Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170911plCC 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: 9/11/2017 Document dates: 8/23/2017 – 8/30/2017 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK AUGUST 24, 2017 1 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1-Interviews of Candidates for the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee On August 19, 2017, Chris Graham withdrew his application for the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC). Find the updated interview schedule below. 1. Wenzlau, Bob 6:00 PM 2. Mossar, Dena 6:10 PM 3. Bower, David 6:20 PM 4. Agarwal, Ayla 6:30 PM 5. Whaley, Richard 6:40 PM 6. Keller, Marilyn 6:50 PM 7. Drekmeier, Peter 7:10 PM 8. Pitot de La Beaujardiere, Cedric 7:20 PM Participating via Skype 9. Mickelson, Hal 7:40 PM Keith Bennett and Jolanta Goslawska-Uclunan are not able to participate in the interview process. They remain eligible for appointment to the SWMOC. ~ Beth Minor City Clerk 1of1 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 12:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 8:29 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:FW: Support Letter for Wilton Court Study Session 8/28 Attachments:Wilton Court Support Letter.pdf     Thanks,    B‐    Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650‐ 329‐2379  E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org      City Clerks Rock and Rule    From: Rob Wilkins [mailto:rwilkins@pah.community]   Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:02 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Support Letter for Wilton Court Study Session 8/28  Dear City Clerk, Please distribute the attached to the Council Members prior to the Study Session on 8/28. Thanks, ROB WILKINS, Director of Real Estate Development a: 725 Alma St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 o: 650.321.9709 x14 c: 415.488.7743 f: 650.321.4341 pah.community BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER August 24, 2017 Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Wilton Avenue Affordable Housing Development Dear Esteemed Commissioners, I am writing to you in support of Palo Alto Housing's proposal to develop the property located at 3709 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. As the operator of Treasure Island Coin and Stamp Shop and former land owner for this site, I am pleased to see an affordable housing project proposed. Palo Alto Housing's mission to provide affordable housing and thereby supporting a stronger, more diverse community is one of the primary reasons I was interested in selling the land to them. I have discussed the proposal with Palo Alto Housing and several community members. The "El Camino Walkers," as I call them, are a group of primarily retired people that frequently stop in my shop. They continue to express interest in the proposed project after seeing the city's posted sign and have been mostly positive and curious. I recently met with Project Manager Danny Ross who shared and updated me on Palo Alto Housing's plans. As I understand it The Palo Alto Housing proposal would include 61-units of affordable housing including some units set aside for adults with developmental disabilities. Our community struggles to provide adequate housing for our lower-income residents, and the adults with developmental disabilities would do well at this location given the well served bus lines on El Camino Real .. I strongly encourage you to support this project Sincerely, j Jt_~ Paul "Rudy" Schroeter Proprietor Treasure Island Coin and Stamp 1 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sarah Bagwell <sarah.bagwell@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Sarah Bagwell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alma Phillips <alma482@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Alma Phillips City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Liz Russell <efrussell@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Elizabeth F. Russell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 11:07 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Usman <susanlusman@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Susan Usman City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Finfrock Shirley <samfinf@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Shirley Finfrock 48 year resident of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Robert Martinson <rsmsmartinson@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Stephanie Martinson Park Blvd. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Olson <nso2431@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Nancy Olson 2431 Bryant Street Palo Alto 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing Project Support Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I urge the City Council to support the Palo Alto Housing Corporation's application for 3709 El Camino Real at Wilton Road. As a long-time member of the League of Women Voters, I concur with its letter, previously sent to you. As a long-time advocate for economic justice, this project meets our City's goal to provide more housing stock for those of more modest means. By removing "regulatory obstacles to this project" and using your Planned Community process to make this an 100% affordable housing project, you will be providing the leadership to support this project without imposing crushing conditions, scuttling the project for its developer. As a Green Acres I resident of more than 50 years, I encourage economic diversity and sensible housing policies. As someone about to move into a very successful planned community, Channing House, I know the benefit of well considered planning. Kind regards, Alice Schaffer Smith 4284 Los Palos Circle Palo Alto, CA 94306 "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 7 to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Gail Thompson <gailt1225@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Take Action NOW on Affordable Housing in Palo Alto I agreed with the letter sent by the LWV board.  Gail Thompson  LWV member  Resident of Palo Alto    From: League of Women Voters - Palo Alto [mailto:publicity=lwvpaloalto.org@mail71.atl31.mcdlv.net] On Behalf Of League of Women Voters - Palo Alto Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:05 AM To: gailt1225@earthlink.net Subject: Take Action NOW on Affordable Housing in Palo Alto League of Women Voters of Palo Alto ACTION ALERT! Members: Your LWVPA board requests that you TAKE ACTION NOW ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PALO ALTO. At our last Board meeting, your Board voted to send a letter to Palo Alto City Council asking it to encourage support of a 61-unit low-income housing project in Palo Alto at El Camino and Wilton Avenue. On Monday, August 28, at 6 pm, the City Council will be conducting a study session on the proposal. You can take individual action supporting this project by sending the following email today to the City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org): Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 9 "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. [Your signature] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 10 This email was sent to gailt1225@earthlink.net why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences League of Women Voters Palo Alto · 3921 E. Bayshore Road · Suite 209 · Palo Alto, CA 94303 · USA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 11 Carnahan, David From:Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:51 PM To:Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal) Subject:August 28, 2017, Wilton Court Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, Thank you for your efforts this year to address the housing crisis. The re-opening of The Colorado Apartments and the increase in impact fees were great steps. Palo Alto is a unique city and I’m grateful to the council for looking at targeted approaches here. As you know, we need to increase the supply of affordable housing in the region. Palo Alto has an opportunity to do this at 3709 El Camino Real. Palo Alto Housing has plans to develop units for 61 low- income and disabled residents. The location of the site makes bus transit and services accessible for occupants and could be a great model of mixed-use space. I’m writing to encourage you to remove regulatory obstacles associated with changing the comprehensive plan and zoning for this project. I hope you will be able to comply with the concessions requested. This is an opportunity to house some of our most vulnerable community members and we have a moral duty to do everything we can to move this forward in a timely way. I work for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and meet people every week who are leaving the area in search for a more livable city. Let’s take this opportunity to make Palo Alto a place that people can call their home. Best, Angie Evans 357 Everett Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 12 Carnahan, David From:Sandra Slater <sandra@sandraslater.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal In January you made housing a top priority for Palo Alto. On August 28th you have a chance to deliver on this priority. You are being asked to give direction to Palo Alto Housing on a project that can provide affordable housing to more than 60 low-income and disabled residents. These are among our most housing challenged neighbors and many have waited for years to get the housing assistance for which they are eligible. The staff report says clearly that this project meets all of the major goals of our Housing Element because they:  are 100% below market rate units  are on a major bus corridor that provides access to services (and is undergoing expansion)  provide a substantial number of new housing units (unlike many sites in the Housing Element) We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize Palo Alto Housing’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. Sincerely, Sandra Slater, President Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors Sandra Slater c. 650.520.6664 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 13 Carnahan, David From:Lynne Dotson <lyndotson@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Low-Income Housing at Wilton and El Camino Real Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Copy of LWVPA letter follows. Thank you. Lynne Dotson 1699 Edgewood Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303 "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 14 Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 15 Carnahan, David From:Catherine Crystal Foster <catherine.crystal.foster@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:52 PM To:Council, City Cc:eforbes820@att.net Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I love this city and am deeply troubled that housing prices here are making it impossible for young families and even moderate-income people to live in Palo Alto. I am encouraged that some proposals for new low income housing are on the table, however. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated:   "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi- unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low- income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I hope you will consider the LWV's request. Thank you for your consideration, Catherine Crystal Foster 1636 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 17 Carnahan, David From:V S <vhs101@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated:   "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low- income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Valerie Stinger  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 18 Carnahan, David From:Randy Mont-Reynaud <rmontreynaud@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 9:39 AM To:Council, City; info@paloaltoforward.com Subject:Affordable Housing NOW and Operationalize "Affordable" Don't shoot - we are your grandparents. Yes, time has come to BUILD and provide. I've been a renter here for 38 years and have been on the PAHC housing list for 6. It seems that units only open up when someone passes on; the system seems like "reserving your casket," or burial plot in advance. Units that are BMR supposedly require a good deal of assets and or income to pay hefty Association fees. That's a huge hardship for those on fixed and limited incomes - especially those that do not have children, wealthy children, in the area who provide for parents and save on airfare...(That's how it strikes me, when I see who gets "in" who qualifies, etc.) I'm planning to attend the program on August 28 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet. -- With warmest regards, Randy Mont-Reynaud, PhD 650 858 1558 (cell) Our 501 c-3 is "If Pigs Could Fly - Haiti" Visit us here: www.ifpigscouldflyhaiti.org And here is my blog: http://www.haitinextdoor.com/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 19 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 1:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject:PAH study session Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members, Having housing as a high or top priority means that the housing being considered (100% for low income and disabled residents) is of broad public interest to the council representing the 65,000+ residents of our city. I hope that broad public interest will lead to direction from council that maximizes the number of low income and disabled residents who are helped and does not include requirements that diminish the financial viability of the project. Every dollar that is saved is a dollar that can be used by PAH for additional housing assistance in the future. I am aware of the discussions with PAH with regard to retail at the site. I have two requests for your consideration: 1) get expert advice on the possibilities and realities at the site.I do not think an extensive consultant study is in order. The folks at the Bricks and Mortality meeting and other local experts should be able to give the council an assessment of the possibilities and challenges. I know that hopes and wishes sometimes collide with reality and that may be the case here, particularly since any retail requirement is money that PAH mostly cannot recover and is a drain on their funding ability for housing low income residents. 2) If the council decides that the public interest is served by a retail requirement that will be costly to PAH, consider paying for the costs that cannot be recouped by PAH from city funds reflecting the council's decision that retail serves the public interest. I think this is the first case where retail could be reduced, not to make way for office development, but to support the financing of the city's top priority--housing for low income and vulnerable residents. I think this merits a different perspective on the retail preservation goal and how it is paid for. Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue 5A City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 20 Carnahan, David From:Cathy Dolton <cathyjd@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 2:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Members: Your LWVPA board requests that you TAKE ACTION NOW ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PALO ALTO. At our last Board meeting, your Board voted to send a letter to Palo Alto City Council asking it to encourage support of a 61-unit low-income housing project in Palo Alto at El Camino and Wilton Avenue. On Monday, August 28, at 6 pm, the City Council will be conducting a study session on the proposal. You can take individual action supporting this project by sending the following email today to the City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org): Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi- unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low- income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 21 I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. We can’t wait to take action any longer. Leaders of groups working with children in the schools report the number of children homeless in our community is appalling made the more so because of the affluence that predominates which the many among our community enjoy. Thank you. Cathy Dolton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 22 Carnahan, David From:Phyllis Brown <pbrown@scu.edu> Sent:Saturday, August 26, 2017 2:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, We are members of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. We agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" We echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Phyllis and George Brown -- Phyllis Rugg Brown Professor of English City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 23 216 St. Joseph Hall Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 pbrown@scu.edu 408-554-4930 fax 408-554-4837 "let us have faith in each other, let us not grow weary and lose heart, for there are more seasons to come and there is more work to do." 
