contemporary issues of bias based policing. Many of the observations and resulting recommendations of the IPA found in this paper can be traced to insight and recommendations fostered by Dr. Fridell. The hosting of this conference was indicative of the Department's commitment to addressing the issues surrounding bias based policing. The IP A has been informed that this conference will be repeated in 2010. 8 Additional training accomplished by the Department included the Tools for Tolerance Executive Leadership Course. Instructors from the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance presented the class to P APO command staff and supervisors. The IP A has attended similar classes and is personally aware of the benefit of such training to supervisory staff in the areas of community and race relations. An African-American lieutenant has also been designated by the Department to serve as the in-house expert in preventing bias based policing. In addition to that designation, the lieutenant was selected to participate in the United States Department of Justice Curriculum Development Team to design a nationwide training curriculum that will promote fair and impartial policing. The designation of a lieutenant to be the anti bias based policing expert for the Department is again indicative of the importance the Department has placed on this initiative. The Department has also implemented a daily training program that focuses on Constitutional issues, case law decisions, and Department policy. The training includes a briefing and discussion, followed by a test ensuring that the officers demonstrate competency over the material. The Department maintains records of the training each officer completes and retains test scores in its management system. During this review, the IP A received a sample of the briefing program, in this case a tutorial on factors determining the reasonableness of force. The bulletin is scenario based and then ends with a test that ensures a command of law and Departmental policy. Finally, the Department has enhanced its field training officer program. Included in these enhancements is additional training in the areas of race relations, crisis communications and cultural issues. During its review, the IP A was presented with a power point outline that discussed contemporary issues surrounding fair and impartial policing. Of commendable note was that the outline was tailored to the unique features of the Palo Alto community. C. Recruitment, Hiring, and Promotion During a recent promotional process for sergeant, the Department included representatives of the community who participated on the interview panel. While the idea of having community representatives involved in the promotional selection process is laudable, the IP A has not been informed of any Department initiatives relating to recruitment and hiring in relation to its fair and impartial policing efforts. Such initiatives could include policy statements recognizing the advantage of a diverse police work force and increased efforts to ensure outreach to a diverse potential applicant pool. With regard to hiring, IPA would recommend that the Department's background investigation protocol include exploration of the applicants' attitudes toward and interactions with members of other racial and cultural groups. IP A would also recommend that the Department consider that personal interviews with applicants include questions that reveal applicants' understanding and attitudes about race relations and police- community relations. While the current budgetary situation has currently reduced the Department's need to recruit or hire officers, the IPA encourages the Department to incorporate these measures now so that when the economy improves and there is a need to supplement the force with new officers, these protocols designed to foster fair and impartial policing are already 9 in place. D. PAPD Outreach to Address Concerns Regarding Bias-Based Policing Since the controversy, the Department has reached out to diverse communities in various ways. One method is through various meetings with the subsequent Chief. These public meetings have provided the community an opportunity to meet with Police Department staff and have allowed presentations on developments within the community and the police department. During these meetings, the topic of fair and impartial policing has been discussed . . Another initiative that is underway is the Police Department's Community Advisory· Group. With the assistance of the City's Human Relations Commission, the Community Advisory Group was formed and includes representatives from diverse communities as well as members of the Police Department. The Community Advisory group has begun to meet monthly to discuss matters of interest, including department/community relations and fair and impartial policing. The IPA recently attended a meeting of the Community Advisory Group and found the discussion and issues raised to be topical, thoughtful, and relevant. The Department has increased its outreach to local high schools. Included in these discussions are topics regarding individual rights, legal statutes, and the criminal justice system. The Department has met with representatives of the United States Department of Justice Community Resolution Service. Ideas to form focus groups to engage citizens on the topic of police/community relations are in the planning stage. Finally,<the Department has increased its profile with local members of the faith-based community. While no formal program or structure has been developed, staff has opened communication networks with this important sector of the community. E. Measuring Progress Achieving positive results from the four-pronged holistic response outlined above will require sustained resources and interest from the Police Department. Now that the Department has embarked on this ambitious campaign to address these issues, it should begin to identify ways to measure the progress of its initiatives. While sometimes difficult to measure, the Department should attempt to develop criteria that could indicate that it is on the correct path. Some criteria that might be considered are citizen surveys, training results, and other barometers that would indicate increased trust and confidence in the Department and its members. V. IPA Recommendations 1. The Department should continue to collect stop data and promulgate the tabulated results of that data to the City's Human Relations Commission. The tabulated data should continue.to remain publicly available. 10 ' ' ' 2. The Department should continue to ensure that stop data is timely and accurate. Auditing and control mechanisms should continue to be used to ensure this. 3. The Department should continue to investigate individual allegations of bias based policing. Any sustained complaints should result in significant individual accountability and discipline. 4. During the investigation, the Department should continue to take advantage of any in car video or audio record of the encounter and review prior stops to learn whether there was an unusual pattern of stopping persons of color. 4. In complaints that are not sustained, the Department should consider incorporating mediation to further discuss and address the concerns of the complainant and provide feedback to the officer regarding the nature of the complainant's concerns. 5. The Department should continue to brief and enforce its Fair and Impartial Policing Policy. The Department should consider instituting internal auditing mechanisms to learn whether there has been compliance with the prophylactic requirements of the policy. 6. The Department should continue to provide multi-faceted training addressing concerns about bias based policing. 7. The Department should continue to receive input from the community regarding promotional decisions. 8. The Department should increase its efforts to recruit applicants from diverse communities. 9. The Department should review its background application process to systemically increase its scrutiny of applicants' views and attitudes about race relations. , 10. The Department should continue with its outreach to the diverse communities of Palo Alto on the issues of fair and impartial policing and community/police relations. 11. The Department should develop barometers that would help it measure the success of its initiatives in this endeavor to increase trust and confidence by all of the communities it serves. VI. Conclusion Since the controversy, the new leaders of the Department have made significant strides in educating themselves on the concerns about bias-based policing and then developing a plan to ensure fair and impartial policing. In particular, the Department should be commended on its efforts in training and outreach. As detailed above, the IP A hopes that the Department will continue to build on its momentum in these areas and buttress the initiative by incorporating 11 mediation, recruitment, hiring and auditing of the reforms that have been instituted. Finally, the Department should develop measures designed to assess to what degree these initiatives are improving police/community relations and increasing trust in the police. As part ofits reporting to the City, the IPA will report back regularly on the robustness of these reforms and the degree to which the Department remains committed to them. The unfortunate comments that were made caused some to suspect that bias based policing had impacted the Palo Alto Police Department. Perhaps the only positive consequence of the comments was that it caused the community and its elected leaders to reexamine police/community relations and provided a wake-up call to the Department that it had work to do to continue to ensure the public's trust. This report provides evidence that the Department did heed that wake-up call and worked to develop a response that has begun to address those concerns. The IP A will work to endeavor to ensure that the momentum behind that response continues for the benefit of the Department, the City, and the communities that they serve. 12 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:37 AM To:Ro Khanna Subject:FIGHT to STOP FLUORIDE in US continues Movement to Remove Fluoride From US Water Supplies Continues By Dr. Mercola, June 11, 2017, * . 231,678 views  * A Dubious Anti-caries Solution--May Reduce but not Prevent Cavities * It is a Toxin * It is Unregulated * It is an Unapproved Drug * Americans are Overdosed * 6 in 10 Teens have Fluorosis * Very difficult to filter out of Water * Fluoride is a Mitochondrial Poison that Sabotages Health Status Update on Petition to End Water Fluoridation in the US Last year, FAN (Fluoride Action Network) filed a petition with the EPA to stop water fluoridation nationwide. It was denied. One of the reasons given for the denial was that FAN had not done a comprehensive analysis of all the uses of fluoride. "That's setting the bar so high it's impossible to abide by the law or file a complaint by the law … [Fluoride is] used in so many areas, like pesticides, post- harvest fumigants, medications, dental products, water, toothpastes — all these different sources. To do a comprehensive analysis of all sources is virtually impossible," Osmunson says. "The EPA has never done it. They're saying, 'Well, we're not going to agree with you because you haven't done it.'" FAN has now filed a lawsuit and the court will evaluate the information de novo. This means FAN and EPA will stand on equal footing, and the court will not have to give deference to the government, which is typically the case. Dr Bill Osmunson is hopeful the court will see reason. In the case of water fluoridation, it's quite clear the EPA has not only failed to protect public health, but is actively sabotaging the health of bottle-fed babies everywhere there's water fluoridation. ------------------------------------ Most Pernicious Toxin in water supply The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has declared water fluoridation one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. But is it City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 2 really? It would actually be more accurate to say that fluoride is one of the most pernicious toxins in your water supply. To kick off our annual Fluoride Awareness Week, Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in the Seattle area, highlights some of the dangers associated with this practice. (Attached video removed here) Fluoride — A Dubious Anticaries Solution Osmunson, who has been a dentist for over 40 years, was a longtime proponent of water fluoridation, as are most dentists. That all changed after he listened to a presentation by Dr. Hardy Limeback, a dentist, Ph.D., researcher and professor emeritus of the University of Toronto Dental School. ( Video removed) "[He's] very credible," Osmunson says. "He [gave] a presentation that showed fluoridation did not improve or lower dental caries. It was a real shock to me … I started looking at more of the fluoride [research] because I have a master's in public health (MPH). As a practicing dentist, fluoride is part of both of my professions. I felt it was my responsibility to really look into this in more detail. That's how I started in on the fluoridation. I got involved with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and a few other groups