Hillary Rodham Clinton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:34 AM 24 Carnahan, David From:Susan Owicki <susan.owicki@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 26, 2017 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider this an opportunity for the Council to use a Planned Community process for a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Susan Owicki Palo Alto resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 2:58 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jean Dawes <jean@dawes.org> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 1:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Low-income housing project Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I am a member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. I agree with the letter sent by the LWVPA board supporting a 61-unit low-income housing at Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. That letter stated: "Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you. Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto" I echo the request of the LWVPA Board that the Council should "remove all regulatory obstacles to this project" and consider thifor a 100 percent affordable housing project. Please do not require conditions which make the project economically infeasible. Thank you. Jean Dawes City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 3:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 3:28 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:August 28, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #4: Resources Agency Grant Applications Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    August 28, 2017    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      AUGUST 28, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4  SUBMISSION OF GRANTS TO THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY  BAYLANDS BOARDWALK AND TRAIL SIGNAGE AND INTERPRETATION      Dear City Council:    I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar so that you can separate your action on the two grant applications for the Baylands Boardwalk and Baylands trails from the grant application for the Junior Museum and Zoo.    I don't believe the natural habitat of the open space area should be littered with interpretive signs, small scale sculptures, and interactive exhibits.    Isn't there a mobile app for that? If not, can someone design a mobile app for that?    Perhaps you can follow the example of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District that has provided a printed earthquake fault trail guide for the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve that can be used by anybody to understand earthquakes without needing interpretive signs, small scale sculptures, and interactive exhibits.    San Andreas Fault Trail Self‐Guided Earthquake Tour:  https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/San_Andreas_Fault_Trail.pdf The staff report for this agenda item (ID #8341) at the bottom of Page 3 and top of Page 4 says that hands-on programming for elementary school City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 3:31 PM 2 classes at the Baylands Interpretive Center is operated by the Junior Museum & Zoo. I thought the Environmental Volunteers provided that programming at the Baylands. Did the City Council decide to give the Junior Museum & Zoo a lot of money to duplicate the work done by the Environmental Volunteers? Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 2:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rice, Danille Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:49 PM To:Svendsen, Janice; Council Agenda Email; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; Tanaka, Greg; ORG - Clerk's Office Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Keith, Claudia; Flaherty, Michelle; De Geus, Robert Subject:August 28, 2017 Council Question: Item 8: Miscellaneous Gas Rate Update - Carbon Offset     Dear Mayor and Council Members:    On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to an inquiry made  by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the August 28, 2017 Council Meeting agenda Item 8:  Miscellaneous Gas Rate Update ‐ Carbon Offset.       Q1:  Why are we not meeting the California Environmental Quality Act? Is it because a project  like this does not qualify as possible to meet the review, or is it because the rate  increase is not steep enough? If it is because the rate increase is not steep enough, how steep  would we need to make it to pass CEQA review?    A1. The applicable excerpt from the memo is “The Council’s adoption of this Resolution and  rate schedule adjustments does not meet the definition of a project requiring California  Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review…and is exempt from CEQA review…”    In other  words, we are meeting CEQA.  The recommended action is exempt from environmental  analysis under the statute.      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 1:08 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rice, Danille Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:08 PM To:Svendsen, Janice; Council Agenda Email; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; Tanaka, Greg; ORG - Clerk's Office Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Keith, Claudia; Gitelman, Hillary; Cervantes, Yolanda; Flaherty, Michelle; De Geus, Robert Subject:August 28, 2017 Council Question: Item 9: Page Mill Improvements     Dear Mayor and Council Members:    On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to an inquiry made  by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the August 28, 2017 Council Meeting agenda Item 9: Page  Mill Improvements.     Q1: If Palo Alto has already heavily invested in many of the areas that this new item will be  investing in, then why is it worth it to spend $3.2 million.    A1. The agreement is proposed to fund needed improvements at two intersections and  would use transportation impact fees collected for this purpose.  The “Transportation  Impact Fee for New Non‐Residential Development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino  Real CS Zone” (PAMC Chapter 16.45) was adopted in 1989.  Needed improvements to eight  intersections were originally identified as the purpose of the impact fee based on the  impacts identified in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Environmental  Impact Report dated September 1988 and certified by the City Council on March 6, 1989.  The project list was updated in 2002 to reflect the four capacity improvements identified in  the 1998‐2010 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. These four projects, as  currently specified in the municipal code, include improvements at Page Mill/Hanover,  Page Mill/El Camino Real, Foothill/Arastratdero/Miranda, and Middlefield/Oregon  Expressway.  Improvements at the last two locations have been completed, although a  portion of the Middlefield/Oregon Expressway improvements were not implemented due  to the need for tree removal and additional improvements (a major reconstruction) at the  Foothill/Arastradero/Miranda intersection are now proposed as part of the County’s 2040  Expressway plan.  Planned improvements at the intersections at Page Mill/Hanover and  Page Mill/El Camino have not been implemented and would be accomplished through the  proposed agreement.      Q2: How does adding more lanes to a street help bikers?    A2. Hanover Street serves as a significant barrier to bicyclists traveling from College Terrace  and Stanford University to the Bol Park Path and the south side of the Stanford Research  Park. A significant number of students attending the four PAUSD schools south of Page Mill  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 1:08 PM 2 Road now utilize the inadequate sidewalk on the east side of Hanover Street to make this  connection by bicycle. There is currently a lengthy gap in the Class II bicycle lanes along  Hanover Street approaching the intersection with Page Mill Road in both directions. This  project will analyze two alternatives to improve this bicycle connection: Class II bicycle  lanes and a Class I shared‐use Path. The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle +  Pedestrian Transportation Plan and safe routes to school partnership consider this  intersection to be a high‐priority location.  Improvements for bicyclists will also be made  on the Page Mill Road approaches to El Camino Real with the construction of this project.    Q3: What percent of the design is already completed?    A3. Only concept planning work has been done for this project through the Draft  Expressway Plan 2040 and Page Mill Road Expressway Corridor Study. Final design will be  funded through this agreement.    Q4: How long will the construction for this take? How will the construction affect traffic flow?    A4. The length of the construction period and impacts to traffic flow will be determined as  part of the final design, bidding and construction phases of this project.    Q5: Why are the pre‐construction costs $1,000,000?    A5. The City contributions included in this agreement are not‐to‐exceed estimates and the  full allocations will not be invoiced by the County unless the costs are incurred by the  County. Pre‐construction costs include design, environmental analysis, permitting and  right‐of‐way acquisition. In this case, the estimate of preconstruction costs is well within  the commonly‐accepted range (15‐25%), when compared to the estimated construction  costs of $4,200,000. The true cost of pre‐construction activities will not be known until bids  are solicited for design, environmental, and permitting services.        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 1:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 1:40 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:8/28 Council Meeting Question: Item 10     Dear Mayor and Council Members:    Please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries by Council Member Tanaka regarding the  August 28, 2017 council agenda item listed below:    Item 10:  Approval of Contract with DeSilva Gates for Airport Apron Reconstruction Project    Q.1. Why can’t the airport fund start to repay the general fund in FY2018? How long will  it take for the airport fund to fully repay the general fund?    A.1. The City is currently taking advantage of funding opportunities and support now  from the FAA to address major deferred maintenance, and if we do not take advantage  of this funding the City could be solely be responsible for the deferred maintenance  from the County. By taking advantage of this opportunity it would reduce the liability  of the poor conditions. The City receives 90% Federal funding of project costs with  these grants.    The repayment of the general fund was addressed in a memo that went to Finance  Committee on May, 4 2017. In the memo it stated that the Airport fund will begin loan  repayments (including interest) in Fiscal Year 2020 and is to be fully repaid (including  interest) by Fiscal Year 2028.      Q.2. What are the contingencies to get the FAA grant to pay for 90% of the total project?  Currently, it seems as if the FAA grant is paying about 40% of the project. Why doesn’t  the grant cover a higher percentage?    A.2. The FAA is paying 90% of this project. See Page 6 of the staff report. The FAA will  pay 90% of the $10,110,415 number in the Resource Impact section. That figure  includes the $9.244 million contract amount and associated overhead and project  management.  The City will be responsible for 10% of the total, or roughly $1 million,  which is available in the Airport Fund. The City will also pursue State funding, which  could provide 5% of the Total project cost, or close to $500,000, which could cut the  City share in half, down to $500,000.  That State funding is not a given, or certain.       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:41 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:AmyMChristel <amymchristel@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 9:48 AM To:Filseth, Eric (external); Tom DuBois; Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Greg Cc:Council, City Subject:PAO Airport Apron Project question Dear Mayor and Council Members, I read with interest the staff report on the PAO Apron Project that is in your packet for the Aug 28 Council meeting. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59269 I am concerned that the City is glossing over the impact of the "expanded" apron area to the south of the existing apron which is being renovated. They seem to be using the CATEX to avoid a real environmental impact report. How is it that the area being added to the existing apron is not shown on any map or described as a number of square feet to be paved over? The report acknowledges this new apron is to be built on what is potential burrowing owl habitat; I think it makes a difference if we lose 15 sq. ft. to new apron or 15000 sq. ft. If no owls are present now, it is still habitat loss and therefore significant. This report is not being given light by the media or the city staff. Please don't allow this to rush forward without real scrutiny. By accepting grant money from the FAA you accept that citizens will have no control over how this airport operates for 20 years hence. You give over control to the FAA. Airport operations have a huge negative impact on the city's sustainability goals. Air travel is NOT green. We, PA taxpayers are now funding the survival of this airport and most in Palo Alto derive no benefit from the nerve grating overflights that the airport seeks to expand. More training flights, tours and taxis in the air will not helping our quality of life or the fragile baylands ecosystem. Look back on promises made by PAO supporters when the city took it over from the county. No mention that the taxpayers would be $3+ million into this albatross three years later. The airport staff claim they will begin repayment in 2020--but at what level of operations and crushing impact on residents both here and in surrounding communities? This needs a public hearing and I can't be present on Monday to speak. This is very short notice on a project that will have great impact for decades to come. Sincerely, Amy Christel Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 3:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 3:34 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:Council, City Subject:PAO Apron Project Question Dear Ms. Hodgkins, I am looking at the Notice of Exemption in Attachment B of the Palo Alto Airport Apron project. It states: Reasons why project is exempt: Categorical Exemption Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the one replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. The proposed project includes reconstruction of the existing apron parking facility area and its replacement in the same location. Although there is a minor additional paved area proposed within the facility fenceline, this paving would not increase the capacity of the parking facility area to allow for more tie-downs. The total airplane tie-down capacity would remain unchanged but is being re-marked to comply with Federal Aviation Administration standards. I have three questions for you: 1) What is the area (in square footage) that is being added to the existing paved area at PAO? I do not see numbers, just vague assurances that it is "minor" or "insignificant". 2) Why does this new pavement not trigger a more rigorous environmental review? The Baylands ecology is impacted by new pavement as well as the closer proximity of aircraft to Embarcadero road! Runoff from the pavement is a consideration, as permeable surfaces provide added flood mitigation services. I assume the new pavement is not a permeable surface. 3) The majority of aircraft using PAO are burning leaded fuel so rain runoff is toxic. How will this factor be dealt with in the new parking area? The statement I have highlighted above evades the real environmental issue, which is the impact of added pavement, not added plane parking! Thanks for your quick reply. Sincerely, Amy Christel Midtown Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 11:34 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Epstein, Jessica <EpsteinJ@samtrans.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 11:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain comment on SB 797, agenda item 19 Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers: On behalf of the Peninsula Join Powers Board (Caltrain) I am writing to express our strong support for Senate Bill 797 (Hill). We hope you will join us in a Declaration of Support for SB 797 which is before you on Agenda Item 19. Caltrain is the only passenger rail service in the country without a dedicated permanent source of funding. With ridership demand expected to continue to rise, it is essential that the agency be equipped with the resources to maintain and increase service throughout the Peninsula. This bill would authorize Caltrain to levy a one-eighth cent sales tax in the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara for the purpose of operating, maintaining and improving Caltrain commuter rail service. The tax would be subject to approval of two-thirds of all the voters in the three counties. We are entering this process thoughtfully and deliberately by developing the Caltrain Business Plan. Through collaborative thinking and discussion with a breadth of interested parties, as well as significant technical analysis, we aim to answer critical questions about Caltrain’s future. We will examine what the service and infrastructure needs will be and how the Caltrain system will evolve from what it is today to what it will be in the future as we plan for significant regional growth. Answers to those questions do not exist today, but they will with the completion of the Business Plan at the end of 2018. SB 797 will ensure that Caltrain is poised to secure voter-approved dedicated funding in 2020 to support the long-term needs identified through the Business Plan process. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Jessica Epstein  Government and Community Affairs Officer  1250 San Carlos Ave  San Carlos, CA 94070‐3006  Direct Line: (650) 622‐7863  Email: epsteinj@samtrans.com        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 4:30 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:August 28, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #19: SB 797 Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    August 28, 2017    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      AUGUST 28, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #19  SB 797 -- OPPOSE    Dear City Council:    I urge you to oppose SB 797 that was most recently amended in the Assembly on August 24, 2017.    You did not receive a copy of SB 797 at the time you received the staff report.    The staff report for this agenda item (ID # 8415) says "SB 797 is a bill primarily seeking to alleviate the gridlock on Highway 101 and reduce regional traffic congestion by expanding Caltrain service" and "Caltrain still must address a structural deficit that leaves the agency vulnerable in years of ridership decline or economic downturn."    In other words, staff wants you to support a bill that will pay for increasing Caltrain seat capacity and also pay for imaginary train riders in the vacant seats that will be created when the seat capacity is increased.    