in trying to reduce the amount of fluoride that people are ingesting." Does Fluoridated Toothpaste Reduce Caries? According to Osmunson, research shows topical fluoride helps reduce radiation caries (caries resulting from excessive head X-rays for cancer) and rampant dental caries (resulting from excessive sugar and junk food intake combined with a lack of dental hygiene). As noted by Osmunson: "People use fluoride in their toothpaste because they think it's going to really have a great benefit. It will some, but not much. The problem is we swallow too much of it, especially infants." Still, while it may reduce cavities a bit, topical fluoride will not prevent caries or stop it in its tracks. True prevention requires addressing your diet, because caries develops in response to an abnormality in your oral microbiome. Moreover, since your mouth is part of your gut, it's also a gut microbiome issue. Fluoride Is a Toxin While water fluoridation is purported to decrease your risk of dental cavities, the evidence supporting this practice is flimsy at best, since fluoride needs to be applied topically for this to work. It doesn't benefit your teeth when ingested and absorbed systemically. A major downside of drinking fluoridated water is that it displaces iodine from your thyroid, as iodine and fluoride are both halogens. Without iodine, you cannot make active thyroid hormones. Women are already at high risk for hypothyroidism, and drinking fluoridated water will further increase this risk. Fluoride is also a mitochondrial poison that sabotages your mitochondria's ability to create cellular energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and an enzymatic reactor, meaning it reacts with enzymes in your body. When fluoride is added to the water system it also leaches lead out of old pipes, increasing the neurotoxic effects of fluoride. A year and a half ago, the National Toxicology Program, Office of Health Assessment and Translation began evaluating fluoride after FAN nominated it for evaluation. At present, they're doing animal studies to fill in some of the gaps. After that, they'll move on to evaluate studies on humans. So far, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 3 they've confirmed that animal research suggests neurotoxic effects. This is no surprise, considering 50 studies have linked fluoride with reduced IQ in children. Americans Are Overexposed to Fluoride Part of the problem with water fluoridation in particular is the fact that this strategy medicates people without regard for age, weight or medical status. Infants drinking fluoridated water can get a dose 100 times higher than maximum recommended limits, even by conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations. The EPA has done both a dose-response analysis and a relative source contribution analysis, and this data shows that at the 90th percentile, a third of children between the ages of 6 months & 4 years are getting significantly more fluoride than what they should. Bear in mind that the EPA does not even aim to protect 100 percent of the population, only 90 percent. Infants are excluded altogether because they end up getting such a toxic dose. Infants receiving formula made with fluoridated water are getting hundreds of times more fluoride than breastfed babies. "The latest research we have that was put out by Dr. William Hirzy [a former risk assessment scientist at the EPA] shows a safe dose to protect against a 5 IQ point loss is 0.045 mg F/day and many should only be getting about 0.001 milligrams (mg) per kilogram per day. That's the same as mother's milk. We should be reducing the amount of fluoride that we're getting. [That's] very important," Osmunson says. "Unfortunately, the EPA, when the National Research Council in 2006 said the maximum contaminant level was too high … instead of lowering it … they raised it because they realized that [water] fluoridation would stop [as] there are too many sources of fluoride … The latest research shows there's a 5 IQ point drop in the United States with fluoridated water and the fluoride sources that we're getting. We're getting far too much and it is harming our brains." Status Update on Petition to End Water Fluoridation in the US Last year, FAN filed a petition with the EPA to stop water fluoridation nationwide. It was denied. One of the reasons given for the denial was that FAN had not done a comprehensive analysis of all the uses of fluoride. "That's setting the bar so high it's impossible to abide by the law or file a complaint by the law … [Fluoride is] used in so many areas, like pesticides, post- harvest fumigants, medications, dental products, water, toothpastes — all these different sources. To do a comprehensive analysis of all sources is virtually impossible," Osmunson says. "The EPA has never done it. They're saying, 'Well, we're not going to agree with you because you haven't done it.'" FAN has now filed a lawsuit and the court will evaluate the information de novo. This means FAN and EPA will stand on equal footing, and the court will not have to give deference to the government, which is typically the case. Osmunson is hopeful the court will see reason. In the case of water fluoridation, it's quite clear the EPA has not City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 4 only failed to protect public health, but is actively sabotaging the health of bottle-fed babies everywhere there's water fluoridation. Nearly 6 in 10 Teens Have Signs of Fluoride Overexposure One of the most visible consequences of fluoride overexposure is dental fluorosis, those white specks and mottling of teeth that now affect 58 percent of children and adolescents. Dental fluorosis, while considered a mere cosmetic issue, is a warning sign that more harmful, invisible metabolic effects are taking place. As noted by Osmunson: "We're getting too much fluoride. When fluoridation first started, we were assured by public health authorities that only 10, maybe 15 percent, of the public would get dental fluorosis … A few years ago, the federal government came on out with a survey. They found 41 percent of children and adolescents had dental fluorosis. The most recent one that we know of … [shows] 58 percent have some degree [of dental fluorosis]. [W]hat we're even more concerned about is that 20 percent have moderate dental fluorosis, which is a sign of way too much [fluoride], and 2 percent have severe dental fluorosis in the United States. [Water] fluoridation is contributing to that. The EPA says, 'Well, you know, we're only worried about 90 percentile.' There are 2 percent that are having severe dental fluorosis. That's a huge number. That is something we must stop. The best [way] of stopping it is to stop fluoridation of public water." Water Fluoridation Is Unregulated Interestingly, there's no federal agency in charge of regulating water fluoridation. The EPA merely permits fluoridation. EPA is prohibited by Congress from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans, so they don't add fluoride to water. They just allow it to be done, and they keep the maximum allowable contaminant levels high enough so that it's possible to do it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) really should regulate fluoride, seeing how it's a drug, yet the agency has continuously deferred regulatory action. The ultimate decision to add fluoride to water is made at the local level by your city's water district. "[I]t's the local people who are supposed to do all the scientific research," Osmunson says. "Now, think about that for just a second. You have people in the water districts who are — maybe they run a store, maybe they run a business, maybe they're a lawyer, maybe they're a scientist … They don't typically have a science background, and yet we're asking them to evaluate the science on something that's given to everyone without freedom of choice. They're making this decision for you of whether that drug is safe and effective. In fact, they're doing the FDA's job … But who are they relying on? The CDC, to a large extent. Who does the CDC rely on? The American Dental Association. What is the American Dental Association City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 5 supposed to do? Protect dentists. Now, dentists make a significant amount of money on fluoride. When this was brought up to me at first, I was rather defensive, saying, 'Well, I don't really make any money on fluoridation. It prevents decay.' It probably doesn't prevent decay, No. 1. No. 2, if you add up all the money used on fluoride in the dental office, it's a significant amount of money. Your fluoride topical applications are significant. Of course, then, the water fluoridation companies have to get rid of that toxic substance somehow — by putting it into the water. Pollution is the solution. It's not really the right way to go, but that's what's happening … [Fluoride in water] is taken and given to us without individual consent. No doctor could do that. As a dentist, I can prescribe fluoride for my patients on record, but I can't do it for everybody. Yet the water districts, who are not legally able to prescribe, do that." Fluoride Is an Unapproved Drug Interestingly, while fluoride supplements in the form of drops, tablets and lozenges have been on the market since the 1950s, they've never received approval by the FDA, as the scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness was found lacking. This remarkable situation came to light in 1992, when John Kelly, a New Jersey General Assemblyman, started looking into the fluoride issue after reading a study showing higher rates of bone cancer in fluoridated communities compared to nonfluoridated areas. Since only 17 percent of New Jersey communities had fluoridated water at the time, dentists frequently prescribed fluoride supplements instead. In light of the study's findings, Kelly "felt it was prudent to obtain the studies supporting the claims of safety and effectiveness for these prescription fluoride products." First, he contacted the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Dental Pediatrics. All initially said they'd provide him with studies, but after checking their records, they confessed they didn't have any. He was then directed to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), which promised to have the studies promptly sent out. None came. After six weeks, NIDCR confessed no studies could be found in their files and suggested he contact the FDA, since it had approved the drugs. To quote Kelly:1 "Six months later I was stunned when I was informed by the FDA that they had no such studies and that the products in question, which had been prescribed to millions of infants and children since the 1950s, were not approved by the FDA." Kelly petitioned the FDA to remove these unapproved fluoride products in 1993. No action was ever taken. Last year, FAN and the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology again petitioned the FDA to remove them from the market.2 The petition was filed after the FDA issued a warning letter to Kirkman Laboratories, a fluoride supplement manufacturer, to immediately discontinue marketing of fluoride products as they have never been City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 6 approved as safe and effective. How is it an unapproved drug, for which warning letters are sent out to manufacturers, is being added to drinking water? Fluoride Is Very Difficult to Filter Out Once Added Fluoride is a very small molecule, making it tremendously difficult to filter out once added to your water supply. A simple countertop filter, like Brita, will not remove it. If you have a house water carbon filtration system that has a large volume of carbon, then it may reduce the fluoride as fluoride removal is in direct proportion to the amount of fluoride and the time it's in contact with the media. It's just not going to get it all. Among the more effective filtering systems for fluoride removal are:  Reverse osmosis (RO). The drawback is that it will remove many valuable minerals and trace elements as well. RO systems also need frequent cleaning to avoid bacterial growth. So, use a tankless RO system with a compressor  Water distillation which, like RO, gets everything out, including beneficial minerals. You then need to restructure the water  Bone char filters and biochar. We're currently in the process of developing a filter that combines biochar with activated charcoal Clearly, the simplest, most effective, most cost-effective strategy is to not put it in at all. 2017 Fluoride Conference Since 2010, 220 communities have rejected water fluoridation. If you want to learn more about how you can get involved to prevent or end water fluoridation in your community, join FAN's fluoride conference in Washington D.C. September 16 and 17, 2017. It's open to anyone who's interested. Bookmark FAN's website, FluorideAlert.org and check back for more information about this conference. "My biggest concern is freedom of choice. Fluoridation of water adds too much fluoride to many individuals, most of us, all of us. It's done without freedom of choice … America stands for freedom. We need to have freedom and allow people to not have fluoride. Some people are being harmed and they don't want the fluoride. I have one lady whose son has real problems with fluoride. He can't even take a shower or a bath in fluoridated water because he's so chemically sensitive. He's autistic. What do you do for this young man? For a while, they tried to find out if he was having problems with the fluoridated water. She would take bottled water and heat the bottled water on the stove to give him a bath. He's about 6 foot tall. He's 230 pounds. He's 25 years of age and she's having to heat water on the stove. Why? Because we aren't giving freedom of choice … This is ridiculous. It's insane. It's a toxic crime against humanity. We're getting too much fluoride. It's probably not beneficial. It's causing serious problems to the developing brain … We know that it's lowering IQ. It's a tremendous expense when you start lowering IQ … Two hundred million people in the United States are on fluoridated water. At about $1,000 per IQ at 5 IQ points lost, that's $1 trillion a year negative economic impact on our country. We can't afford it. We need to stop fluoridation," Osmunson says. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:39 AM 7 Fluoride Is a Mitochondrial Poison That Sabotages Health Once you understand that fluoride is a mitochondrial poison, you'll realize that not only is it contributing to lowered IQ and thyroid problems, it's also contributing to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity and neurodegenerative disease. We have a tsunami of Alzheimer's coming, and fluoride is an issue even though there are no studies currently connecting it to Alzheimer's. Few understand the molecular biology involved and therefore haven't made that connection yet. In the future, that will probably come to pass, but we simply do not have the time to wait. The good news is you can do something about this problem. If you are passionate about this, as I am, then please support FAN. During Fluoride Awareness Week, I will match your donations dollar for dollar, so please, get on board and help support this important project, because it's something that will help all Americans. An educational email forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:08 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 11:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Brisbane confronts its future positively Attachments:Brisbane's Parkside Plan....Textbook Clarity of Vision and Values.pdf; 170316 Brisbane to study Baylands transformation SM Daily Journal Mar 16 2017.pdf Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 11:45 AM Subject: Brisbane confronts its future positively Dear Friends up and down the Peninsula, No city on the Peninsula has a bigger challenge than tiny Brisbane with its population of almost 4000 people. Brisbane has the opportunity to develop a massive amount of open land. How would any city responsibly manage almost 660 acres with development potential up to 7 million sq ft? This level of development is at the scale of Google's move into San Jose. Here are a couple of links to Brisbane's official website. Links are more information that you can possibly swallow. Just read the two attachments. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:08 AM 2 Thank goodness for local journalism. Brisbane is addressing its future with strong set of values. I have not seen such clarity for vision and values in other cities. Take time to read and study Brisbane's value and vision statement known as Parkside Plan. http://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/Parkside_Vision_Fram ework_web.pdf Parkside Plan Documents | City of Brisbane Parkside Plan Documents | City of Brisbane Brisbane to study Baylands: Environmental issues tied to transformative proposal - San Mateo Daily Journal Brisbane to study Baylands: Environmental issues tied to transformative proposal - San Mateo Daily Journal Brisbane to study Baylands: Environmental issues tied to transformative proposal - Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:29 PM To:Stump, Molly; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Keene, James; Council, City; Scheff, Lisa Subject:Fwd: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000818-061317 Why is this request exempt when it was in fact, the letter, sent to me previously? These were correspondences you initiated...the city of Palo Alto police dept... Mark Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Palo Alto Public Records Center" <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> Date: June 22, 2017 at 4:22:26 PM CST To: paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000818-061317 --- Please respond above this line --- 06/22/2017 RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of June 13, 2017, Reference # W000818‐061317 Dear Mark,  I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public  Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 6/13/2017.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:25 AM 2 Your request mentioned Please provide a file copy of the document in PDF file format  originally used to report me to the DOJ as a child molester. Let me remind you sir, you  have 10 days The City has reviewed its files and has determined the following. Your request is denied  based on the report investigationtype which is exempt from release per Government Code  6254(f), 6254(f)(2), 6254(k) and 11167.5 of the California Penal Code. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me  by responding to this message. Sincerely, Paula Silva Police Records Specialist ‐ Lead Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto,  CA  94301 To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:28 PM To:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Scheff, Lisa; Perron, Zachary; Keene, James Subject:Fwd: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000821-061517 Why is this request exempt when it was in fact, the letter, sent to me previously? These were correspondences you initiated...the city of Palo Alto police dept... Mark Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Palo Alto Public Records Center" <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> Date: June 22, 2017 at 4:28:28 PM CST To: paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000821-061517 --- Please respond above this line --- 06/22/2017 RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of June 15, 2017, Reference # W000821‐061517 Dear Mark,  I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public  Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 6/15/2017.  Your request mentioned Please include Lt. Scott Wongʹs letter sent to the DOJ  requesting removal from child molest list. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:25 AM 2 TheCity has reviewed its files and has determined the following. Yourrequest is denied  based on the report investigation type which is exempt fromrelease per Government Code  6254(f), 6254(f)(2), 6254(k) and 11167.5 of theCalifornia Penal Code.     Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please feel free tocontact me  by responding to this message.      Sincerely,    PaulaSilva  PoliceRecords Specialist ‐ Lead  PaloAlto Police Department  275Forest Avenue  PaloAlto,  CA  94301  To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:11 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 1:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Arastradero/Miranda right turn lane Begin forwarded message: From: Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> Subject: Fwd: Arastradero/Miranda right turn lane Date: June 24, 2017 at 1:09:16 PM PDT To: citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org, Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org Dear City Council Members: Below are some of the communications that I have had with Joshuah Mello and Tom DuBois regarding the change that was made to the right turn lane from Arastradero Rd. onto Miranda Ave. Tom has been extremely helpful, supportive and in agreement with my point of view that this change has been a GREAT mistake! The lane had always been a dedicated right turn only lane and was fairly recently changed to a right turn onto Miranda Ave. and onto the Foothill Expressway as well. Traffic backs up at the light for cars waiting to go onto the Expressway. The cars waiting to turn onto Miranda are held up for a long time. My concern is that patients heading to the Emergency Room at the VA Hospital are being held up. I have written below of my experience driving my husband to the ER when he had a heart attack last year. In previous emails that I have not included, I have written about my experience driving my husband to the ER on an occasion when he had acute pancreatitis, an extremely painful and life threatening situation. I honked my horn endlessly but had to wait until the light changed and cars moved forward. I have written emails before that included all of you whom I am addressing now, with no response from any of you. Some of you are more recent members of the CC and have not received previous emails. My concerns about this situation continues and I’m writing once again because I was prompted to do so by my experience driving on Arastradero Rd. yesterday as I was going onto the Foothill Expressway heading north. It was 10 a.m., not rush hour, and the traffic was heavy in both directions on Arastradero Rd. Fortunately I didn’t have a patient with me heading to the ER at the VA. Do any of you travel that way? Do you know how heavy the traffic can be on Arastradero and how backed up it can be spewing emissions into the air? And it’s even worse at times when school is in session. Have you been to the VA Campus on Miranda? Do you know how large it is and how many patients are treated there? Mr. Mello”s response: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:11 AM 2 "We believe that the new configuration is much more intuitive and has decreased weaving across both  the bicycle lane and the adjacent travel lanes. While motorists turning right onto Miranda Ave now have  to wait for the green signal if a motorist in front of them is continuing straight onto Foothill Expwy, we  believe that the added delay is outweighed by the more rational traffic operations and the reduction in  the number of weaving points and conflict areas.” Does this response REALLY take precedence over the possibility of saving lives in getting to the  hospital ER quickly?  Don’t veterans, men and women heading to an ER deserve better  treatment than this?  Mr Mello’s stance is UNCONSCIONABLE! Zita Zukowsky Maybell Way   Begin forwarded message: From: "Mello, Joshuah" <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Arastradero/Miranda right turn lane Date: November 7, 2016 at 9:24:34 AM PST To: Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> Mr. Zukowsky:   I appreciate your comments regarding the intersection of Arastradero Rd and Miranda  Ave. We have been monitoring this intersection and the new lane assignment markings  since they were implemented earlier this year. We believe that the new configuration is  much more intuitive and has decreased weaving across both the bicycle lane and the  adjacent travel lanes. While motorists turning right onto Miranda Ave now have to wait  for the green signal if a motorist in front of them is continuing straight onto Foothill  Expwy, we believe that the added delay is outweighed by the more rational traffic  operations and the reduction in the number of weaving points and conflict areas.   Ultimately, this entire intersection needs to be reconstructed and we have worked  closely with Santa Clara County staff on the development of the Expressways Plan 2040  Study, which includes a detailed concept for improvements in this area. In the short  term, we will continue to monitor the intersection and make any adjustments that may  be needed to enhance safety and operations for all roadway users.    Regards,   JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:11 AM 3 PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Transportation Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154   Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to  make a service request.   From: Eugene Zukowsky [mailto:eandzz@stanford.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 6:59 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Shikada, Ed Subject: Arastradero/Miranda right turn lane Dear Mr. Mello, Below are some of the communications that I have had with Tom DuBois regarding the right turn lane from Arastradero onto Miranda. I initially contacted Tom because I didn’t know who to address my concerns to and he was most helpful in directing my emails to you. At this time I thought it would be best if I contacted you directly after receiving Tom’s most recent email telling me that nothing will be done to make the right turn lane a distinct turn onto Miranda. This is an extremely distressing decision. Tom states that “both the flow of cars and the cars crossing the bike lane has been improved”. I don’t think this quite compares to the confusion and safety of cars from both the turn lane and the lane to the left of it both competing to turn onto the Foothill Expressway (I witnessed an accident at that spot with two cars colliding). Who has the right of way? But MOST IMPORTANTLY, cars en route to the VA Hospital are held up. In an email below I have written about my very stressful experiences in being held up going to the ER at the hospital. I can readily attest to matters of life and death that your decision has perpetuated. I’m not being overly dramatic in making this statement. I’ve experienced it! I’ve had the confirmation of doctors and nurses at the VA Hospital. At this time of unusually high concerns regarding the healthcare of veterans, it seems unconscionable to me that you’ve made this decision. It would have been a very simple solution to the problem of directing cars onto Miranda exclusively, by putting up poles so that cars would have had to make the right turn. Yes, you are THE DECIDER, but is your decision the best one? Hi Zita, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:11 AM 4 I talked to the city today - not great news in the short term. They've been out watching the traffic there and believe both the flow of cars and the cars crossing the bike lane has been improved by making the right hand turn lane into one turn lane. Our traffic engineer said its very unusual to have two back to back right turn lanes so close together. The intersection overall is very difficult. The clashing iwth bikes has decreased. The honking at the school has decreased and more people are out of the way of cars going straight with the combined right hand turn. I know its not what you wanted to hear. All I can suggest is that you lay on your horn when its an emergency to make that Miranda turn. The entire intersection is being redesigned by the county for Foothill expressway, but that will take a number of years. One of the suggestions is a large roundabout which would enable all the turns more smoothly. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> wrote: Tom, thank you for your response and the action you’ve taken. I hope that a change can be made. I appreciate your effort very much. Happy to report that Gene is doing very well since he had his heart attack. Quick medical action by a very competent team saved his life. Best regards, Zita On May 26, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote: I'm sorry to hear Eugene had a heart attack and hope he's doing ok. I have raised your issues with city staff. I know parents and teachers were complaining about honking at the Miranda intersection disrupting classes and I thought staff was going to do something similar to what you suggested - poles to force people to make the right turn and not drive straight to foothill. Apparently that did not happen. I've asked them to analyze the impacts of the changes, particularly with getting to the hospital and to get back to me. I'll let you know what I learn. Best, Tom On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:11 AM 5 Another topic: I am EXTREMELY upset about the new traffic pattern on Arastradero, allowing cars to continue onto the Foothill Expressway from the right turn lane to Miranda. Miranda goes to the VA Hospital, a MAJOR Hospital campus in Palo Alto. I have driven my husband there several times to the ER and have honked those cars blocking me from making the right turn. IT IS A DISASTROUS SITUATION IN AN EMERGENCY!!! Several weeks ago my husband had a heart attack. Fortunately it happened late at night and I was able to drive to the VA in less time than it would have taken for paramedics to get to my house. We were told by medical staff that his life was saved by getting to the hospital so quickly. Can you do anything to correct this grievous traffic change? Whoever made this decision clearly didn't know the impact of the change. It would have been an easy thing to put up barrier posts to force cars to only make a right turn on Miranda and not block that lane to drive quickly onto the Expressway. There are orange posts nearby on the entryway to Gunn HS. This is a VERY IMPORTANT issue. Many senior veterans go to the VA hospital. It can be an issue of life or death. Zita Zukowsky Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 4:06 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 3:34 PM To:Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; popoff; richard.wenzel; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; Mark Standriff; Mayor; CityManager; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; info@superide1.com; beachrides; Mark Kreutzer; huidentalsanmateo; Tranil Thomas; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Leodies Buchanan; lxcastro93@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: China's new HST, the Fuxing, or Rejuvination, 400 km/hr max (248 mph) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:44 PM Subject: Fwd: China's new HST, the Fuxing, or Rejuvination, 400 km/hr max (248 mph) To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:30 PM Subject: Fwd: China's new HST, the Fuxing, or Rejuvination, 400 km/hr max (248 mph) To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:13 PM Subject: Fwd: China's new HST, the Fuxing, or Rejuvination, 400 km/hr max (248 mph) To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM Subject: China's new HST, the Fuxing, or Rejuvination, 400 km/hr max (248 mph) To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Tues. June 27, 2017 Dan- Here is a vid dated June 26, 2017, yesterday. 52 minutes long. This is China's newest HST, running Beijing to Shanghai. It runs at 350 kph (219 mph) and has a max speed of 400 kph or 248 mph. It covers the 1,318 km in 5 hours and 50 minutes. That is 824 miles in that time which is an avg. of 141 mph. I guess they stop at a lot of stations along the way. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 4:06 PM 2 They say this new train is the first designed and built entirely in China. Hope they're not using that dicey train control system from Hitachi in Japan where the Japanese would not give them the blueprints for it, fearing reverse engineering. He says 5 hours and 50 min, but I see 4 hours and 55 min. in this video, so not sure of how long the trip takes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLcP16951zc They sure have lots of people in China and it seems to help if you speak Mandarin or Cantonese. Wonder which one they are using here. As you know, it's not like Holland or Germany where lots of people speak English. At ~9 minutes they show super-comfortable business class seats and they say those cost 1,748 RMB. Divide by 6.8 and you get US$257. The train leaves at the 49 minute mark. He says that at the end of 2016, China had 22,000 miles of HSR, or 60% of the world's total. At one point they hand the mic to a passenger who says he speaks English, and you can hear it is American English. They gave him a quick tutorial on the new train and he said not 3 words in English. Probably afraid of what he might say. You notice that the interviewers don't smile much. Since all humor has a victim, they are probably being careful that the victim is not the government. BTW, I bought some Tesla and some Netflix today. Both fell to my limit price and kept on falling. LH City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/28/2017 8:30 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:35 PM To:Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Fwd: LOW INCOME HOUSING ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Date: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:23 PM Subject: LOW INCOME HOUSING To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.com Dear Council People, We have a housing CRISIS!. Why does East Palo Alto have rent control? Why does Mt. View have rent control, SF, SJ, Oakland, Emeryville, etc.? Because the rents are so high here, some of the workers have bought RVs to LIVE IN. The space on El Camino between Embarcadero and College is a great place for these Rvs to be parked. Quiet at night, only sports fields in their view, overhead city lights. What are you trying to do by limiting the parking for these folks? We need to provide more LOW INCOME parking for those who work here. Don't force them into other neighborhoods, cities. It's not a SOLUTION. RENT CONTROL IS A SOLUTION, MORATORIUMS ON DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSING IS A SOLUTION until a better balance between housing and jobs can be achieved. Find solutions to these social issues, not higher parking rates, limits on space, etc. This city can be more creative if only you'd let your imaginations, rather than $$$ drive change. Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF low-income housing committee City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 11:10 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Monroe <monroe.jw@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:09 AM To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah; Transportation Cc:Jim McFall Subject:Hangtag vs. Sticker in Southgate RPP Dear All,    As a 43‐year resident of Palo Alto’s Southgate neighborhood, I really appreciate the efforts of the City of Palo Alto and  staff in formulating a residential parking permit program (RPP).  We have see some relief from high‐schoolers’ parking  now that parking is allowed on El Camino and the Performing Arts Center construction is complete.  However we can see  that development at Stanford and California Avenue are going to impact parking in our neighborhood.    I’d like to comment on the use of hangtags vs. stickers for the free permit granted each household.  I prefer that the one  free permit granted each household be a transferable hang‐tag rather than a sticker assigned to a specific vehicle;  however, at the June 19 meeting chief transportation officer Josh Mello’s response was simply that the other RPP  programs have stickers, and didn’t leave the impression that hangtags could be provided.  Many Southgate residents  have more than one vehicle, and I assume others, like us, occasionally have out‐of‐town guests. A transferable hang‐tag  permit would afford us the flexibility to use it as we choose and not force homeowners to unnecessarily buy an  additional $50 permit every year.      I hope you’ll give hangtags serious consideration.    Sincerely Yours,      John Monroe  1570 Madrono Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650‐387‐5730  monroe.jw@gmail.com          HSRAP Funding Actual funding compared to hypothetical funding if we increased the fund by 2.6% annually since 2004 Fiscal Year HSRAP Funding Percentage change from prior Fiscal Year Hypothetical HSRAP Funding Percentage change from prior 2001 $ 386,245 2001 386,245$ 2002 $ 433,254 12.2%2002 433,254$ 12.2% 2003 $ 444,862 2.7%2003 444,862$ 2.7% 2004 $ 376,485 -15.4%2004 386,274$ -13.2% 2005 $ 375,835 -0.2%2005 396,317$ 2.6% 2006 $ 331,453 -11.8%2006 406,621$ 2.6% 2007 $ 331,453 0.0%2007 417,193$ 2.6% 2008 $ 300,453 -9.4%2008 428,040$ 2.6% 2009 $ 300,453 0.0%2009 439,169$ 2.6% 2010 $ 285,430 -5.0%2010 450,588$ 2.6% 2011 $ 285,430 0.0%2011 462,303$ 2.6% 2012 $ 300,737 5.4%2012 474,323$ 2.6% 2013 $ 300,737 0.0%2013 486,655$ 2.6% 2014 $ 355,324 18.2%2014 499,308$ 2.6% 2015 $ 425,594 19.8%2015 512,290$ 2.6% 2016 $ 436,659 2.6%2016 525,610$ 2.6% 2017 $ 448,012 2.6%2017 539,276$ 2.6% 2018 $ 459,213 2.5%2018 553,297$ 2.6% A. Actual HSRAP Budget History B. Hypothetical HSRAP funding if we increased the fund by a CPI of 2.6% annually since FY 2004 The difference between A (Actual HSRAP funding) and B (hypothetical HSRAP funding if we increased the fund by 2.6% annually since 2004 is $94,084 Note - In FY 2004 Project Sentinel ($68,377 ) was transferred from HSRAP and funded separately by the City, similar to Avenidas and PACCC City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 3:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 2:40 PM To:Palo Alto Daily Post Cc:Court Skinner; Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:missed opportunities Editor Palo Alto is getting to be the land of missed opportunities. Not just the Post Office, which we could have for a song, but while Marc Vicenti is wishing somebody wonderful like the Zuckerbergs would subsidize teacher housing in Palo Alto, we're talking about developing Cubberly, instead of using it for the most supercalifragilistic rental apartments ever conceived for all our teachers, capping their salaries, which would be satisfactory if it weren't for the cost of housing. While the tax experts are looking for something else to tax to pay for separated railroad crossings, we're letting the HSR get away with attaching a totally superfluous railroad line alongside our Caltrain SF/San Jose line,-- a disservice to the multitudes of travellers who will have to change trains in SF and backtrack South or take the ferry to Oakland to get home. Not only should the HSR be placed East of the Bay to open up housing in the North, but the billions being wasted by these people who have never looked at a map of California could, would and should be revenue added to the railroad line we already have, to install the grade separations. Stephanie Munoz 101 Alma, apt 701, Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 248-1842 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/28/2017 8:31 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Star B. Teachout <teachout@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 6:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support and fund the city-wide bicycle pedestrian network Dear City Council members,    As a long‐term Palo Alto resident living in Barron Park, parent of 3 school‐aged children, and a devoted cyclist, I want to  encourage you to move forward with financially supporting and implementing the city‐wide bicycle‐pedestrian network  that is outlined in the 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan which is also directed by the goals  and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.  