Thus, the sales tax would be used for the capital cost of building new passenger cars and electrifying the trains, and would also be used to pay for the operating costs when there is ridership decline or economic downturn.    It is a myth that Caltrain electrification and expansion would alleviate the gridlock on Highway 101 and reduce regional traffic congestion.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:55 PM 2 Any reduced traffic caused by vehicle riders becoming Caltrain riders will simply provide space for the vehicles of additional employees of large corporations that have an insatiable desire for growth, are the main beneficiaries of any Caltrain expansion, and could afford to pay for the expansion themselves.    The proposed sales tax is a regressive tax that would be paid for by the overwhelming majority of the residents of the three counties whose annual individual and household income is less that the typical Caltrain rider.    According to the 2016 Triennial Customer Survey Results presented to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board May 4, 2017, board meeting, "About one-third have been riding less than one year", "Most customers commute to work", "About a third of new riders began riding Caltrain due to a change in company", and "40% of Caltrain riders were born outside the United States".    This Caltrain rider demographic data is the result of expansion, recruitment, and employment decisions made by the large organizations along the Caltrain corridor who want to continue to expand but don't want to pay for the transportation costs of their employees.    The San Jose Business Journal of May 8, 2017, identified some of these organizations, the number of their employees, and their Caltrain station, including Salesforce, Twitter, and Uber at San Francisco station; Genentech at South San Francisco station; Mills-Peninsula Health Services at Burlingame station; Gilead at Hillsdale station; Oracle at Belmont station; Electronic Arts and DPR Construction at Redwood City station; Facebook and Robert Half International at Menlo Park station; Tesla, Palantir Technologies, and Stanford University at Palo Alto station; Alphabet at Mountain View station; Yahoo at Sunnyvale station; Intel and Nividia at Santa Clara station; and Apple and Cisco at San Jose station.    Google's desire to develop a major employment center at the Diridon (San Joe) station should be added to the above list.    2016 Triennial Customer Survey: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Director s/Presentations/2017/2017-05-04+Triennial+Survey+Results.pdf Last Monday's Daily Post column by editor Dave Price reminds us of the City Council's unanimous vote [8-0, Yiaway Yeh absent] to endorse Proposition 1A to provide bonds for the California High Speed Rail Authority.  I spoke against Proposition 1A at the Council's October 8, 2008, meeting when that unanimous vote occurred. (See PDF pages 13-15 of the October 8, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:55 PM 3 2008, City Council Minutes at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/14098.)  The Council should have opposed Proposition 1A before the vote, instead of opposing the California High Speed Rail Authority only after Proposition 1A was adopted with the Council's support.  Don't wait to oppose Caltrain's sales tax funding proposal until after a sales tax measure is adopted with your support.  The time to oppose SB 797 is now.  Thank you for your consideration of these comments.  Sincerely,  Herb Borock              City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Lamont <carol@lamont.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 5:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@paloaltoforward.com Subject:3709 El Camino Real: Palo Alto Housing Prescreening To Palo Alto City Council Members:  The City of Palo Alto needs to take urgent and strategic steps to increase the availability of affordable homes. The  proposal submitted by Palo Alto Housing for prescreening to construct a mixed use development with 61 affordable  apartments at 3705‐3709 El Camino Real provides an excellent opportunity to open more doors to homes for lower  income people in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing Element. I urge the City  Council to make appropriate amendments to the Plan’s Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate this  development and similar developments that offer 100% affordable homes.     The diversity and stability of our community is at risk and this requires the City Council to take immediate action to make  changes to encourage and facilitate the development of more affordable homes. I urge the City Council to take action to  implement Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 listed in the staff report for tonight’s Council study session on this matter.    Sincerely,    Carol Lamont  618 Kingsley Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 2:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:nwbell@juno.com Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Aircraft Noise Please act upon the recommendations about aircraft noise from The Sky Posse organization. The aircraft noise is increasing. Norton Bell, nwbell@juno.com Palo Alto ____________________________________________________________ Actress Tells All: "I Felt Bloated, Tired...Now I Know Why" ActivatedYou http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/59a48dca68ffddca6097st03vuc Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet.SponsoredBy Content.Ad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:linder dermon <lindermon4@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Animal services/Pets in Need changes Dear Council (Women and Men):  As a resident of Palo Alto and a volunteer at the Palo Alto Shelter, I have several issues to discuss with you.    First, the idea that Animal Services comes under the "humane society" umbrella does not elude me. To even consider A  CHANGE in the CURRENT INCLUSIVE POLICY of accepting a wide range of breeds and assortment of animals without  prejudice, and further :protecting, nurturing,nursing, and rehab/training these animals in a "no kill" shelter is decidedly  INHUMANE (and ironic).  In addition, by volunteering at the shelter (and I hope each of you has visited our exemplary  staff and animal services shelter multiple times before making such a huge change), I can attest to the love, nurturing,  competence, and attention that the staff gives to our animals.  Both the community (people and animals alike) benefit in  myriad ways from the folks at the shelter. Again, not humane treatment ‐this time towards the people there. I question  how much real input and consideration the staff was given.  I really don't know, but it appears that many of us were  "blindsided" by the Council's decision to change.    I'm disappointed that a public discourse (I mean,  really VISIBLE and UPFRONT) and robust debate has not occurred over  the course of your decision to change stewardship of the shelter. I have high regard for the Pets in Need organization.  They do fine work;they really do.  However, they serve a different niche in both clientele (I.e. The animals) and services.   I implore you as a longtime Palo Alto resident and Animal Services volunteer, to reconsider the enormous consequences  of your decision for all concerned (friends furry and non‐furry).    Respectfully yours,  Linder Dermon, Volunteer    Sent from my iPad    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:tanli su <tanli.su@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 10:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Anti-Idling Educational Video Hi, Here is the link to our anti-idling educational video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea5CSQ0Ki_Y Thank you! Tanli Su City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:26 PM To:bbaxley@baxleydillard.com; jtierney10@gmail.com; rufus@rufusedmisten.com; Keene, James; Scharff, Greg; Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; LaDoris Cordell; Kniss, Liz (external) Cc:jeff.modisett@snrdenton.com; babrams@abramslaw.com; Thurbert.Baker@dentons.com; TBaker@dentons.com; paul@bardackeallison.com; bonnie.campbell@iowa.gov; rcooper@bassberry.com; info@diamond-robinson.com; Rufus.Edmisten@edmistenwebblaw.com; tfahner@mayerbrown.com; lee.fisher@csuohio.edu; cgorman@cssattorneys.com; harshbarger@casneredwards.com; pcharvey@pbwt.com; okoppell@koppellaw.com; wlockyer@brownrudnick.com; bmontgomery@mslawgroup.com; mm@mikemoorelawfirm.com; ttroy@eckertseamans.com; cnriddle@kasowitz.com; info@civilrights.org Subject:Attorneys General Call for Strong Response to Hate James Tierney; Bill Baxley; and fellow Attorneys General City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 2 http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/11/kiss-my-ass.html I commend you on your rebuke of "hate," "bigotry" and "intolerance."  http://www.stateag.org/tierney-blog/2017/8/21/a-courageous-response-to-the-voice-of-hate  http://www.snopes.com/attorney-general-of-alabama-told-the-klan/  https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/08/21/us/ap-us-confederate-monument-protest-attorneys-general.html Here in Palo Alto California a cabal of citizens who have taken control of the local government not only condone but actively encourage their police officers to usurp the "Rule of Law" by violating the Constitution and the Constitutional Rights of fellow citizens; police officers who engage in unethical and illegal acts to retaliate against and persecute citizens whom they and their superiors deem inferior to themselves, the epitome of "hate." City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 3 Chief among them is City Manager James Keene, Mayor Greg Scharff, Police Chief Dennis Burns, Police Auditor Michael Gennaco and several other officers. Despite numerous requests to cease and desist their hateful acts this group ramps up its persecution perpetuating the mindset and behavior that has been instilled in them for over two decades. http://resisthate.weebly.com/ PAPD destroy evidence and falsify audio/video recordings to conceal their crimes and falsely and wrongfully incriminate a citizen of a crime City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 4 http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/ http://chiefburns.weebly.com/ http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html http://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/da-cover-up.html http://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/ Just one month ago two of their, PAPD's, officers knowingly and deliberately falsely arrested me as an act of violent intimidation and unlawful search and seizure. Combined with their past acts of false allegations, slanderous statements and attempts to entrap or frame me for a crime the egregiousness of this latest acts is amplified ten fold. http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/false-arrest.html Given James Keene's refusal to reign in his officers it is only a matter of time before they strike again, no doubt over this exercise of 1st Amendment Right. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 5 The Politically Persecuted of Palo Alto  Palo Alto Police, Lt. April Wagner, conspire with local business to help frame community activist Chris Lund on behalf of the business:  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/10/20/palo-alto-officer-taped-released-private-call  Teen who did not resist or run when detained by Palo Alto Police is attacked by a police dog taking a chunk out of his leg according to his attorney -- (It appears like times in the past allegations of police misconduct that the video of the incident is lost)  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/dog-attack.html  http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/systemic-flaws.html  Palo Alto Police Retaliate against one of their own:  http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/ryan.html   Palo Alto Police with the aid of the DA attempt to frame a man, Galbraith, for murdering his wife -- Family spends $800,000 to clear his name while only recouping $400,000, a net $400,000 loss  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/04/29/who-is-sgt-michael-yore  http://www.topix.com/forum/source/palo-alto-daily-news/T1PSOJK5CSE5JIQ9J  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695276204/Theres-more-to-story-than-cold-hard-cash.html?pg=all  http://truthinjustice.org/galbraith.htm  Tyler Harney Case - two MAV systems malfunction simultaneously and therefore do not record the beating and permanent damage done to Harney's shoulder.  http://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/harney.html  http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_26242251/man-sues-palo-alto-police-over-alleged-civil  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo-alto-settles-suit-after-allegations-of-excessive-force  https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439/76  https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439  http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07/29/man-sues-palo-alto-police-over-alleged-civil-rights-violations/   http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo-alto-settles-suit-after-allegations-of-excessive-force  Palo Alto Police Officer allegedly instigates altercation with citizen at gym to create bogus criminal charges  http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/adrienne-moore.html  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/sop.html  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/1899   Police Auditor Finds Numerous Missing Videos  http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing-videos.html  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/police-auditor.html City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 6  Sgt. Powers and the Jorge Hernandez case - using false evidence to induce a false confession:  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-true-confession/  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html  Palo Alto Police retaliate against police watchdog for exposing their corruption and for destroying exculpatory evidence and editing audio/video recordings  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-8.html  The Cover Up of Albert Hopkins by Dennis Burns:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/hopkins-2.html  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_06_08.officers08mb.shtml  Sgt. Michael Yore Children’s theater case  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/04/29/who-is-sgt-michael-yore  http://www.topix.com/forum/source/palo-alto-daily-news/T1PSOJK5CSE5JIQ9J  PAPD Changes it's Story in the Killing of Burglary Suspect Pedro Calderon  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/Calderon-Contradiction.html  PAPD officers attempting to frame Jerold Rob Reed Jr.  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/03/24/court-throws-out-case-due-to-police-error  The false prosecution of David Carlson  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Child-molestation-charges-dismissed-in-Palo-Alto-2878276.php  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html  Lt. April Wagner caught lying under Penalty of Perjury:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/wagner.html  Lt. April Wagner attempted to falsely incriminate Mark Petersen-Perez  http://paloaltofreepress.com/santa-clara-county-district-attorney-jeff-rosen-refuses-to-investigate-charges-of-rape/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 7  Lt. April Wagner, Ofc. Dan Ryan, Former City Attorneys Gary Baum and Donald Larkin Slander Petersen-Perez resulting in the loss of employment.  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/Petersen-Perez.html "Love does no harm to a neighbor....Love your neighbor as yourself....So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Jesus "do not do to another what you would not want done to you." AD 100 Didache Definition of bigot 1. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot Definition of ethnocentrism 1. :Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnocentrism Definition of fascism 1. :Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Tony Ciampi Tierney Blog A COURAGEOUS RESPONSE TO THE VOICE OF HATE August 21, 2017 A bi-partisan group of 67 former Attorneys General of the states and jurisdictions today pointed to the example of one of their colleagues to remind us all of the moral imperative to respond directly to those who amplify the voices of hate. See the statement below issued by the former Attorneys General, and here is the link to former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley‘s response to the KKK: Did the Attorney General of Alabama Once Tell the Ku Klux Klan to 'Kiss My Ass'?http://www.snopes.com/attorney-general-of-alabama-told-the-klan/ _______________________________________ STATEMENT BY FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:52 AM 8 THERE ARE TIMES IN THE LIFE OF A NATION, OR A PRESIDENT, OR A STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHEN ONE IS CALLED UPON TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE VOICE OF HATE. AS FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL - WE TAKE THE LIBERTY OF REMINDING AMERICANS - AS WE REMIND OURSELVES - THAT EVENTS CAN CALL OUT THE WORST IN US -- AND THE BEST. IN 1971 THE TWENTY-NINE YEAR OLD ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA BEGAN HIS QUEST TO BRING TO JUSTICE THE PERPETRATORS OF THE BIRMINGHAM CHURCH BOMBING WHICH KILLED FOUR LITTLE GIRLS. IT WAS A CRIME ROOTED IN HATE AND HIS DETERMINATION TO PROSECUTE THE CASE GAVE RISE TO VOICES OF LEADERS OF HATE. HE FACED POLITICAL FUROR, LACK OF COOPERATION FROM FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND CONSTANT THREATS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND DEATH. BUT HE PERSISTED. IT TOOK YEARS BUT HE OBTAINED A CONVICTION. IN 1976 WHEN THE GRAND DRAGON OF THE KU KLUX KLAN WROTE A THREATENING LETTER AND DEMANDED THAT ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BAXLEY RESPOND DIRECTLY TO HIS LETTER, HE DID. WE COMMEND HIS RESPONSE (SEE LINK ABOVE) TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL WHO SEEK TO EQUIVOCATE IN TIMES OF MORAL CRISIS. FORMER ATTORNEYS GENERAL,....................More http://www.stateag.org/tierney-blog/2017/8/21/a-courageous-response-to-the-voice-of-hate When Rufus Edmisten was 31 years old, he delivered a subpoena to the president of the United States asking for tape recordings from the Oval Office. It was July 23, 1973, and “it had to be the hottest day in the world,” he told me last week, 44 years later. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/watergate-lawyer-the-trump-administration-would-fire-mueller-at-their-peril/531504/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:59 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:jay whaley <whaley_jay@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Aug 29 City Council Meeting discussion : Airplane Noise Dear members of the City Council,  We urge you to continue to advocate and support the recommendations listed in the Aug 27,  2017 letter from the Sky Posse Palo Alto members. Your support is crucial and much  appreciated, as the FAA deliberates action on the impact of airplane noise from aircraft  landing at SFO on our community.  Sincerely yours,  Sallie and Jay Whaley  24 Crescent Drive  Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:greenacres@sonic.net Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 12:37 AM To:Council, City Cc:James Colton; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; mck333@gmail.com; evahgal@gmail.com Subject:Bike box encouraging bad behavior? I witnessed two really concerning incidents with middle-school bicyclists Friday that could easily have ended badly for the bicyclists except for sheer luck. Both incidents relate to the new bike box on Donald. In one incident, a car was properly waiting on Donald to turn left onto Arastradero, behind the bike box, in the left lane, with a left turn signal on. The light was red. A middle school cyclist went charging up from behind the car, full speed, and pulled TO THE LEFT of the left-lane car to get ahead of the car and follow the new arrows to the left onto Arastradero. To do this, the bike RAN THE RED LIGHT at which the car was waiting. The bike never used the bike box, but instead appeared to behave as if the setup/arrows gave her priority in the intersection to turn left before the cars (she adhered to the arrows like a guided path). I have never, ever seen that behavior at that intersection before in years of seeing the intersection almost daily, and frankly that cyclist is really lucky she wasn't broadsided and run over (the traffic in the Arastradero direction happened to slow for the yellow just then, but that light has been run by Arastradero traffic even when red). Just moments earlier, I was driving within the neighborhood and pulled up to an intersection with a stop sign in my direction, with my left turn signal on. A bicyclist at the intersection in the bike lane to my right suddenly stuck out her arm for a left turn and raced across my bumper to make a left turn. I was still moving but had slowed enough that there was just enough space between me and the edge of the intersection for the bike to fit perpendicular to the direction of traffic, but not parallel as a vehicle. The behavior indicated a sense of boldness or even entitlement to priority in the intersection, and turning left across my path, even though the DMV rules clearly state that bikes are vehicles that should not turn left across the path of cars but rather should change lanes and move over to the left side of a lane to turn left. The DMV handbook says to bicyclists, "Never make a left turn from the right side of the road, even if you're in a bicycle lane." The cyclist would have been far safer crossing the intersection and then proceeding left, and since she was already at the intersection on the right rather than the left side, that would have been one choice. Instead she behaved just as if there was a hockey stick bike box like the one on Donald. This event could be a coincidence, but it's quite a coincidence. As I pointed out in an earlier email, I have also recently witnessed a near miss head-on collision involving a minivan at the green markings on Park near the Alma onramp that was clearly the result of confusion related to the way the road is marked. I want to again express a concern in general about busy new "safety" features based on aspirations/desires and theoretical opinions with little data rather than strong data and good information about conditions in specific locations. Safety features must be obvious or they are not safety features. You cannot solve overdevelopment pressures on infrastructure and safety by marking up every street with "creative" and confusing new wish-filled directions. You cannot create space from nothing when you have crowded out the requisite space for the necessary infrastructure. The purpose of bike boxes is to create visibility for bicyclists, etc., especially to avoid "right hook" conflicts when cars turn right and don't see cyclists which is simply not the problem at that intersection when the bikes City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:56 AM 2 are there because of the crossing guard. Look at the photos of bike boxes in this Urban Bikeway Design Guide from the National Association of City Transportation Officials: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway- design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/ In every last photo, the bike boxes are of sufficient space themselves and IN EVERY CASE are part of a large, open streetscape, and serve a purpose of elevating the status of the bicyclists on the road, essentially. In no instance - in not a single example - does the bike box cause a complete loss of visibility/loss of line of sight for the cars at the intersection in relation to cross traffic as has happened at Donald, WHICH IS UNSAFE, even while the bike box at Donald is far smaller than any of the examples (and serves more to encourage bicyclists to think of the bike "box" as a path in front of cars to cut across their bumpers to go left). There is simply no space at that intersection to make a bike "box" work the way any of the examples from the NACTO guide work. (Even assuming, it was necessary to begin with - it isn't.) From what I have witnessed, young cyclists now seem to feel safe to engage in unsafe and un-recommended behavior because of it. This setup was sincerely but badly conceived, without information from people who know the intersection and the behavior of all vehicles from regular use. The motivation was sincere, as it always is, but when coupled with the belief that it's always possible to overcome any overdevelopment and overburdened streets and infrastructure with a lot of busy directions and green paint, it's a disaster. It certainly does not improve safety, and it is almost certainly compromising safety. The City has no excuse for not contacting residents for their input on this (even less so for the inexcusable falsehood in a recent letter that staff tried to contact residents and could not). This setup, with the shoehorned hockey stick bike "box" and no visibility for the cars to cross traffic is simply unprecedented; safety features should not be experiments with Palo Alto's children as guinea pigs. The City should reverse this until it has discharged its duty to get actual feedback from those most familiar with the intersection and street, gotten data on this unprecedented new form of bike box (especially given its considerable compromise of visibility for the cars) and weighed the potential downsides of the changes, of which my experiences recently may be emblematic. Anne City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:54 AM To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com Cc:Keene, James; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Keith, Claudia; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external) Subject:Both of you are the equivalent of consumer fraud - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 8/13/17, 4:40 AM #RacialProfiling by @PaloAltoPolice 'racial bigotry hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated' Sessions @PaloAltoCityMgr pic.twitter.com/CNCs2YGBJp Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:20 PM To:'Lynn Hollyn'; Council, City Cc:CriticOne@metricus.net; ddbb1513@yahoo.com Subject:RE: Thank you for writing to City Council, Lynn, and for sending us a copy of your letter!    Jeanne    From: Lynn Hollyn [mailto:lynn.hollyn@gmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 1:26 PM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: CriticOne@metricus.net; ddbb1513@yahoo.com  Subject:     to the city council of palo alto! I beg you! Please do not allow Verizon to erect cell towers in our neighborhood! Protect our beautiful tree-lined trees--- their natural beauty and aesthetics-- our home value and our idyllic peace and quiet. It is also urgent to stop the planes flying overhead--- and now-- the proliferation of more and more planes flying at dangerously low altitudes (as i understand it against the law) so so low that it takes my breath away and often keeps me indoors because the noise is so deafening.studies have shown that it is safe to fly over the bay at the proper altitude. i moved to palo alto from rural Connecticut because the neighborhood (Old Palo Alto) was beautiful, peaceful and quiet... yet with a community for my four young children. It remained so till my children graduated and increasingly, selfish people allow barking darks, or talk on cell phones and if we don't prevent it will allow cell towers (and more and more planes to be above our homes. many of us work and walk in our neighborhood and value it greatly. my studio is facing the street and i bring services to the community and volunteer work so i hope you listen. and can you please outlaw blowers? leaves are wonderful mulch for the earth's habitat and leaf blowers disrupt our peace an that of the land. the dust and noise pollutes the air. as you walk through the neighborhood it is a hazard. marin has oullawed them all and we must become mindful... or the essential values of nplao alto!!! as for the cell towers please forbd these ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting antennas! sincerely, lynn hollyn 455 seale ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:15 AM 2 cc: Jeanne Celia if there is a petition for these things i will sign.   ‐‐   lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:15 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 6:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell phone tower on Los Robles and Villa vera Dear City council, I realize that there is a proposal to install a cell phone tower that is just a few feet away from my home - 4010 Villa Vera. I strongly oppose this plan and believe it will negatively affect the neoghborhood aesthetics, home values, and possibly my family's health. I urge you to help us in making sure this antenna is not installed so close to our community. Thanks for your consideration. Jyotsna Nimkar 4010 Villa Vera palo Alto 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:15 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:joe@joesimitian.com Subject:Cell Towers Dear City Council: I am writing to you today to add my voice to the many who are concerned about the proposed cell towers in Old Palo Alto and South Palo Alto. I have been out of town and when I returned, I saw a sign on the telephone pole that is located steps away from my home at 663 Lowell Avenue. The sign is notification to use the telephone pole to erect a cell tower. This is not what should be happening in our beautiful residential neighborhood. Placing cell towers on our lovely, tree-lined streets will greatly decrease the aesthetics of the neighborhoods for which we are well known. In addition, there will be steady hum of noise coming right from these towers. These factors will cause a negative effect on our home values because of the aesthetics as well as the noise. They will be a significant nuisance to all of us. Other California communities, including Berkeley and Palos Verdes have been successful in passing ordinances to protect their neighborhoods from the cell comapnies' unattractive, noisy, and radiation-emitting antennas. I understand that since 1996, the Telecom Act prohibits the city from fighting back on the basis of health concerns. However, I would be seriously remiss if I didn't express those concerns right now. I have small children, as do others in my neighborhood. I am extremely concerned about them being virtually steeped in constant radiation 24-7. Our radiation-emitting equipment has increased drastically since guidelines were established over 20 years ago. No one really knows what the long-term health impact of living in such close proximity to towers such as the ones proposed. I am especially concerned about health effects for all in our neighborhoods. My late husband, Gary Fazzino, died in 2012 from a cancer that is very often associated with various environmental exposures. I fear that this radiation emitting from the towers attached to our telephone poles will increase the levels of illnesses, including cancers, to those living in our beautiful community. Please follow the examples of other California communities. Prohibit the building of cell towers in our residential neighborhoods. Keep Palo Alto beautiful and peaceful. Protect our property values. These are the allowable concerns for passing such ordinances. But, most importantly, please keep my family and all of our residents safe from the unknown effects of constant radiation emissions. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Annette Evans Fazzino 663 Lowell Avenue City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Stump, Molly; City Attorney; Keene, James Subject:City Council: Please say where you stand on Verizon towers in residential neighborhoods Attachments:10_DP_08_22_17.pdf Here is an article on the proposed cell towers that appeared in The Daily Post.  10 Daily Post Tuesday, August 22, 2017 NEWS 20% off Any One Item NEW CUSTOMERS Excludes sale items & delivery service. Expires August 31, 2017 926 El Camino Real, San Carlos (650) 595-0300 Peninsula’s Only Complete Backyard Birding & Nature Store (650) 941-9898 355 State Street DOWNTOWN LOS ALTOS Mon-Thur 11:30-9:00 • Fri-Sat 11:30-9:30 • Closed Sunday VEGETARIAN MENU AVAILABLE • BROWN RICE AVAILABLE • GLUTEN OR WHEAT-FREE OPTIONS DINNER SPECIAL Sushi Dinner for Two Dinner for Two INCLUDES: Miso soup & salad • Dragon roll 8 pcs. (a la carte price $16.95) Tekka 6 pcs. • Combination Sas 6 pcs. (chef’s selection only) • California roll 3pcs. • Angel roll 8 pcs • Ice cream INCLUDES: soup, salad, rice, vegetable tempura appetizer, honey walnut prawns (4 pcs) & your choice of 2 of the following entrees: Chicken, Beef or Tofu Teriyaki or Salmon Shioyaki, top it off with ice cream. • CA Rolls (6 pcs) • Angel Rolls (Spicy) (8 pcs) • Walnut Prawn Rolls (4 pcs) • Agetashi Tofu (4 pcs) • Baked Mussels (4 pcs) FREE SPEND $40 DOLLARS BEFORE TIPS & TAX and choose one item for FREE below: ITEM OF YOUR CHOICE Cannot be combined with any other offer. Expires 8/31/17 Cannot be combined with any other offer. Offer expires 8/31/17. (Reg. Price $59.95) 3295$ Offer expires 8/31/17. Must present ad before ordering. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Total Value $69 27$SAVE4299$   970 W. El Camino Real, Suite 1, Sunnyvale Q (650) 282-5555 Q info@i-smiledental.com Your one stop for multi-specialty dental excellence Dr. Kim DDS MSD PhD UC Clinical Professor, 20 years of Prosthodontics, 7000 Implants Placed iSmile Implant Centre ‡,PSODQWV ‡3URVWKRGRQWLFV ‡*HQHUDO ‡3HGLDWULFV ‡3HULRGRQWLFV ‡(QGRGRQWLFV ‡2UWKRGRQWLFV Dr. Nguyen DDS MS Dr. Navarrete DDS MSD Dr. Ikeda DDS MS Dr. Yoon DMD MS iSmile Orthodontic Centre Four Experienced Orthodontists (QGRGRQWLVW Dr. E. Kim DDS: Columbia U. 3URVWKRGRQWLVW Dr. C. Kim DDS, MS: Columbia U 3HGRGRQWLVW Dr. Pang DMD: NYU ISMILE SPECIALTY CENTRE (BOARD CERTIFIED SPECIALISTS) +++++ )LYH6WDUV5HYLHZ 5DWLQJ out of 1000+ Reviews www.i-smiledental.com www.i-smiledental.comE* /-U",/" " / -LIMITED TIME OFFER Braces Special $2000 " 0% Interest financing available up to 20 times. LIMITED TIME OFFER Implant Special $4000 " “«>˜ÌÊwÝÌÕÀiÊ³Ê ÕÃ̜“Ê LÕ̓i˜ÌʳÊ“«>˜ÌÊ ÀœÜ˜ 0% INTEREST FINANCING AVAILABLE FROM THE REGULAR PRICE FROM THE REGULAR PRICE , Ê"*   Come visit us at our new location! , Ê    - (FOR INSURED PATIENTS) Menlo Park 3539 Alameda de las Pulgas, 650.854.8226 Palo Alto 855 El Camino Real, #49, 650.327.8226 San Carlos 876 Laurel Street, 650.596.8226 OPENING SOON Los Altos 163 Main Street, 650.559.8226 MUST PRESENT COUPON Valid at all LuLu’s Mexican Restaurants. Cannot be combined with another other offer. $3 Tuesday Regular or Street Tacos Taco Limit 6 per coupon.Fish and Shrimp excluded. Offer valid until 8-31-17. ® Come Sing With Us To audition please contact us: info@cantabile.org | 650.424.1410 | cantabile.org Classes are conveniently located in Los Altos Students Experience: * The joy of singing with artistry and mastery * Personal growth and development * Fun, friends and community that last a lifetime * Learning from exceptional faculty * A collaborative choral community for the whole singer Music Education for the Whole Singer Classes for boys & girls ages 4-18 Auditioning for our 2017-2018 Season NOW Verizon plans spur fears By MATTHEW NIKSA Daily Post Correspondent Palo Alto residents appear di- vided over whether the city should allow Verizon to install almost 100 cellular service devices on utility poles in certain residential neigh- borhoods. The city signed a license agree- ment with Verizon last year that allows it to attach cell devices the size of a shoe box to existing city utility poles or install new 120- foot poles. Verizon has already installed 19 devices to improve cellular recep- tion in downtown Palo Alto. Veri- zon pays an annual license fee to the city for each installation. City Council has received letters from those who oppose and support the installation of the devices. “I am concerned about the radi- ation emitted by these (devices),” said Stephanie Norton in a letter to council. Resident Joyce Yang also ob- jected to Verizon’s plans. “Please help protect our neigh- borhood environment and aesthet- ics,” Yang said in an Aug. 15 letter. Radiation worries disputed Resident Juliana Walrod said in an Aug. 13 letter to council that she backed the new cell devices. “Not only will they (devices) help me get decent internet, they will also help many others,” Wal- rod said. Tom Hoster, who lives on the 2300 block of Byron Street in the Old Palo Alto area, disagreed with those who say the devices will en- danger residents’ health. “The point that these (devices’) antennas will cause ‘health issues’ is completely unsubstantiated,” Hoster said in a letter to council. “The antennas will work inside of federal guidelines, as they do in hundreds of other cities around the country.” Hoster said the fact that these devices emit radiation should not stop Verizon from installing them. “They (opponents) fi nd the (cell) tower radiation distressing,” Hoster said. “They don’t fi nd the radiation emitted by their phones to be a concern?” Certain areas targeted? Verizon plans to install 92 small cell devices on city poles in Palo Alto. The city’s Architectural Re- view Board did a preliminary re- view of the project design in May, but Verizon has not submitted a formal project application to the review board. Jeanne Fleming, who lives on Webster Street in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, said Verizon’s devices will be an “unsightly addi- tion” to the neighborhood’s streets. “These devices are sure to pro- duce an unpleasant 24/7 hum and lower our home values,” Fleming said in an email to the Post. Verizon is targeting Old Palo Alto and south Palo Alto neigh- borhoods for its cell device instal- lation, Fleming said. Old Palo Alto is bounded by Embarcadero Road, Alma Street, the Oregon Express- way and Middlefi eld Road. “Verizon has not yet revealed the proposed locations for all 92 installations, but they’ve put 40 locations on the table, all south of Embarcadero Road, all in neigh- borhoods with above-ground util- ities,” Fleming said. Fleming was also concerned that devices would increase the city’s radiation level and create health issues for residents. What does the law say? According to federal law, cities cannot prohibit wireless commu- nication companies from using their city poles because of health and safety concerns, but there are other ways a city can deny them. Fleming said cities have the right to bar cell companies from install- ing devices if they lead to other problems, such as loud noise or a drop in property values. Heidi Flato, Verizon’s public relations manager on the West Coast, said the fi rm has had three meetings with residents to discuss its plans and aims to hold several more in the near future. 92 proposed cell devices prompt health concerns City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 4:38 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Stump, Molly; City Attorney; Keene, James Subject:Hold hearings on Verizon's proposal to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods Dear City Council members, I am writing to urge you hold hearings on the issue of allowing Verizon to install noisy, ugly, radiation- emitting towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. Council member Greg Tanaka has offered his support for adding these hearings to the Council’s agenda, and I hope the rest of you will do the same. So you know, a lively meeting at Mr. Tanaka’s office this morning found 11 out of the 13 attendees (Mr. Tanaka limited attendance to a dozen people) strongly opposed to allowing any additional cell tower installations in our neighborhoods. Please let me know where you stand on the issue of adding this issue to the Council’s agenda. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming  Jeanne Fleming, PhD 2070 Webster Street 650-325-5151 JFleming@Metricus.net     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Nick Koshnick <koshnick@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 3:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Verizon Support I received a written letter at my door urging me to write to you (city council) about taking every step possible to defend our neighborhood's aesthetics, home values and peace and quite. The letter specifically suggested to block installations of additional verizon wireless towers. I think installing new towers is a good idea. Good coverage is essential for services both for residents (when outside their internal wifi networks) as well as for the many other members who our visit our community for business or other reasons. I believe that the number one threat to the community is the inability to serve members other than wealthy land owners who, quite frankly, spend too much time worrying about protecting our massive land values and not enough time ensuring all the other parts of a vibrant, diverse, entrepreneurial, kid-friendly community stays in tact. Please take this perspective into account. Nick City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Barbara <myjuno91@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:no cell towers   Dear City Council,  Please do not allow Verizon, or any such corporation, to install radiation emitting antennas in our neighborhoods.  No  matter what they look like, they emit radiation that is known to be hazardous to our health.  Long term health effects  ARE known, despite what their lobbyists say.  Sincerely, Barbara Lilley                      1818 Emerson St    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Ann Bowers <asbowers@noycefdn.org> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 6:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:verizon proposal I urge the council  to hear  the Verizon ‘plan to add cell phone towers in old palo alto at the next council meeting. I am  an old palo alto resident and have utility poles on both sides of my property. These cell phone towers are noisy ugly and  possibly dangerous. They certainly will not add to the charm of this part of palo alto. The community at large should  have a chance to weigh in on this proposal…which most of us think will benefit Verizon and not us.  Ann bowers  1664 Waverley street.      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 6:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Installing Verizon antenna in Barron Park Dear Palo Alto city council, I urge you to add an item to the City Council meeting agenda tomorrow to hear from Palo Alto residents who strongly oppose Verizon’s plan to install towers in residential neighborhoods- in my case, less than 10 feet from my home. I feel this will adversely affect the aesthetics and value of my home and most importantly pose a health for my family. I look forward to you support for my concerns. Thanks Jyotsna Nimkar 4010 Villa Vera Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Allen Edwards <allen.p.edwards@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 9:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Verizon cell towers I hate to bother you with this issue but there is an organized effort on Nextdoor website to flood you with letters. I think the concerns of the letter writers are ill advised, based on ignorance of the science, and could put the city at odds with Federal law given the fact that another carrier, AT&T already had micro cell sites rolled out. You don't want to have the city accused of favoring AT&T over Verizon. Please move forward with Verizon's plan to install their towers and improve call service for their customers. PS I am a T-Mobile customer so have no horse in this game. Allen Edwards 186 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 11:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Anti Verizon To Palo Alto City Council members: Please add my name and my husband's name to your list of residents who have given the Verizon issue much thought and strongly oppose Verizon's attempt to use Palo Alto's telephone poles for commercial purposes. This would be a real "freebie" for Verizon, an invitation to other such vendors, and most importantly a betrayal of the citizens of this community who have legitimate worries about their long term health and the defacing of our neighborhoods with noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting devices. Allowing Verizon to leave their mark in our neighborhoods, whether on city telephone poles or otherwise, would be yet another bad decision by Council members thinking more about commerce than about the welfare and wishes of the citizens they represent. Council members who support Verizon's plan can expect to lose votes in the next election. This is a serious issue, worthy of serious consideration. Sincerely, Barbara Kelly 444 Washington Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:John 'Jay' Koval <john@kovalfamily.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Verizon Micro Cell Installations City Council,  Please add my household to the list of supporters of this effort to add the additional micro‐sites. As an electrical  engineer, the discussion of the effects of radiation is unsettled science by the uninformed. There is more radiation effect  when you hold the phone to your head, the field from the cell tower is reduced by the square of the distance from the  antenna. By the time it gets to us, the field is extremely small, much smaller than the phone in your hands’  transmissions.    For all of those who are against it, I assume that they do not have mobile phones if they are worried about radiation.  You might want to ask them!    One request that would make this a lot more sensible to serve the constituents of Palo Alto, would be to require sharing  of any of these micro cells by ATT, Verizon, Sprint, T‐Mobil, etc. There is no reason to install 5x the necessary number  when they should be sharing the use of our public property. The is not only technically feasible, but relatively simple.    Regards,  John Koval  492 Tennyson Ave  Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:CHRISTY NEIDIG <christyneidig@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 6:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item Please add to your upcoming agenda: a hearing on the Verizon plan to install towers in our residential neighborhoods. This is a topic of great concern to the residents of Old Palo Alto, and seems to be ignored by the Council as to its importance. Christy Neidig 2126 Webster Street Palo Alto, 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 8:24 PM To:Council, City Cc:Jeanne Fleming Subject:agenda Please join councilman Tanaka and me and my neighbors, in adding the proposed Verizon cell towers in our neighborhood-- and its devastating effects--to the agenda. Thank you!! Please will all nine (eight others) of you send a response? Many thanks!!! This is essential. Lynn Hollyn -- lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:58 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:celia chow <celia.cchow@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 9:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Council's meeting tonight Please add to your agenda a hearing on Verizon’s plan to install towers in our residential neighborhoods in tonight's meeting. My neighbors and I will attend the meeting. Thanks! Celia Chow City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 10:59 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 10:47 AM To:Council, City Cc:Janice Chiu Subject:Add item to agenda on hearing Verizon’s plan to install cell towers in our residential neighborhoods. Hi, My wife and I are resident of 3715 whitsell Ave, the site of one of the proposed cell towers. We'd like to add an agenda item to tomorrow's city council meeting to hear more about Verizon's plans. Thx, J City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 2:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rob Wilen <rob@wilen.net> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 12:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Verizon cell towers While I am not a Verizon customer, I support Verizon's plan to place low power cell sites on city utility poles. This is a superior solution to large, unsightly, sparsely distributed cell towers which force phones to operate at higher radio power. -- Robert M. Wilen 420 Lowell Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mari Varma <marivarma@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 1:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received ---- Please forward this email to all City of Palo Alto Council Members --- Greetings Council Members, My neighbor told me about a follow up meeting, hosted by Greg Tanaka, for folks who sent emails regarding the Verizon plan to install cell towers. Why was I not invited to this meeting? I would have liked to have had the opportunity to express my thoughts on this important matter. I understand that Verizon is moving forward with this installation. I urge all City Council Members to take a more pro- active stand and hear the voices of all of us living in Old Palo Alto and not just a few. This is a very important issue for all of us. Regards, Maricela Varma Dear City Council member, I am writing to urge you to stop Verizon from installing noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting cellular towers in the heart of Palo Alto’s beautiful residential neighborhoods. Specifically, I ask you to: 1. Direct City staff to take every step possible to aggressively defend the aesthetics, home values and peace and quiet in our lovely neighborhoods as they deal with Verizon. 2. Direct City staff to reject any plan that would single out some neighborhoods for these installations while exempting others. I say this because Verizon has proposed to put towers only in neighborhoods whose utilities the City has not moved underground. Hence they have applied to install towers in, for example, Old Palo Alto and South Palo Alto, but not Crescent Park. Just because it is convenient for Verizon to install its equipment on existing utility poles, does that mean the City should allow some neighborhoods to be burdened with these noisy, unsightly, home-value-lowering towers while others are not? Of course not. That’s unfair. 3. Direct City staff to seek guidance from other California cities that have successfully prevented cell phone companies from installing their antennas in residential neighborhoods. Berkeley and Palos Verdes are two such cities. Both used the vehicle of “prioritization” to keep the cell industry’s installations away from people’s homes. 4. Hold public hearings on the cell tower issue. 5. If needed, pass new ordinances by urgency measure—tougher ordinances that go into effect immediately and apply to any cell industry application not yet approved. I understand the City cannot successfully fight these installations on health and safety grounds. But it can fight back—and win—on the grounds of neighborhood aesthetics, home values and noise. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 2 Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate it if you would let me know your views on this issue. I know there are many Palo Altans as concerned as I am. Sincerely, Maricela Varma 2299 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 650.327.6096 From: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> To: Mari Varma <marivarma@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:36 PM Subject: Your e-mail to City Council was received Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:David Schwab <dschwab@verticalventurepartners.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:58 AM To:Council, City Cc:CriticOne@Metricus.net; ddbb1513@yahoo.com Subject:Verizon Towers. Please. No Verizon towers. I agree with the assessment from the neighborhood. 1) only targeting neighborhoods with poles; not right. 2) they hum; I have heard them. 3) health issues from radiation are a major concern. My family is very much against this. What can we do to stop it? Regards. David Schwab David Charles Schwab Managing Director Vertical Venture Partners 3000 Sand Hill Road 2/145 Menlo Park, CA 94025 www.vvp.vc City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:request to add a hearing on Verizon's cell tower plans Dear City Council members:    I am requesting you to add to your agenda a hearing on Verizon’s plan to install towers in our residential neighborhoods.  These cell towers will be a detriment to our city with regard to neighborhood aesthetics, home values and noise.     It is understood that the cell towers Verizon is planning to install here are principally to provide better service to drivers  on main roads such as Oregon and Embarcadero ‐ rather than for the benefit of Verizon customers who live here!     Thank you for your consideration.    Regards,    ‐Phil Coulson    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Kris <kzavoli@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:I want better cell coverage! We've lived in Palo Alto since the inception of cell phones. Reception was adequate originally. Now it is horrific. I have to go outside to take cell calls and evendors then I'm incessantly told I'm "breaking up." Please don't listen to the squeaky wheels. Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:John Rollins <jwrollins3@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cell reception Hello, I seem to recall your consideration of new cell towers recently. We recently built a new home in Old Palo Alto and have come to realize that cellular connectivity is extremely poor in all areas of the property. I would never have expected that in the heart of Silican Valley! I would like to express my desire for more cell towers in the area to at least be on par with the rest of the United States. Thank you for your consideration, John John W. Rollins 1801 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 jwrollins3@icloud.com 302.530.3210 (mobile) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 10:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shiyao Liu <icy4327@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cell phone tower on Suzanne Drive Hi council members,    I just heard from my neighbors that Verizon requested permission to put a cell tower at Suzanne Drive, as a resident in  Palo Alto Orchards, I don't want this installed in our neighborhood.    Thank you.    ‐‐  Shiyao    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:48 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Marianne McKissock <mck333@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:57 PM To:Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah; Corrao, Christopher; Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City Cc:Ruth Satterthwaite; Marianne McKissock; Kathleen M Eisenhardt; evahgal@gmail.com; Dave Tanaka; James Colton; Tomas Kong; Furman, Sheri; Anne Lumsdaine; Cindy Ziebelman; jihirschpa@earthlink.net Subject:Excessive Number of Traffic Markers The 41xx block of Donald Drive now has nearly 40 traffic markers including:  13 Signs  17 painted road mark  Plus lane divider marks, green bicycle box, green bicycle path and red gutter  Also there are 2 traffic cameras plus their signs. That is excessive for one residential block and has done nothing to improve the traffic, bicycle behavior or safety. In fact is it is much worst now with the blocked visibility and narrowing of lanes near Arastradero. What department/person is responsible for monitoring the cameras and what have they shown? Is there a summary or report available? It is time to stop cluttering up our residential neighborhood by throwing more signs and paint on the problem. Most of this should be removed. This needs to be addressed in a sensible matter, which includes input from the neighborhood instead of just bureaucratic groups. Marianne McKissock Donald Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 10:59 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Briggs Nisbet <briggs@godetia.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:FAA Phase Two report on Airplane Noise Dear Councilmembers, I live in the Palo Verde neighborhood and have been much affected by the increase in noise from frequent overflights to San Francisco Airport, and from San Jose Airport, I am also concerned about the fallout of particulate pollution from jets flying just a few thousand feet overhead. I attended the final meeting of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals where it was apparent that Palo Alto residents' concerns were not being addressed, and the severity of the airplane noise in the heavily trafficked corridor over Palo Alto was essentially ignored in the Committee's responses to the FAA. It was also apparent that neighboring cities are taking a "NIMBY" attitude that results in opposition to adoption of potential solutions to the noise problem over Palo Alto. We need representation for Palo Alto residents on this issue! Please consider obtaining technical analysis of the Phase Two report as it affects Palo Alto residents--in particular, the evolution of traffic levels (# of planes, altitudes, night time flights) for the Southern, Northern, and Westerly arrivals into SFO. And I urge the Council to take whatever measures possible to advance viable solutions to the problem of jet noise over Palo Alto. It's not going away and will increase over time. We need you to act on our behalf now. Thank you. Briggs Nisbet and Christian Crumlish 864 Rorke Way, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 12:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]   Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2017 2:28 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Financial Times Land Grab Article  Here is a scanned copy which probably has copywright protection. I am not sure the best way to place the article into public record. I defer to you. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Virus-free. www.avast.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:42 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John McGilvray <jdmcg@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 2:17 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Stephens, James Cc:Ron Wilensky Subject:First Baptist Church CUP To: The Palo Alto City Council, Mr. James Keene, and Mr. James Stevens As so many neighbors have already told you in letters, telephone calls and emails, although we are sympathetic to the needs and desires of the First Baptist Baptist Church to offer fee-based community or business services at its facility on California Avenue, this activity has generated a dramatic increase in daily and nighttime traffic and use of on- street parking. We live on South Court and on an almost daily basis, we have encountered vehicles overlapping crosswalks, blocking part of our driveway, making U-turns in the middle of the block, or people sitting in their cars with their doors open. We have had a number of near- accidents because drivers are looking for parking spaces and not paying attention to traffic. We see students bicycling to and from Jordan at risk because the preoccupied parents dropping off or picking up children at the Church are not paying attention to bicycle traffic. We note that many churches and other community organizations strongly support the community-based activities of the First Baptist Church, and have urged the City Council to approve a CUP to allow them to continue to do so. However, the offering of such activities is not the issue. We agree that it is a normal and proper function for a church, and most other Palo Alto churches do offer many such activities. But they all (to our knowledge) have adequate on-site parking to accommodate attendees or are in areas zoned as commercial/residential. The First Baptist Church has only a very few parking spaces, forcing most attendees to park on the street for both day and night programs and activities. It is the parking and related traffic issues that cause us to oppose the issuance of a CUP for the Church. We are a residential community, zoned as such, and allowing and encouraging the fee- based activities to continue at the First Baptist Church by issuing a CUP will have a negative effect on our neighborhood. Please do not allow this to happen. John and Catherine McGilvray City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 10:59 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Stephens, James Subject:First Baptist Church of Palo Alto On Aug 25, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> wrote: On Aug 25, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am writing this note to register the iSing event that took place yesterday afternoon and last night, August 23, 2017. At my home at 349 North California Avenue in Palo Alto, I was attempting to rest after returning home from an inpatient medical procedure. Unfortunately, I was denied the needed calm in which to rest. This particular meeting of iSing was marked by heavy drum pounding and periodic explosions of high pitched screaming through open windows about fifty feet from the chair in which I spent the afternoon. I understand that iSing and the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto enjoy considerable support among the citizens of Palo Alto who live at some distance from the church itself . I also understand that the group further enjoys the energetic support of the widely revered one-time quarterback of the San Francisco 49s, a former neighbor who has chosen to move elsewhere and return only to bring his daughters to participate in the noisy iSing functions. Furthermore, I gather from the local press that you, the city council, were charmed by the impromptu singing of the iSing girls in council chambers. Council chambers, however, are a long way from the family rooms, bedrooms gardens, back decks and patios of many of the citizens you were elected to represent and who happen to live within screaming distance of the First Baptist Church. I ask only that you do what you can to protect those of us who live here now. Sincerely, Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 loymartin@icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 12:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:47 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Stephens, James; Kou, Lydia Subject:Fw: First Baptist Church of Palo Alto...305 N. California Ave. Attachments:June 14, 2017 305 California Ave.pdf To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council: At Council Member Lydia Kou’s suggest in the e-mail below I am forwarding to you a copy of the public comments submitted to the Planning & Transportation Commission at its June 14, 2017 meeting concerning a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the New Mozart School of Music at the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto at 305 N. California Avenue. The Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report #8177 is in the city’s archives at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/5 and for your convenience a copy is attached. The school was denied a CUP and will be moving to new facilities in Palo Alto. However if you will be considering a CUP for a community center at First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, which is located in the midst of a quiet residential neighborhood, please take into account the traffic, parking, safety, and noise issues addressed by the Church’s neighbors in the public comments relating to the music school. These comments would apply equally well to other activities that will generate traffic and noise on a regular basis, such as music and dance groups that meet at the church. The church is at the intersection of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard and the two bike lanes on North California Avenue. Bryant Street and North California Avenue are two of the main pedestrian and bike routes to Jordan Middle School 0.6 miles away. The absence of adequate parking at the church results in dense street parking and heavier- than-normal vehicle traffic during the afternoon drop-off and pick-up times, resulting in potentially unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestians. Noise from large music groups in the afternoon and evenings (some of the dance groups operate until 11pm) carries far because the meeting hall windows and doors are kept wide open. Ms. Kou summarized it fairly in her e-mail: “Music programs are important especially to the youth, yet at the same time, residents should be able to have peaceful enjoyment at their homes.” So I ask that the Council take into account the interests of both the church and its neighbors when deciding whether to grant CUP for secular activities at the church. Thank you. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 12:22 PM 2 Best regards, Ron Wilensky  Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Aug 26 at 2:11 AM ToRonald Wilensky Dear Mr. Wilensky, Please circulate to the whole Council and encourage your neighbours to share their experiences. The public comments and Planning and Transportation meeting minutes, when this topic was discussed at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, did not come to Council as the First Baptist Church withdrew its CUP application and it was taken off the Council agenda. Music programs are important especially to the youth, yet at the same time, residents should be able to have peaceful enjoyment at their homes. Kind regards, -------- Lydia Kou - Council Member Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Kou, Lydia" <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2017 2:11 AM Subject: Re: First Baptist Church of Palo Alto...additional document Dear Mr. Wilensky, Please circulate to the whole Council and encourage your neighbours to share their experiences. The public comments and Planning and Transportation meeting minutes, when this topic was discussed at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, did not come to Council as the First Baptist Church withdrew its CUP application and it was taken off the Council agenda. Music programs are important especially to the youth, yet at the same time, residents should be able to have peaceful enjoyment at their homes. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 12:22 PM 3 Kind regards, -------- Lydia Kou - Council Member Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS From: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com>  Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:33 PM  To: Kou, Lydia  Subject: Re: First Baptist Church of Palo Alto...additional document Dear Ms. Kou: I found a more complete document containing comments about the CUP for the New Mozart School of Music. Following is the link and attached is the PDF file itself for the Planning & Traffic Commission Staff Report (ID # 8177): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58205 While the comments in this document refer to the music school, which was the subject of the Staff report, they are indicative of the type of complaints the City is likely to receive if it considers allowing a large number of non-church activities at FBCPA that result in similar noise, parking and traffic problems in our neighborhood. Best regards, Ron Wilensky City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:59 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Timeline for San José City Council Review of the Formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on South Flow Arrivals     Thanks,    B‐    Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650‐ 329‐2379  E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org      City Clerks Rock and Rule    From: Webb, Jim [mailto:JWebb@sjc.org]   Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 5:30 PM  To: Scharff, Gregory (internal) <Greg.Scharff@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk,  City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Timeline for San José City Council Review of the Formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on South Flow Arrivals    Mayor Scharff:    At its February 27, 2017 meeting, the San José Airport Commission recommended  the formation of a roundtable committee to discuss the concerns of residents from  surrounding communities with the noise impacts of “south flow procedure” used at  the Airport. In response to the Commission’s recommendation, Airport staff is  proposing the formation of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee for South Flow Arrivals  for City Council review. Because some of your constituents may have an interest in  the formation of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, I wanted to briefly outline the  timeline for the staff report to go through the City Council’s review process.     The staff report on the formation of the Committee is currently scheduled to be  reviewed by the City Council’s Transportation and Environment Committee (T&E)  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:59 PM 2 on September 11. The T&E meeting will take place in the Committee meeting  rooms Wing of San José City Hall. The meeting will begin at 2:00 p.m.     Council and Committee meetings are also recorded and cablecast live. If you are  unable to attend, you can see the meeting live (under “Currently in Session”) or at a  later time convenient for you (under “Recently Archived Meetings”) by going to the  following weblink: http://sanjose.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=51    If the T&E Committee approves staff’s proposal to form an ad hoc advisory  committee, the staff report and the T&E Committee’s action on the staff report will  be reviewed by the full City Council at its meeting of Tuesday, October 3. The City  Council meeting will begin at 1:30. (NOTE: The ad hoc advisory committee item will  NOT be among the first items reviewed by the Council.)     In compliance with the Brown Act, the report will be available on the T&E  Committee’s website at least seven days prior to the Committee’s meeting date.  However, with Labor Day falling on the Monday a week before the meeting, the  report will be available on the Committee’s website no later than 3 p.m., Friday,  September 1.  The Committee’s website can be found at:  http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=429. The staff report can be found on  the Committee’s website under the September 11 agenda. I encourage you to  share this message with your colleagues and appropriate staff.     I hope this information is helpful.      James Webb, Jr. | Assistant to the Director  Office: 408.392.3609 | jwebb@sjc.org  Mineta San José International Airport  1701 Airport Blvd. Ste B‐1130, San José, CA 95110  flysanjose.com | facebook | twitter | linkedin      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 10:18 AM To:Ro Khanna; United States Senate; Joe Simitian Subject:Gelatin in vaccines carries glyphosate, may cause autism An educational email forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com AUGUST 15, 2017 from World Mercury Project led by J.F. Kenndey, Jr Weeding Out Vaccine Toxins: MMR, Glyphosate, and the Health of a Generation * Glyphosate residue in vaccines might induce autoimmune responses like autism * Glyphosate (Round-UP) now found in vaccines * Gelatin used as stabilizer can be source of contamination with glyphosate * This autoimmune attack on nerve fibers in the brain can cause autism symptoms * Unhealthy gut microbiome is necessary factor for autism to develop * Glyphosate residue in food sets a child up to fail following an MMR vaccine. * Vaccinated children have more autism than unvaccinated ones * Children today are lost generation. We need to change forced vaccines and the California law forbidding school without large numbers of UnSafe vaccines. Vaccine makers need to be responsible for damages. By Dr. Stephanie Seneff (She is researcher whose biography is at end of this article.) Glyphosate, often sold under the brand name “Roundup,” is the most widely used weed killer in the U.S. Glyphosate is a “non-selective herbicide,” which means it kills many plants, not just weeds. It kills them by interfering with the production of critical proteins necessary for growth. In commercial agriculture, Roundup is used on “Roundup Ready” crops—crops that have been genetically modified to resist the powerful toxic effects of glyphosate. The list of Roundup Ready crops includes soy, corn, canola and sugarbeets. It is important to remember that, while these plants have been modified to resist the harmful effects of glyphosate, the people and animals that eat them have not. It is important to remember that, while these plants have been modified to resist the harmful effects of glyphosate, the people and animals that eat them have not. In a series of articles, my colleague Anthony Samsel and I have been exploring the connection between glyphosate and a number of diseases, including multiple sclerosis, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer. In our most recent article, “Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases VI: Prions, Amyloidoses and Autoimmune Neurological Diseases,” we present evidence that glyphosate has made its way into several widely used vaccines. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 2 We describe how the glyphosate residue contained in vaccines might induce the kind of autoimmune responses typically observed in autism. Interestingly, of all the vaccines we tested, MMR stood out as consistently having the highest level of glyphosate contamination. This fact may help explain why the MMR vaccine, which contains neither mercury nor aluminum, has been implicated so often in vaccine injury and autism. How Might Glyphosate Make Its Way into Vaccines? Vaccines can become contaminated in many ways. One potential source of contamination is the animal tissue (chicken embryo, fetal bovine serum, monkey kidney, etc.) that is used as a culture medium to grow the viruses contained in vaccines. The measles virus for the MMR is grown on gelatin made from the bones and ligaments of commercially raised cows and pigs, animals that have been fed a steady diet of Roundup Ready corn and soy feed. Gelatin is also used as a stabilizer in vaccines, creating another possible route of contamination. As Roundup producer Monsanto itself has reported, the residue from glyphosate tends to accumulate in the bones, marrow, and collagen-rich ligaments of animals. Anthony Samsel confirmed this finding in his own study of the bones, marrow, and other parts of pigs and cows, as well as the derived bovine gelatin. To provide additional evidence that gelatin is the source of glyphosate contamination in vaccines, Samsel looked at a number of gelatin-based products, including Jell-O, gummi vitamins, and protein powders. He also looked at digestive enzymes such as trypsin and lipase. He found significant glyphosate residue in all of them. It should come as no surprise, then, that all of the vaccines that list gelatin and bovine serum as ingredients tested positive for glyphosate, while those that contained neither of these ingredients tested negative. Glyphosate may be contributing to another source of vaccine contamination. In a recent study published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, researchers were shocked to discover a variety of toxic metals in a number of common vaccines. Platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium all showed up in the MMR vaccine. The source of these contaminants is considered to be a mystery. It is interesting to note in this context that glyphosate was first patented as a pipe cleaner due to its remarkable ability to chelate metals. It may be the case that glyphosate is playing a role in extracting metals from containers during the manufacture of vaccines. My research leads me to believe that synergistic toxicity between glyphosate and vaccines, particularly MMR, is a major factor in the growing autism epidemic. The severity of MMR-related adverse events, as reflected in the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, has increased steadily in recent years—along with the use of glyphosate on corn and soy crops in the U.S. Some of the reactions that have become significantly more common after 2002 compared to before 2002 are seizures, anaphylactic shock, asthma, autism, eczema, irregular heart rate, and ear infection. Of course, correlation does not prove causation; it is important to understand how glyphosate residues might disrupt the body’s immune system. How Might the Glyphosate in Vaccines Cause Autism? In our recent article, Samsel and I describe how the measles virus in the MMR, which is grown on nutrients contaminated with glyphosate, could incorporate this glyphosate into its own proteins, as a coding error, in place of the amino acid glycine. Glyphosate is a glycine molecule with an additional methyl phosphonyl group attached to the nitrogen City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 3 atom, and we have argued that a key mechanism of its insidious cumulative toxicity is its ability to substitute for glycine by mistake during protein synthesis. Haemagglutinin is the main antigen produced by the measles virus that is responsible for inducing an antibody response to the vaccine. A glyphosate-contaminated haemagglutinin molecule from a measles virus will be much more allergenic than one that is free of glyphosate. When the measles virus from the vaccine gains access to the brain, the brain’s immune system acquires antibodies to this abnormal haemagglutinin molecule, and then, through molecular mimicry, these antibodies become autoantibodies to myelin basic protein, a basic component of the myelin sheath. This autoimmune attack on the nerve fibers in the brain disrupts neuronal communication channels, causing the symptoms of autism. Vijendra K. Singh and his colleagues at Utah State University have published multiple papers, dating back to the 1990s, proposing that an autoimmune attack on the myelin sheath due to a viral infection may be a causative factor in autism. In their 2002 paper, “ Abnormal Measles-Mumps-Rubella Antibodies and CNS Autoimmunity in Children with Autism,”they concluded that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” A paper published by Dr. William Shaw in 2017 discussed a set of triplets—two boys with autism and a girl with a seizure disorder—all of whom had high levels of glyphosate in their urine and a disrupted gut microbiome, which he proposed was a causative factor. Gut Dysbiosis: a Primary Factor Not all children will respond to a glyphosate-contaminated vaccine in the same way. A key factor that increases susceptibility of the brain to damage is an unhealthy gut microbiome, which leads to a leaky gut barrier and subsequently a leaky brain barrier, via a tight communication channel between the gut microbes and the brain. Prior chronic exposure to high levels of dietary glyphosate can set a child up for a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, together with many colleagues, published a seminal article in the Lancet in 1998 on a case study of twelve children, all of whom had a gut disorder and all of whom suffered onset of gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms following MMR vaccine, with regression into an autism-like syndrome.” Parents of eight of the children cited MMR as the trigger for their child’s decline. Wakefield was among the first scientists to recognize the important role of a disrupted gut microbiome in the etiology of autism. Unfortunately, the Lancet paper was later retracted and other researchers were very slow to follow up on this important lead, although finally today an unhealthy gut is recognized as a key feature linked to autism. Dr. Wakefield recognized that the children in his study suffered from a leaky gut barrier, as a consequence of damage to the lining of the small intestine. This lining is covered with millions of small projections called villi, creating a huge surface area for the absorption of nutrients. The cells that form these villi, called enterocytes, begin life as an undifferentiated stem cell in the “crypt” area of the intestines. From there, they proliferate and mature as they migrate up the walls of the crypt, and then settle in on the surface of the villi, where they absorb nutrients before dying and getting replaced by new arrivals in a constant renewal process, as illustrated in Figure 1. Glyphosate, as an amino acid, is actively imported into cells along L-type amino acid transporters. Cells that proliferate, like enterocytes, express high levels of these transporters, and therefore preferentially take up glyphosate. In Celiac disease (gluten intolerance), the enterocytes are destroyed more quickly due to exposure to glyphosate and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 4 other toxic chemicals. This damage causes the cells to proliferate more quickly, in order to replace destroyed cells. Increased proliferation causes an increase in the uptake of glyphosate, creating a downward spiral. Thus, glyphosate residue in food sets a child up to fail following an MMR vaccine. Wheat, barley, oats, chick peas, lentils, and sugar cane are not glyphosate resistant, but glyphosate is frequently used as a desiccant or ripening agent for them right before harvest, and it is actively taken up by the seed. Some of the highest levels of glyphosate have been found as a contaminant in these non-GMO foods, so eating “non-GMO” is not adequate for glyphosate avoidance. Glyphosate is not allowed in organic agriculture, so buying USDA certified organic foods is the best option. Children with autism often suffer from gluten intolerance, and I believe glyphosate is a major causative factor in both conditions. Figure 1: Schematic of the enterocytes in the villi lining the walls of the small intestine, which migrate upward from the crypt to the villus as they mature into functioning enterocytes from initial stem cells. These cells are especially vulnerable to glyphosate toxicity, leading to a leaky gut syndrome. A Lost Generation We have been misled for far too long by the claim that vaccines are “safe and effective.” It is not at all clear that inducing specific antibodies to a small set of infective agents, such as the measles virus, while weakening the immune system’s ability to fight off all the other infective agents in the environment, is the best way to deal with infectious disease. As we have seen, antibodies can become autoantibodies and attack the body’s own tissues, leading to chronic diseases that are often worse than the infectious diseases they protect from. Vaccinated children suffer from many debilitating neurological and autoimmune diseases in far greater numbers than unvaccinated children. The manufacture of vaccines is a tricky process, and along with the acknowledged toxic ingredients like mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde, they also have been found to contain contaminants like glyphosate and toxic metals that may well be the biggest contributors to severe adverse reactions. As we have seen, antibodies can become autoantibodies and attack the body’s own tissues, leading to chronic diseases that are often worse than the infectious diseases they protect from. Children today may already be a lost generation, but several policy changes need to take place in the immediate future to save subsequent generations from a similar fate. We need to repeal the 1986 legislation that protects pharmaceutical companies from liability when a child’s life is ruined by a vaccine. This will surely pressure them to try harder to keep impurities out of vaccines. We need to eliminate laws such as California’s SB277 that prevents unvaccinated children from enrolling in public or private schools, and be vigilant to ensure other states don’t follow suit. Then parents will be empowered to make decisions about the best path towards building a strong immune system in their child. Part of that program needs to be a switch to a 100 percent USDA certified organic diet, in order to protect children from the dangers posed by toxic herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Finally, we need to insist that our elected representatives pass laws that protect consumers from products like glyphosate, which are designed to disrupt processes that support life. PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER: Exposure to glyphosate may play an important role in the development of autism. Top 5 Reasons to Avoid Glyphosate Exposure 1. Glyphosate is a “Probable” Carcinogen City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:39 AM 5 In March of 2015, scientists at the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen. The IARC report linked glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans and to cancer in laboratory animals, and indicated it can cause “DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells.” 2. Glyphosate is a Patented Antimicrobial Agent Glyphosate disrupts the gut microbiome leading to the overgrowth of pathogens and inflammatory bowel disease. 3. Glyphosate Negatively Impacts the Brain According to the National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State University (NPIC), glyphosate exposure has been linked to developmental effects when administered to pregnant rats in high doses. 4. Glyphosate May Disrupt the Reproductive System The Western world faces an epidemic in declining sperm quality. The NPIC links high dose exposure in rats to negative reproductive effects. 5. Glyphosate May Be a Critical Factor the Autism Epidemic Much evidence supports this, including disruption of the gut microbiome, chelation of important minerals like manganese and zinc, and extremely high correlations between time trends in autism and in the use of glyphosate on core crops. AUTHOR Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. She has a BS degree from MIT in biology and MS, EE and PhD degrees from MIT in electrical engineering and computer science. She has published over 200 peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals and conference proceedings. Her recent interests have focused on the role of toxic chemicals and micronutrient deficiencies in health and disease, with a special emphasis on the pervasive herbicide, Roundup, and the mineral, sulfur. She has authored over thirty peer-reviewed journal papers over the past few years on these topics, and has delivered numerous slide presentations around the world. Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 2:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 11:43 AM To:French, Amy Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Brad Ehikian (PPM); Jon Goldman; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan Subject:375 Hamilton Attachments:PkgD ltr 04072017 (5).pdf Good morning Amy, I have serious concerns regarding 375 Hamilton, mostly regarding the "walkway" parallel Waverley and behind 558-560 Waverley St. For as long as I remember, since such building was built in 1938, this "walkway" has been and is actively used by delivery trucks servicing the stores on Waverley St., specially the restaurant that takes deliveries several times a day and has scheduled grease trap evacuations. The delivery trucks park in the existing parking spaces and use the "walkway" to reach the stores. How will deliveries take place or service trucks reach the stores in Garage D's design? Will the stores continue to be permitted to park in the "walkway" for deliveries and servicing? Will the "walkway" be permitted to be used for ingress and egress to the Waverley properties, specially for residential occupants? Secondly, the "walkway" is only 16 feet wide. This is too narrow for entering and exiting the "walkway". This is of special concern for the properties on Waverley St as such properties are ideal locations for housing above the commercial areas. Thirdly, the width of the "walkway" is further reduced by the planters and seating along the "walkway", making it even more punitive for accessing the Waverley properties. These concerns were discussed with Holly Boyd and others in Public Works (see attached). I would appreciate meeting with you soon, ahead of the ARB hearing, to discuss the above. I would prefer resolving these issues to avoid delays in and appeal of this project. Please set an appointment with me to discuss. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 650 814 3051 P. 0. Box 204 Palo Alto, CA 94302 April 7, 2017 The Hon. Mayor Gregory Scharff and City Council City of Palo Alto Re: Parking Garage D -Hamilton Ave. and Waverley Street Preliminary designs for Garage D will be presented to you on Tuesday, April 11, 2017. As the owners of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed parking facility and designated Lot 85 on your drawings, we present our concerns. 1. LOSS OF ACCESS. We are concerned about the loss of vehicular access to the rear of the building. We plan to add 2-3 residences to this building in the future, with terraces and exterior doors and windows. That will require up to 6 on-site parking spaces with access from the west side of the building fronting the proposed parking structure. The pedestrian access path running north-south needs to allow vehicles to go through to provide such access. Lot 85 is home to a restaurant on the ground floor and offices above. In addition to placing trash and recycling dumpsters at the rear of the building, vehicular access to Lot 85 and an off- street loading area are essential to evacuate the grease trap, and for daily deliveries of foods and supplies. 2. SHADOWS. We are concerned about the loss of natural fresh air and sunlight from a new, tall parking structure south and west of the building. The building today receives abundant fresh air and natural light on its side and rear exposures (nominally, south and west exposures). Also, the rooftop is a natural candidate for future installation of solar panels. Having stated our principal concerns, we also reiterate that we support the construction of this parking facility as a needed improvement to the downtown amenities. We offer the following suggestions: 1. VEHICULAR ACCESS. Ensure that the pedestrian walkways shown between the parking structure and Lot 85 are retained. Further, provide vehicular access to the rear of Lot 85 for services, deliveries and future on-site parking. The rear walkway is currently shown as 16' wide. Increasing its width to a 20' wide driveway would allow cars and pedestrians to use it safely. 2. 2-LEVELS UNDERGROUND. Construct 2 levels of underground parking to maximize the parking options downtown. Land is at a premium in the downtown, and there will be fewer opportunities to add parking in the future and at greater cost. An additional underground level will increase the number of parking stalls by 60 spaces. See Exhibit A -Parking Stall Analysis. 3. SHADOWS; COMPATIBILITY. We anxiously await the results of the requisite shadow study that will determine how shadows from the parking structure will impact Lot 85. Preliminarily, a 4- story parking structure would fit in best and be more compatible at this location compared to a structure 5-stories above ground which would loom over the existing adjacent neighbors and whose shadow would limit the sunlight, air and privacy. On the subject of compatibility with existing adjacent neighbors, in addition to the 1-2 story structures lining Waverley Street, some of which are historical buildings, there are the historic Birge Clark post office immediately across Hamilton Avenue and the church structure across Waverley Street to consider. 