As well as my personal commitment to cycling I have  also been an elementary and middle school green team leader and a volunteer for cycling at Gunn High.    As a parent I continue to speak with parents who are very reticent to let their students bike to school along the  Arastradero/Charleston corridor, particularly when it crosses el Camino where bike lanes disappear and the complexity  of incoming auto traffic escalate. And although we know there may be alternate routes which are safer, the maxim of  "location, location, location" rings true:  people want to take the most direct and time‐efficient path. Please take this  step to further enhance our city cycling network which may continue to encourage more of our citizens to cycle and care  about our carbon footprint.    best,    Star Teachout  Barron Park        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 6:53 PM To:Palo Alto Public Records Center; Carnahan, David; Minor, Beth; Keene, James; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Reichental, Jonathan; Wagner, April Subject:Re: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000827-062317 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58286 Here's the right link....Do you think it is at all possible perhaps to be more conscientious Ms. Silva in doing your job and not waisting everybody's time and energy? On what page is the vehicle pursuit policy found.... Ms. Wagner? Chime in but I doubt it... Mark Sent from my iPad On Jun 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: What page can this policy be found? The link you provided does not take you to any policy... Would you kindly assist? You provide no email address or phone number for follow-up questions. Why is this? Responses are most always disastrous... Mark Paula Silva Police Records Specialist - Lead Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent from my iPad On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Palo Alto Public Records Center <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> wrote: --- Please respond above this line --- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 8:40 AM 2 06/2 RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of June 23, 2017, Reference # W000827‐ 062317 Dear Mark,  I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the  California Public Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the  City on 6/23/2017.  Your request mentioned Palo Alto Police ‐ Vehicle pursuit policy The City has reviewed its files and has located responsive records to your  request.  The Palo Alto Police Department Vehicle Pursuit Policy can be  located on our City  website;  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/default.asp If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please contact  me. Sincerely, Paula Silva Police Records Specialist ‐ Lead Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto,  CA  94301 To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:22 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:05 AM To:Kathy Chen; Council, City Cc:action@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:RE: ADU Ordinance Hi Ms. Chen,    Below is the action the Council took in April regarding ADU’s.    A. Adopt an Ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) including the following changes; and  i. Limit ADUs to lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or more; ADU conversions and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) would be exempt from this requirement; and  ii. Direct Staff to explore options to limit parking permits in Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) districts  by lot; and  iii. Allow two story ADUs in the Residential Estate (R‐E) District using existing setbacks; and  iv. Clarify that the additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) should be used within the ADU, not the primary dwelling unit; and  v. Restore Ordinance language pertaining to doorway orientation; and  vi. Direct Staff to return with potential Eichler design guidelines relating to ADUs, including lower height limits; and  vii. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for new ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10 percent smaller than standard lot sizes including those which are standard or larger; and  B. Direct Staff to report back to Council on a quarterly basis; and  C. Direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to conduct a Study Session within six months of the implementation of this Ordinance to analyze the results of this Ordinance; and  D. Find the Ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.  PASSED:  7‐2 Holman, Kou no      From: Kathy Chen [mailto:kathyrighty@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 9:39 AM To: Council, City Cc: action@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: ADU Ordinance City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:22 AM 2 Hello, I'm writing to support a new ADU ordinance to allow easier addition of ADUs, as proposed by the directors of Palo Alto Forward in March. This is helpful for the community to provide more affordable housing. I would love to hear if there's any progress with this proposal, or added to future communications. Thanks, Kathy City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 8:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Christine Shin <newmozart@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 7:55 AM To:Cynthia Swenson Cc:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Re: New Mozart School of Music Dear Cynthia, Thank you for writing to the city council! Christine On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Cynthia Swenson <cswenson@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Posted by Music Teacher and Neighbor a resident of Old Palo Alto 0 hours ago I'm a full time music teacher at New Mozart, and a 50+ year Palo Alto resident, and know exactly what's happening at this "corner". The music school is just some private one on one lessons in 6-8 (at max times) small rooms where we keep the windows closed M-F typically 3:30-8pm + Sat ams. There are only 1 hour group (10 little kids) lessons 3 times a week. Many students walk to the school. The church only has 5 parking stalls, so any other parking has to be on the streets. We are a private very low profit (but not non profit) music school, but not a "personal service". There are various other groups and individuals that rent out the large church buildings who also create traffic/parking including the day care center and most notably the iSing choral group. iSing holds multiple large group classes (often outside) every day; their student numbers (and parent drivers) far exceeding New Mozart's at a time. Come check out the "noise" now over the summer: we're still operating at almost full capacity, but iSing is closed; it's noticeably quieter now. Parking and driving habits are the responsibility of the individuals and enforcement with the city. Neighbors do not own the public curb in front of their homes for their garbage cans or cars even, and acoustic classical individual instrumental music played indoors well before 9 pm isn't noise. ~ Cynthia 🎶 cellogirl.me altairtrio.com 650.387.2106 -- Director New Mozart School of Music Office: 650 324 2373 Email: christine@newmozartschool.com Web: www.newmozartschool.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jared Jacobs <jaredjacobs@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 6:24 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Watson, Ron; Apple, Kara; Pirnejad, Peter; Hoyt, George; Batchelor, Dean; Nafziger, Mike; Alice Jacobs; Council, City Subject:Re: Noise Impacts from Construction at 2555 Park Ms. Gitelman, Mr. Keene, City Council, and city staff, Thank you for all of your efforts to improve the pump situation at 2555 Park Blvd this week. We appreciate you taking the time to listen, to understand the nature of the problem and its severe impacts on our family and other residents, and to find and implement a solution. With the diesel generator out of commission, the noise and vibrations are significantly reduced, and we’ve returned to sleeping in our bedroom. A special thanks to those of you who reached out to my wife Alice and/or made it a personal priority to get something done on Thursday. Sincerely, Jared ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Jun 21, 2017 17:50 Subject: Noise Impacts from Construction at 2555 Park To: "holz@sonic.net" <holz@sonic.net>, "Alice Jacobs (aquayellow@gmail.com)" <aquayellow@gmail.com>Cc: "Keene, James" <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Watson, Ron" <Ron.Watson@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Apple, Kara" <kara.apple@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Pirnejad, Peter" <Peter.Pirnejad@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Hoyt, George" <George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Batchelor, Dean" <Dean.Batchelor@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Nafziger, Mike" <Mike.Nafziger@cityofpaloalto.org> Mr. Holzman and Ms. Jacobs: The City Manager asked me to get back to you and to City Councilmembers with a status report on the noise emanating from construction at 2555 Park. We understand the noise is a problem and are very sorry we have not been able to find an immediate solution. We have had a team of staff from five City departments working towards a solution today, and several of us have had discussions with the contractors involved in the project. As I understand it, there is a diesel pump that is removing water from the excavation. The pump cannot be turned off or the excavation would fill with water, causing more problems and lengthening the construction schedule. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:19 AM 2 I understand that the construction contractor has already replaced one pump with another one and has physically shielded the pump, hoping to diminish the noise. After today’s discussions, the contractor is now proposing to bring more electric power to the site so that the diesel pump can be eliminated in favor of an electric pump. The contractor will be installing a new power pole and transformer tomorrow and is currently estimating that the work can be completed Friday morning. City staff have offered to do anything they can to expedite this work and if I learn more about timing tomorrow, I will let you know. Again, we apologize for the delay in resolving this issue. I know it doesn’t really help, but the Police Department will continue to issue citations for violations of the noise ordinance until the issue is fully resolved. Sincerely, Hillary P.S. Ms. Jacobs, I forwarded your concerns about traffic from a nearby construction project to the Public Works staff person with oversight responsibility and they received an immediate response from that contractor who is taking steps to address the issue. I can forward that email exchange to you if you’re interested. Hillary Gitelman | Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T: 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 | 6/26/2017 9:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shaila Sadrozinski <sadro@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 7:02 AM To:Tong, Reanna; Council, City; Mello, Joshuah Cc:Hartmut Sadrozinski; Ashok Sadrozinski Subject:Re: parking permit program in Southgate Thank you, Reanna, for responding to my email. I am unfamiliar with the workings of city governments; but is there no way, less than a week after City Council approved the Southgate RPP Program pilot, and before you create the program page, to make this relatively minor amendment regarding sticker vs hang-tag? The only comment that Josh Mello made in response to Council Member Kniss' broaching the topic at the meeting Monday night was that the other RPP programs have stickers. At the community outreach meeting some months ago, we were assured that it would be possible to customize the parking program to suit a particular neighborhood's needs/wishes. I know there are others in Southgate who would prefer the flexibility of having the one free permit be a transferable tag. Please let me know if there is some procedure which would allow the free permit to be a transferable hang-tag even for the upcoming pilot program. Thank you. Shaila Sadrozinski From: "Tong, Reanna" <Reanna.Tong@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Shaila Sadrozinski <sadro@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 11:00 AM Subject: RE: parking permit program in Southgate Hi Shaila, Thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto. The Southgate RPP Program is a pilot that was approved by City Council with a sticker as the free permit, but this can be reconsidered after the one-year pilot when it returns to City Council for consideration. The draft Resolution for the approved pilot program can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58208. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:19 AM 2 We will be providing more information on how to purchase permits and the Southgate RPP Program implementation schedule this summer. We are anticipating that the program will roll out in October 2017. Please visit our parking website at cityofpaloalto.org/parking for more information on all of our other parking programs. We will be creating a Southgate RPP Program page shortly. Regards, Reanna Reanna Tong| Transportation Program Assistant Planning & Community Environment – Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2568 E: reanna.tong@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you. Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Shaila Sadrozinski [mailto:sadro@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:51 AM To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Hartmut Sadrozinski <hartmut@ucsc.edu>; Ashok Sadrozinski <ashokfw@pacbell.net> 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 | 6/28/2017 8:37 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nickel, Eric Sent:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 7:04 AM To:Lerrick Family of N. CAL Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Keith, Claudia Subject:RE: Please consider Mr. Lerrick,    The City Manager has asked me to respond to your letter to the City Council.    Thank you for your email. There seems to be a misperception about the proposed FY 2018 Palo Alto Fire Department’s  budget and here are some facts to set the record straight:   For FY 2018, the City is facing up to a $2.6 million gap in reimbursements under the Stanford Fire Services  contract. In the Proposed FY 2018 Budget, $1.3 million of that gap has been specifically allocated to the Fire  Department. Even with that budgeted reduction, the Fire Department’s budget for FY 2018 is actually increasing  overall by 9.8%.    It would have increased by 14.3 % without the reduction. That would have been by far the largest departmental  budget increase, nearly 30% more than the next closest department, Police. The increase is due primarily to  wage and pension costs. In fact, the Fire Department’s budget has increased by more than $5 million in the past  two years.     Most important to the concerns you have raised is that this budget does not make any changes to current  staffing models. It anticipates them, but as we are still in discussions with our labor union, we do not have a final  proposal. If and when we do, that proposal will need to go the City Council for full public discussion and Council  approval, which will not occur until this fall.    Every model the City is considering does not reduce effective service levels. It does expect that we will be able to  do some things differently.      Given significantly rising costs, especially in public safety, we have to be open to doing some things differently,  more efficiently and effectively. According to CalPERS, the City’s direct costs for pensions for public safety will  grow from 45% of salary in FY 2017 to 72% of salary in FY 2023. Those percentages could get even worse.     Again, the FY 2018 budget doesn’t propose any changes to service levels at this point in time and will not have  any impact on response times. Service levels are maintained at current levels.    We hope this information has addressed your concerns, and please be assured that our community will have ample  opportunity to get informed and provide input into any actual proposed changes to the City Council, who will make that  decision when that time comes. Again, that will not occur before this fall.     Sincerely,     Chief Nickel    Eric Nickel, EFO, CFO, CFC | Fire Chief  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/28/2017 8:37 AM 2   Desk:  650‐329‐2424  Email:  eric.nickel@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Nextdoor      From: Lerrick Family of N. CAL [mailto:ekrl214@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 12:00 AM To: city.council@paloalto.org; Keene, James; Nickel, Eric Subject: Please consider To whom it may concern, Mr. James Keene, Mr. Eric Nickel, I would like to add our voice to the many voices who would prefer transparency for the details surrounding the budget cuts contemplated directed at the Palo Alto Fire Department. That is the minimum. In addition I would like to express that my view of budgeting is more about priorities rather than "available funds". One can never have enough money for what is sought or needed. So what ends up happening is evaluating the trade offs of considering one priority over another. I would like to express that at least myself and my family and I suspect many others, fire protection and in particular the PAFD, is a top priority and if anything their budget should be enhanced and expanded. One consideration related to budget trade offs is return on investment (ROI). An ROI is common terminology when evaluating a mobile app, or some self driving machine startup or whatever. But ROI also can be measured in human terms. So I ask you, what is the value of saving the life of one of your loved ones? Is it $3,000 or maybe $25,000? How much is your son or your daughter worth to you? Or if you are childless picture someone you love. Close your eyes and imagine them smiling at you. Now imagine they are gone. How much is it worth NOT to loose them? $25,000? more? Odds are you would say something similar to "well you cannot really put a value on a human life of someone you love. The answer is infinity." So is the budget funds worthy of being invested in Firefighters, or training existing firefighters more, or maybe getting them more or better equipment? The answer is the return on investment. Some of the ROI will be the property damage avoided when they extinguish a fire. And part of that ROI is if they save a life. I realize you have many competing priorities to consider. I hope you could consider my opinion in your decision making. My opinion is the PAFD should have their budget INCREASED modestly. I realize this means re-allocating funds from another area. So what I hope you ask of the other area what might need to tighten their belts a little, is "what can you do for the city of Palo Alto when compared to saving a life?" If parks and recreation or the water treatment or the airport has some life saving facet then that would be a tough tradeoff for you. If they do not, as I suspect, then I would prefer you reach into those areas and redirect the funds into the Fire Department. Here are a few that I noticed:  Consolidated "one-stop shop" permit and citation software management platform (FY 2018; $1 million to $1.5 million);   Automated Parking Guidance System (FY 2018 currently programmed in FY 2019 capital improvement plan, $2 million to $3 million);   Parking Garage LED lighting upgrades (FY 2019 through FY 2020, $600,000 to $1 million);   Centralize parking operations within the City of Palo Alto (ongoing, to be determined);   On-Street and Surface Lot Paid Parking Program (FY 2019 Downtown only, $1.5 million to $2.2 million); City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/28/2017 8:37 AM 3   Parking access and revenue controls (FY 2019, to be determined); and   California Avenue Parking Management Study (FY 2018, $100,000) Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing: Funds in this category are to be used in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. The projected 2018 beginning balance in this category is $2.9 million. There are no planned transfers in Fiscal Year 2018 to the Fiscal Year 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement Plan. (This is an easy one because the state of California adopted the Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance, which should increase affordable housing stock so THIS budget item might not be so needed). Thank you for your time to read my letter to you and for consideration of my views and opinions. Roger Lerrick Resident of Palo Alto for 15 years P.S. I have a little insight into the above topics for openers I am a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and the PAFD saved my son's life. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/28/2017 11:43 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:37 AM To:Allen Akin; slevy@ccsce.com Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; Council, City; Rob George; Wendy Silvani; Planning Commission; Sandra Slater; Elaine Uang; John Guislin; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; Brand, Richard; Wolfgang Dueregger; Christian Pease; Beth Rosenthal; Holzemer/hernandez; Planning Commission; Malcolm Beasley Subject:Re: Wisdom and Fortitude Nice sentiment but the fact is that the city council has allowed too much office development. Palo Alto has one of the highest jobs-to-housing ratios anywhere and it is an unhealthy situation. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 1:51 PM, Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:09:21AM -0700, slevy@ccsce.com wrote: | Personally I do not find the blaming one group or another needed or helpful. Identifying the cause of a problem is an essential step toward finding a solution and distributing the costs in an economically sound way. | To me the only path to success is realizing that we rise or fall together | and have a shared fate if we fail. I support the sentiment here, but the reasoning is incorrect. If we fail to find a solution that's acceptable to everyone, there still will be some who win and some who lose. The outcome is not shared. We need to be realistic about the politics. Allen City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:ML <lab099@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Thank you approving the RPP program for Southgate.     We would appreciate it very much if the free parking sticker could be changed to a hang‐tag. It will save us some money  and headache.    Lawrence Lau    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/28/2017 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Reine Flexer <reine13@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:21 PM To:Council, City; city.clerck@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:RV on El Camino - do NOT Ban the RV! Dear Council Members: Please don't add more problems to the people who live in RVs. They would much prefer being in an apartment or in a house. Asking them to move their RV all the times is not reasonable, and where will they go? In residential areas? Instead please request a study to find a place where they can park their RV, and longer time. please try to help renters. I suggest you communicate with Neighbors helping Neighbors to find a list of what could be done for renters, or see what Mountain View is doing. Thank you. We are very grateful to the city and the county that they have helped Buena Vista. Now it is time to help and not chase away people who are victims of economics. Thank you. Regards, Reine Flexer Palo Alto resident. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Grit Denker <grit.denker@sri.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 1:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:RVs along El Camino in Palo Alto Dear City Council,    I am a resident of Palo Alto since 1997.    I have heard plans about the city trying to push on the RVs that line El Camino Real. I do want to state that the folks that  use this space for living are already at the low end of our society's and city's income and they do not disturb anybody  and given how incredibly crazy the rent market is in Palo Alto, I think as a community we should show more compassion  to folks and try to help them out.    As such, I would like to express that I do not find it important to have the RVs pushed out of Palo Alto. There are many  other pressing issues in this city, but the RVs on El Camino is not one that should be handled quickly without offering  solutions to these families so they can remain in the city.      just my 2 cent as resident, homeowner and tax payer.    Thanks for all of your help in making Palo Alto a great city. Let's also make it a compassionate one, and not just one  where cut throat business drives all of us.  Sincerely,    Grit Denker    650 269 1034      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/27/2017 1:45 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Patti Ann <pattiann9@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:37 AM To:city.council@cityofpaloalto.com; Council, City Subject:RVs on El Camino Please let’s have something in place if people need their RVs relocated and not just tell them to move. These are  residents of our city.    Patricia Schaffer  Palo Verde  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:22 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:annetteisaacson@comcast.net Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 1:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:separated bikeways Dear City Council Members, I've been meaning to write this email for months to tell you how much I like the separated bike path near Jordan Middle School. I ride to the Rinconada Library twice a month from my home in Midtown. My route is Cowper to California to Newell. It used to be hard to cross Middlefield Road in order to reconnect with California. Now it is easy and so much safer. Because separated bike paths feel so much safer, I think they will encourage more bicyclists. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson 2550 Webster St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tim Grant (Avison Young) <Tim.Grant@avisonyoung.com> Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 9:59 AM To:Info, Plandiv; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Solution for proposed parking garage on Sherman Ave. I heard about the planned garage on Sherman and push back from many residents.  Here is a brilliant idea to give the  structure multi‐purpose life should the need for parking dwindle in the decades ahead as predicted by many:  Designs are incorporating ramps on the outside of parking structures, according to Clark Pacific director of corporate development Roy Griffith. Once the need for parking structures declines, the ramps can be demolished and the structure repurposed into an office or multifamily development. Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/technology/a-bumpy-road-ahead-as-real- estate-industry-braces-for-the-driverless-vehicle- 74580?utm_source=CopyShare&utm_medium=Browser       Timothy E. Grant  Senior Vice President  CA Broker Lic. #00674597  tim.grant@avisonyoung.com    View My Profile    Avison Young  950 Tower Lane, Suite 120  Foster City, CA 94404 USA    T  650.425.6424  C  650.483.6571  avisonyoung.com           Avison Young Northern California, Ltd.    Legal Disclaimer    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/22/2017 9:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sudeshna Saha <sudeshna_saha@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:06 PM To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah; Transportation Subject:Southgate Parking permit Hi,     Thank you for addressing the parking situation in Southgate. However, the parking permit that is being  proposed should be a hang tag rather than a sticker. Many families here have multiple cars and have  occasional overnight guests, and having a sticker that attaches to a specific car will be difficult. Buying a pass  for additional $50 is really not a good solution ‐ feels like a tax to stay in your own neighborhood! We already  pay enough in taxes.    Thanks,  Sudeshna   300 Sequoia Ave,  Palo Alto.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, June 24, 2017 12:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you. Honorable City Council Members, Thank you for the proclamation. It was a very thoughtful gesture as I step down, though I sincerely believe the synergistic strength of this program comes from the broad community support of hundreds of parent volunteers, teachers, City Council and city staff, PAUSD Board and administrators, and the thousands of students and other people of all ages in our community who enjoy choosing alternatives to driving. We are fortunate to have a strong leadership team and a complete district-wide roster of school site Champions moving into the 2017-18 school year. The Five-Year Plan you reviewed on Monday was developed with the new team’s input and approval. They are poised to take Palo Alto Safe Routes to School to the next level. Thank you for acknowledging our work. There is still much to do. Though I am stepping down as PTAC Traffic Safety Chair, I will continue to be a supporter of healthy, active, sustainable transportation options. Gratefully, Penny Ellson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:09 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:brian susan anuskewicz <basdesigns@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, June 25, 2017 11:54 AM To:joshual.mello@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Traffic counters on Alma Street To: Joshual Mello- city transportation official City Council members James Keene- city manager From: Brian & Susan Anuskewicz 901 Alma Street, Palo Alto Subject: Noise producing traffic counters installed by the City of Palo Alto 2:30 AM Sunday morning: We were woken to the installation of traffic counters being installed on Alma St., just south of the Channing Ave. intersection. The hammering of 4 black tubes into the pavement took place for well over an hour. This was the just beginning of the noise interruption of our living place.One set of northbound tube counters is placed directly in line with our living space, no more then 10 feet away from the installation. The southbound tube counters are directly aligned with our bedroom window. We were woken by the sound of each and every car traveling on Alma Street and this sound continues. No matter where we are in our private living space the sound of the tube counters being run over by cars persists. Any idea how many cars travel northbound and southbound on Alma Street on a weekday or weekend? This should not be our problem, but it is. The city should have looked at the installation address and found that this is a residential unit where we live and instead locate the equipment south of its current location. We demand that you remove this to another location that does not effect us as residents living on Alma Street. The 900 block of Alma Street has commercial office locations that would not be effected by the noise or alter the traffic count. Remove this from its current location now and not at 2:30 in the morning again. There is no way we can sleep at night with the traffic counter noise. We expect Joshual Mello to be in contact with us on Monday morning as to how soon this traffic counter is being removed and that he stands on this corner to listen to the sound being generated by the 4 tube counters on Alma Street. Please just move it now. Brian & Susan Anuskewicz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 9:09 AM 2 brian susan anuskewicz basdesigns@icloud.com brian susan anuskewicz basdesigns@icloud.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 26, 2017 1:47 PM To:President Board of Supervisors Dave Cortese; Ro Khanna Subject:Vaccine Contents--US Dirty Little Secret From VacTruth <info@vactruth.com> Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com) Vaccine Ingredients: America’s Dirty Little Secret by Sarah Carrasco * Half of US children have a chronic disease or developmental disability * Genetically modified foods (GMO) can alter DNA and RNA, and acetaminophen decreases the body’s ability to excrete toxins * Polysorbate 80 is in 11 vaccines * It helps move chemicals/drugs from blood into the brain so dangerous ingredients like aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde get in the brain * CDC has never studied unvaccinated with vaccinated children, or more than two toxins together. Never studied peanut and food allergies and proteins in vaccines. (NB: CDC is a for profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet, who partners with big Pharma. www.truthwiki.org/cdc-centers-for-disease-control-and ) Conclusion The increase in childhood illness must have a cause or trigger. There must be common factors when half of America’s children are chronically ill. Could vaccine ingredients be the causal factor of the increase in childhood illnesses? This question remains unanswered by the CDC. As stated above, many CDC employees have a vested financial interest in continuing to sell and market vaccines. . . . What do American children have in common? The large majority receive vaccines per the CDC schedule, 72 vaccines by age eighteen. Until synergy, the exposure of food proteins and human DNA in vaccines are properly studied, it is reasonable and logical to assume that vaccines are deteriorating the health of our children. The regulatory agencies designed to oversee vaccine safety are profiting from the sale of vaccines; with that knowledge, parents must remain vigilant. Because CDC employees profit from vaccine sales, there is not an unbiased regulatory agency monitoring vaccine ingredients. Could these ingredients be the cause of the rise of childhood illnesses? As of today, this appears to be the most logical answer. Vaccine ingredients are a synergistic nightmare and just may be America’s best kept dirty little secret. by Sarah Carrasco At first glance, vaccination appears to be a life-saving benefit of modern medicine. We are told vaccines eradicated polio, the measles and a host of other communicable diseases. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:15 PM 2 However, as the health of America’s children declines, we must take a critical look at causal factors and commonalities in this population. About half of the children in the U.S. suffer from a developmental disability or chronic health condition. The health of our children is in peril and good sense dictates there must be a cause. How could fifty percent of a nation’s children be sick? Logically speaking, there must be a sound and reasonable explanation. [1] The Truth About Vaccines The explanation is multifaceted: in the mid-90s, the U.S. introduced genetically modified foods, which can alter DNA and RNA; we have failed to study the correlation between acetaminophen and the reduction of glutathione (glutathione is a necessary component in detoxification); and we have increased the vaccination schedule from twenty (in the 1980s) to 72 (2017 CDC recommended schedule). If fifty percent of any population is chronically ill, there will be commonalities among that population and identifiable causal factors. Yes, the U.S. has introduced genetically modified foods to our food supply and acetaminophen decreases the body’s ability to excrete toxins. However, what is most notable about the U.S. is that we have one of the most aggressive vaccine schedules in the world. Could this be a causal factor in the rise of childhood illnesses? The increase in the vaccine schedule equates to an increase in neurotoxic ingredients found in vaccines. Childhood vaccines contain ingredients such as aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol, aluminum hydroxide, sodium chloride, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), MRC-5 cells and normal human diploid cells, to name a few. [2] Health organizations argue that while these ingredients may be toxic to the body, they are administered in miniscule amounts and, therefore, will not cause cellular damage. While this argument sounds reasonable, it is not based in fact. The fact of the matter is, adequate studies on the use of polysorbate 80 (also known as Tween 80) in vaccines have not been conducted. The Truth About Polysorbate 80 The following vaccines contain a form of polysorbate 80: * DTaP (Infanrix) * DTaP—IPV (Kinrix) * DTap-HepB-IPV (Pediarix) * DTaP-IPV-Hib (Pentacel) * Gardasil * Influenza (Agriflu) * Influenza (Fluarix) * Meningococcal (MenB-Trumenba) * Pneumococcal (PCV13—Prevnar13) * Rotavirus (RotaTeq) * Tdap (Boostrix) The issue with polysorbate 80 is that “Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier by the pharmaceutical industry to enhance the delivery of chemicals/drugs from the blood into the brain across the blood brain barrier (BBB). Being that the BBB is impermeable to many things in the bloodstream, researchers needed to find a way to deliver chemicals/drugs into the brain from the bloodstream in order to treat hard-to-reach brain infections/lesions/tumors, etc. Polysorbate 80 is one such chemical that helps in this delivery.” [3] These following questions are precisely the questions we must be asking. If polysorbate City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:15 PM 3 80 can open up the blood brain barrier (BBB), what is to stop harmful vaccine ingredients such as formaldehyde, acetone, aluminum (a known neurotoxin), etc., from causing cellular damage? If the function of polysorbate 80 is to enhance the delivery of chemicals and drugs from the blood and across the BBB, is this ingredient a contributing causal factor in the rise of childhood illnesses in the U.S.? If vaccine ingredients include known neurotoxins such as, aluminum, is it safe to assume that polysorbate 80 administered in vaccines is facilitating neurological damage? Unanswered Questions About Vaccines I pose these questions as they are yet to be answered. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has never done a study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children to compare health outcomes of each group. They do not study synergistic toxicity (studying the combination of two or more toxins) and therefore, do not know how these ingredients impact neurological development. The CDC is believed to be an independent regulatory agency; however, many CDC employees leave the CDC and take high-paying positions for pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines. Julie Gerberding was a director of the CDC and is now president of Merck’s Vaccine Division. Paul Offit sat on the CDC advisory boards and voted to add new vaccines to the vaccination schedule. While at the CDC, Offit worked for Merck, developing a Rotavirus vaccine. This vaccine was added to the schedule and Offit sold the patent to Merck for $182 million dollars; Offit stated it was “like winning the lottery.” [4] The issue here is not one of conspiracies or even theories. We know that polysorbate 80 opens the BBB and allows for the delivery of chemicals and drugs to the brain. In addition to this harmful ingredient, there are food proteins found in vaccines. These proteins can cause food allergies — notice the increase in peanut and food allergies? — and yet, health agencies like the CDC will not study the causal link between the increase in food allergies and proteins used in vaccines. [5] The Sad Truth About Fetal Cells Vaccines also contain fetal cells. The MMR vaccine, for example, contains aborted fetal cells from 1966. The cells were extracted from an aborted fetus whose mother was a psychiatric patient. If we introduce fetal cells and, therefore, human DNA to a child, does this foreign DNA trigger autoimmune responses? [6] Conclusion The increase in childhood illness must have a cause or trigger. There must be common factors when half of America’s children are chronically ill. Could vaccine ingredients be the causal factor of the increase in childhood illnesses? This question remains unanswered by the CDC. As stated above, many CDC employees have a vested financial interest in continuing to sell and market vaccines. As childhood illnesses continue to increase, logic and reason must be applied to the debate and we must identify common factors. What do American children have in common? The large majority receive vaccines per the CDC schedule, 72 vaccines by age eighteen. Until synergy, the exposure of food proteins and human DNA in vaccines are properly studied, it is reasonable and logical to assume that vaccines are deteriorating the health of our children. The regulatory agencies designed to oversee vaccine safety are profiting from the sale of vaccines; with that knowledge, parents must remain vigilant. Because CDC employees profit from vaccine sales, there is not an unbiased regulatory agency monitoring vaccine ingredients. Could these ingredients be the cause of the rise of childhood illnesses? As of today, this City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/26/2017 3:15 PM 4 appears to be the most logical answer. Vaccine ingredients are a synergistic nightmare and just may be America’s best kept dirty little secret. References: 1. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive… 2. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads…pdf 3. http://www.drpalevsky.com/articles_pages/81_Polysorbate_80… 4. https://worldmercuryproject.org/mercury-facts/mercury-in-vaccines/ 5. http://vaccinesafetycommission.org…Food-Allergies.pdf 6. https://healthimpactnews.com…increase-in-autism/ Author Sarah Carrasco Sarah Carrasco is the mother of a fifteen year old boy with autism. She is a parent mentor and Coordinator for Talk about Curing Autism (TACA), an vocational advocate for people with developmental disabilities and is currently writing a handbook on autism. She has sat on expert panels pertaining to IEPs, resources and respite care provider training. She lives in Colorado with her three sons, David, Aidan and Brooks. David, who has regressive autism, is steadily making gains and is on the road to recovery. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 4:10 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Greg Mckenna <valleylist@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:44 PM To:Greg Mckenna Cc:CLA NoCal Lawyer Referral Service Subject:"valleylist" v429.publishing---Public Image Ltd (david bowie) . . valleylist(sm) v429.publishing---Public Image Ltd (david bowie) [wednesday 06.21.2017] high tech products companies consumers | valleylist index | internet top 10© | internet top 10© syndication | NEW! PUBLISHING INTERNET LIST© . NEWS +sex pistols top 10 songs (thetoptens.com) +public image ltd top 10 songs (napster.com) +david bowie top 10 songs (thetoptens.com) +public image ltd news (yahoo.com) +what's wrong with today's newspapers (westernthink.com) . PUBLIC IMAGE LTD (david bowie) is about today's news business. should be as exciting as music. ask johnny rotten. sid viscious? sex pistols? P.I.L. founder johnny rotten got Public Image Ltd (P.I.L) his new band going right away after the sex pistols broke up in san francisco. front page news. THE SEX PISTOLS BREAK UP TODAY! david bowie is such an exciting artist he is always with us. the godfather of digital media. just ask my new attorney. "why so boring" is the commentary on society. we don't like authority. do the punk rock. "lets see it again" is the public's response. we love it. . METAL BOX johny rotten's first album after the sex pistols is the big surprise here. pure genius. it's my inspiration for this article and lots of odd thoughts. new ideas for new digital media. today jrotten plays on. on tour. on stage. and on our minds all the time. what a mega success. . for additional information sex pistols official site public image ltd official site david bowie official site rolling stone magazine . New! PUBLISHING INTERNERT LIST©. read the same news & information on the internet as andy warhol. sex pistols in print? oneliners in the news. sound like song lyrics. probably greg mckenna is at it again. streaming news and information from youtube to all social groups. . facebook "g_mcpub1" twitter "g_mcpub" new youtube feed. daily news video of the week on my new youtube feed and "publishing" discussion. content comes from my weekly newsletter and what i'm reading on the internet. try my "news" playlists© and exclusive “news” top 10© lists. flickr images exclusively for publishing industry golden age of pop culture classicism. also photos (from facebook). . Daily News Video of the Week sweet thing / candidate (1974) david bowie---"Boys, Boys, its a Sweet Thing Boys, Boys, Its a Sweet Thing, Sweet Thing" / "I'll make you a Deal, Like any other Candidate” . City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 4:10 PM 2 top 10 videos links Public Image Ltd (david bowie) songs lyrics #.song (year) artist “best lyrics” 1.god save the queen (1977) sex pistols "God save the Queen She ain't no human being There is no future In England's dreaming" then "No future, no future No future for you" 2.pretty vacant (1977) sex pistols "Oh we're so pretty Oh so pretty We're vacant" 3.anarchy in the uk (1977) sex pistols "'Cause I wanna be anarchy, It's the only way to be" 4.Metal Box (1979) Public Image Ltd entire album totally different new something you've never heard before 5.space oddity (1969) david bowie "Ground Control to Najor Tom Your Circuit's Dead There's Something Wrong" 6.is there life on mars? (1971) david bowie "It's a God Awful Small Affair Said the Girl with the Mousey Hair" 7.rebel rebel (1974) david bowie "Rebel Rebel You Tore Your Dess Rebel Rebel Your Face is a Mess" then "How Could They Know" 8.young americans (1975) david bowie "She Pulled in Just Behind the Fridge he Laid Her Down She Frowned" then "He Aint a Pimp She Aint a Hustler a Pimps Got a Caddy and Lady's Got a Chrysler" 9.diamond dogs (1974) david bowie "This Ain't Rock'n'roll This is Genocide". then "As They Pulled You Out of the Oxygen Tent You Asked for the Latest Party with Your Silicone Hump and Your Ten Inch Stump" 10.heroes (1977) david bowie "I, I will be king And You, You will be Queen" then "Just for One Day We can be Heroes, Just for One Day" ---- “publishing” playlist© top 10 public image ltd (david bowie) “what if the news were written this way?” ---- top 10 analysis could news be this interesting. only if it's by greg mckenna. johnny rotten. or david bowie. god save the queen (1977) put the sex pistols on the map. the queen's diamond jubilee. "no future for you" was the sex pistols assessment. pretty vacant (1977) is light almost top 40 radio. anarchy in the uk (1977) johnny rotten says he's the antichrist or is it anarchist. Metal Box (1979) johnny rotten forms Public Image Ltd launches new band with something you've never heard before. 45rpm album special recording techniques and brilliant metal flash slash metal sound. box? space oddity (1969) david bowie hits #1 with "there's something wrong" in outer space. is there life on mars? (1971) david bowie writes a song about watching television. rebel rebel (1974) david bowie is the rebel yet "how could they know". young americans (1975) david bowie says "lady's got a chrysler". diamond dogs (1974) david bowie predicts "genocide". heroes (1977) david bowie perhaps his best song ever returns to be "heroes just for one day". . new publishing schedule - - - -"valleylist" publishing schedule 2014 [google] - - - -"valleylist" publishing schedule 2014 [yahoo] . big week vacation coming back with Television's Golden Age through the end of the year and a bigger pie for everybody. . next "valleylist" v430.music-----STARZ [06.30.2017] . digital instead of regulatoryi own "valleylist". i own "high tech with mass appeal". i own "high tech and pop culture". i own "technology and politics" . what would digital be with new ideas. denounce the same old ideas only digitized. the last new digital item i saw came from NASA jet propulsion labs (1970's) in fact fully rendered scientific images too gorgeous to be believed. outer space. nasa rover was it. live from the surface of mars. perfect digital imaging. until the rover konked out. i like the entire solar system fly by then close up of each planet. digital. . conclusion as creative as david bowie. a brilliant lyricist like johnny rotten. i say nasa already won the race to be king of the digital hill. yet what to put on those new digital screens. i'd drop the doj like a hot potatoe. too much crime. no good at the news. stop reengineering right there! this is a very big mistake. i say modernize the news. . City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/21/2017 4:10 PM 3 think like johnny rotten. invent the sex pistols. break up. invent a new band. all about the media. call it Public Image Ltd. push yourself to the edge like david bowie. be creative with digital media. come up with "station to station" the berlin trilogy. . what if the news were written this way. like johnny rotten david bowie. you have greg mckenna to thank for this breakthrough concept. and i own it all. . modernize the news. . "valleylist" . . greg mckenna publisher valleylist valleylist@... . all rights reserved Now Serving 340+ California Communites Alameda County: Rio Dell Sausalito San Jacinto Santa Clara County: Berkeley Tnrndad Tiburon Unincorporated arecis Campbell Fremont Unincorporated areas Mariposa County: Sacramento County: Cupertino Hayward Imperial County; Unincorporated areas Citrus Heights Gilroy Newark Unincorporated areas Ek Grove Morgan H1U Oakland Mendocino County: San Jose San t..eandro Fort Bragg Galt Sanla Dara Un on C ty Kern County: Point Arena Rancho Cordova Un ncorporated areas Bakersfield Ukiah Sacramento Santa Cruz County: Taft Wlhts Un ncorporated areas Santa Cruz Amador County: Unincorporated areas Unincorporated areas Watsonville one Kings County: San Bernardino County: Unincorporated areas Jackson Merced County: Adelanto Avenal Atwater Chino Shasta County: Butte County: Corcoran Gustine Colton Redding Chico Hanford Shasta Lake Oroville Lemoore Modoc County: Fontana Unincorporated areas Parad1~e Unincorporated areas Alturas Hesperia Unincorporated areas Unincorporated areas Highland Siskiyou County: Los Angeles County: Montclair Dunsmuir Calaveras County: Azusa Mono County: Rancho Cucamonga Mount Shasta Baldwin Park Unincorporated .ireas Rialto Weed Angels Camp Bell San Bernardino Yreka Unincorporated areas Monterey County: Bellflower Salinas Twentynine Palms Unincorporated areas Colusa County: Calabasas Seaside Upland Solano County: Williams Carson San Diego County: Benicia Unincorporated areas Claremont Napa County: Compton American Canyon Carlsbad Dixon Cor.tra Costa County: El Monte Napa Chula V1~ta Fairfield Antioch El Segundo Unincorporated areas Del Mar Suisun City Brentwood El Ca1on Vacaville Concord Gardena Nevada County: Encinitas Valle1o Danville Glendale Nevada Escond do Unincorporated areas Lafayette Glendora Imperial Beach Hawthorne Orange County: Sonoma County: Martinez Huntington Park Aliso V1e10 La Mesa Sebastopol Oakley Irwindale Anaheim Lemon Grove Unincorporated areas Pleasant Hill La Mirada Brea National City Richmond Lancaster Buena Park Oceanside Stanislaus County: San Ramon Costa Mesa Poway Ceres Lomita San Diego WaterfO{d Pel Norte County: Long Beach= Fountain Valley Crescent City Los Angeles Garden Grove Santee Tehama County: Unincorporated areas Lynwood Huntington Beach Solana Beach Corning Mah bu La Habra Vista Teham~ El Dorado County; Palmdale Laguna Beach Urnnco,porated areas Unincorporated areas PlaceKv11te Paramount Lake Forest San Joaquin County: Tulare County: Un ncorporated areas Redondo Beach Mission V1e10 Manteca Dinuba Fresno County: Rolling Hills Estates Newport Beach Stockton Porterville Clovis San Fernando Santa Ana Tracy Coalinga San Manno Stanton Ventura County: Firebaugh Santa Fe Spnngs Westminstet San Luis Obispo County: Camarillo Grover Beach Fresno Santa Mornc-0 Riverside County: Moorpark Huron Torrance Beaumont Morro Bay Oxnard Reedley Walnut Blythe San Luis Obispo Thousand Oaks Sanger West Hollywood Cathedral City Unincorporated areas' Ventura Unincorporated areas Madera County: Coachella San Mateo County: Yolo County: . Glenn County: Madera Corona Be mont Davis Orland Desert Hot Springs Burlingame West Sacramento W1lows Marin County: Indian Wells Foster City Winters Unincorporated areas Belvedere Indio Pacifica Woodland Fairfax La Quinta Redwood City Unincorporated areas Humboldt County: Larkspur Moreno Valley San Mateo Arcata Mii Valley Palm Desert South San Francisco In Yuba County: Blue Lake Novato Palm Springs Unincorporated areas Unincorporated areas Eureka San Anselmo Rancho Mirage Ferndale San Rafael Rwers1de ~ ortuna ,. commercial on¥ ~ ; residential only '.'011 ''grene Eneru, F-.nC1 A:l 11gr.;s 1cse1verJ Yg reneWorks.com I 415.261.7578