4. BUILDING HEIGHT. A structure 5-stories above ground would total 50 feet height at the safety railing. If the City installs solar panels above, which it has contracted to do at four other parking lots in town, the height will be 56 feet. With or without the solar canopy, the final height of the elevator shaft will be at least 60'- 6". In contrast, a 4-story structure will end at 38'-6" at the safety rail, 44'-6" at the solar panels, and 49' or more at the top of the elevator shaft. See Exhibit B -Building Heights. 5. SMALL RETAIL. On the Waverley Street frontage, we encourage small retail on the ground level. It would activate this end of the block and encourage pedestrian traffic leading to the Birge Clark post office, for example. The amount of retail shown on the drawing marked "Retail Option" seems large, however. Optimally, 1,500-2,000 sq ft of retail would seem ideal for a flower shop, coffee shop and even a city information post. 6. BIKE STATION. On the drawing marked "Basement Option", a bike station is shown occupying the prime frontage on Waverley Street, a prime location for retail. The bike station should not be placed here nor accessed directly from Waverley Street. SOLAR PANEL HEIGHT, FAR. The approved addition of solar canopies at the top level of four public garages in the City would bring the total height of the buildings to above the downtown 501 height limit. Public Works states that the solar canopy elements are height limit exceptions covered under 18.40.090 in the code which provides that " ... flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by not more than fifteen feet; provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes." Given the benefits of eco-friendly solar power, this code should also be available to private downtown development projects as it pertains to solar panels above open spaces. In addition, the open area under the solar panels should not be included in the floor area (FAR) calculations. Otherwise, solar panel canopies above open areas (e.g.: terraces, private parking lots, loading zones) will never be considered because FARs are too valuable for these open area uses. The City will miss out on the opportunity to add valuable and eco-friendly sources for solar power. Elizabeth Wong cc: Brad Eggleston Holly Boyd Gloria Yu Brad Ehikian James Keene Amy French Hillary Gitelman Jonathan Lait Molly Stump Ed Shikada No. of Stalls Basement 1 Total 2 underground Basement 1 Basement 2 Total Less existing lot Net New parking EXHIBITA- PARKING STALL ANALYSIS 56' HT (INC. SOLAR) -5 FLOORS ABOVE GROUND PARKING Base Retail Basement Option Option Option 303 291 351 60 303 291 411 60 60 60 60 60 423 411 471 (146) (146) (146) 277 265 325 Dedicate 10 stalls for retail 315 No. of Stalls Basement 1 Total 2 underground Basement 1 Basement 2 Total Less existing lot Net New parking 44'-6" HT (INC. SOLAR) - 4 FLOORS ABOVE GROUND PARKING net reduction to 4-floor case = 56 staHs Base Option 247 247 60 60 367 (146) 221 Retail Option 235 235 60 60 355 (146) 209 Basement Option 295 60 355 60 415 (146) Dedicate 10 stalls for retail 269 259 46'-0" 34'-6" 23'-0" 11'-6" 11'-6" 0'-0" ground EXHIBIT B - BUILDING HEIGHTS 5 FLOORS ABOVE GROUND >60'-6" ~s6'-o" 50'-0" rail 4' top of elevator ,,,_./' shaft '·-··-·· solar canopy 5 1 34'-6" 23'-0" 11'-6" 0'-0" 4 FLOORS ABOVE GROUND >49' 38'-6" 1 top of elevator shaft solar canopy City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joyce <JNELSEN@msn.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 6:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:'idle' cars vs. gas-powered leaf blowers August 28, 2017  Dear City Council:  I read with interest the article headlined “Palo Alto looks to curb ‘idle’ cars" in the August 25, 2017 edition of  the Palo Alto Weekly.  I, too, am in favor of any effort that will reduce unnecessary emissions that contribute  to global warming and applaud Ms. Gordon Gray’s campaign.  However, I must point out that the City of Palo  Alto has had an ordinance forbidding the use of gas‐powered leaf blowers for several years, and that  ordinance has been widely ignored.    I reported the use of a gas‐powered leaf blower that was being used on three lots adjoining ours.  By the time  a police officer arrived a half hour later, the gardener was done with his blowing and the officer observed him  crossing the street with the offending blower to load it in his truck.  Because the officer did not actually see  him using the blower, no action was taken.  But I was subjected to a lecture by the officer for wasting his time,  and I was told that he had much more important matters for his attention.  Cars come equipped with catalytic converters, which greatly reduce the amount of pollution emitted while  driving or while idling. Gas‐powered leaf blowers do not, and most are powered by two‐stroke engines which  are a significant source of pollution.  So, I can only assume that when Ms. Gordon Gray’s activity leads to action by the City Council, it will also fall  into the category of something that is not worth the time or effort to enforce.  What a shame that as a city, we  give lip service to reducing greenhouse gasses, but aren’t prepared to follow through with what it takes to  actually do it.  Sincerely,  Joyce Nelsen    cc:  Editor, Palo Alto Weekly    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:58 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:49 AM To:Council, City Cc:Esther Nigenda; Keith Bennett; Friend, Gil Subject:interesting article Hello... please see article below. Thank you so much for moving forward with an anti-idling Ordinance. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 Houston Is Drowning—In Its Freedom From Regulations Houston Is Drowning—In Its Freedom From Regulations As I write from soggy Central Texas, the cable news is showing people floating down Buffalo Bayou on their princ... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne <jeanne650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear City Council,  I am writing to request that you please follow the requests outlined in the Sky Posse letter.    The level of noise and the pollution from the low flights has been intense and has gone on far too long.  It is horrible to  live with and needs to be modified swiftly as the reduced sleep and anxiety we experience under this whining rumble  takes away our quality of life.  I appreciate your work on this effort.  Sincerely,  Jeanne    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:58 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Eaton <johneaton@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 9:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear Council Members,    I agree with the Sky Posse letter of August 27, 2017 and encourage all of you to read this letter and to follow up soon  with these recommendations.     This past week while eating outside with my wifer  in the evening several nights,  we recorded no fewer than 10 loud  flight directly over our home in the Community Center area for the approximately 40 minutes we were eating.  These  are just the ones we recorded, and not all the planes flying directly overhead, or we wouldn’t have had time to actually  eat our meal!   Sometimes the planes fly over spaced at 30 seconds apart.  I ask you how can one have a peaceful  evening with this frequency of low and loud flyovers?    Thank you for your support,    John Eaton  Guinda Street  Community Center      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 2:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:No Support for "Idling" Ordinance Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elected Officials: I was disappointed to hear that the Council was inclined to pass an ordinance banning "idling" vehicles. This is another of the many "nanny state" restrictions and regulations that day-by-day erodes our rights, and ultimately our quality of life in Palo Alto and California. Has there been any hard evidence provided that restricting "idling" in Palo Alto will "save the planet"? Has there been any hard evidence provided that restricting "idling" will improve the quality-of-life of all Palo Altans? or even a sub-set of all Palo Altans? If not--why is this a problem requiring regulation? I would not be opposed to having the City offering "No Idling" signs to companies, or organizations, where unnecessary "idling" has been observed, such as large diesel vehicles dropping off goods at grocery stores, or buses waiting to enter service. Do you really expect the police to actually spend their time looking for "idlers", among all of the many things they currently are expected to enforce? I doubt they will make much of an effort--making this ordinance another meaningless gesture on the part of the City Council. I encourage you to reconsider this ordinance and not advance it into law. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dov Shiffman <dov.shiffman@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 7:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:DuBois, Tom; Tanaka, Greg; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kniss, Liz (external); Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Wolbach, Cory; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia Subject:Palo Alto airplane noise Dear Palo Alto Mayor and Council members, Airplane noise above Palo Alto continues unabated and causes severe disruption to work, leisure, and sleep. The FAA recent response was disappointing. Our requests to consider increasing flight altitude at Menlo waypoint has been flat out rejected. And no other solution has been proposed to reduce the noise and return it to pre-nextgen flight control levels. Palo Alto continues to be the epicenter of San Francisco incoming traffic with no relief in sight. I urge you to take action to become influential stake holders and act forcefully to ameliorate the situation. Sincerely, Dov Shiffman 557 Hilbar Lane, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Yao <rebeccayao8@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do Not Limit Animal Intake Hi, My name is Rebecca Yao, I am a junior at Palo Alto High School and a frequent volunteer at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. As a volunteer, I am aware that the shelter may be changing hands and may be taken over by Pets In Need in the future. While this saddens me, the thing I am more concerned with is the possibility of the passage policies that may limit the intake of animals at PIN, as quoted here: Attachment D, Section 2, Letter C - PIN and the City will mutually draft policies and procedures that may limit the intake of animals for the purpose of improving animal care and to operate the shelter as a “No Kill” shelter, a fundamental principle of PIN.” I think this is unacceptable, and do not want to see any unwanted animals turned away due to inconvenience. I understand that this issue is complex beyond my understanding, but would like to voice my support for those animals, now, before anything further is decided on. Thank you for your time and consideration. Rebecca Yao City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:38 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Sally Connell <salle61@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of Intent - PIN and PAAS City of Palo Alto City Council     I have been volunteering at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter for 16 years.  One of my  reason for choosing this  shelter is that animals were not turned away.  Families who need to surrender their pet for various reason  know that their pet will be accepted, cared for and  eventually adopted into another home.       When a shelter only picks and chooses animals, its very easy to say “WE ARE A NO KILL SHELTER ”  What do  they think will happens to these unwanted animals.      At one of the city council meeting, we listened to PIN talk about how they will continue with the same service  as PAAS, open door full service. Now we hear that PIN will limit the intake of animals for the purpose of  improving animal care and to operate the shelter as a “No Kill” shelter .     I ask again what does PIN think will happen to the unwanted animals.      Council Member Wolbach I applaud you for your stance on this issue.     I do believe the City Council is making a huge mistake by moving forward with PIN.     Sally Connell                        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:38 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Marge Carmichael <elsasadja@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 7:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of Intent - PIN and PAAS To Whom it may Concern, I have been a volunteer at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter for over 15 years. I have seen animals get adopted, cared for and have always felt it was the right place to volunteer knowing animals were not turned away, i.e., a safe haven for all animals, i.e. "humane" in the true sense of the word. To think that animals will be turned away because "of a no-kill shelter" mentality is unimaginable to me. The purpose of an animal shelter is a shelter for ALL animals, otherwise it is only a partial shelter. What will happen to these "unwanted animals" and who determines if they are "unwanted" or not?. These animals have no voice and did not choose to be in the "unwanted category". I commend Council Member Wolbach for her stance on this issue. Please reconsider this issue, and think about the consequences that will result if these animals are not selected to have a refuge. Think hard. Marjorie Carmichael City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:50 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:David O'Reilly <davidjoreilly@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 26, 2017 4:59 PM To:Eva, Sharon; De Geus, Robert; Council, City Subject:Pool management issues and chaos at Rinconada pool Hello I would like to know to whom in city management I can speak about the current state of lap swimming safety and management at Rinconada pool. I just came from Rinconada (Saturday afternoon at about 3:30pm) where I left the lap swimming lanes after 10 minutes because of the chaos in the lanes--general swimmers cutting across the lanes underwater in front of lap swimmers to get to the two general swim areas that sandwich the lap swimming lanes; 3-4 and in one case I saw 5 lap swimmers trying to crowd into one lane to get access to the pool and each swimming at different speeds regardless of the speed cone designations; and general swimmers hanging out at the end of the lanes and surprising lap swimmers who are coming in for a flip turn. And, most importantly and disturbingly, a lack of life guards to manage this, ensure safety and make certain that this new mixed model with such a large number of people can work. When I was there this afternoon, there were two lifeguards responsible for managing the large pool area with the seven swim lanes sandwiched between the 2 general swim areas. They were both standing at one end of the pool together and spent most of their time talking to each other as all of this was going on. Only when the lap swimmers, including myself, called out to them did they come over. At no time was there ever a lifeguard responsible for monitoring the middle section of the pool where the lap swimmers were present. After getting out of the pool in frustration, I was told by the front desk that Tim Sheeper was there and went to talk to him. He was not receptive to my observations, and said that the number of life guards to manage this mixed model was about safety only, not about making the mixed model pool experience better. When I told him this wasn't working, he smiled in a condescending way and said "what's not working?" I ended the conversation then. I would like to see the contract between Mr. Sheeper and the city and understand what performance, quality and safety requirements he and his commercial organization is required to uphold for this public, tax payer-funded pool. I assume this is a public document. If it is not, I would like to know how to get access to it through the public disclosure process. I would also like to know what review process the city has for monitoring the impact of this recent and major decision. Who is responsible and who is watching on behalf of the residents of Palo Alto? Thank you, David O'Reilly City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:13 AM To:Mello, Joshuah Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Glanckopf, Annette; Louise Subject:Proposed New Left Turn Lane Marking at Middlefield and Colorado Attachments:MRA Colorado Traffic Letter.docx Hi Josh, Please see the attached letter from the Midtown Residents Associations regarding the proposed restriping of Colorado Ave at Middlefield. Thanks, sheri Re: Proposed New Left Turn Lane Marking at Middlefield and Colorado August 30, 2017 Dear Joshua, The Midtown Residents Association would like to express our concerns regarding the City's proposal to divide the westbound lane of Colorado Avenue at Middlefield Road. First, we are not sure what problem this reconfiguration is trying to solve. Eastbound cars already go around cars turning left onto Middlefield. The proposed division of the westbound lane of Colorado Avenue at Middlefield Road next to Starbucks would create two lanes of traffic for about 300 feet. MRA sees the following potential problems as a result: 1) Narrowing the lane width for traffic going straight (westbound) and traffic turning right onto Middlefield Road reduces the space that bikes need to travel safely. The width of Colorado is that of a standard single lane. If it were changed so as to accommodate two lanes of traffic, the result would be cars being too close to the curb. This is a potentially hazardous situation, especially given that it is already a shared lane. Records show there have been a few bike accidents at that same junction in the past several years. 2) Causing cars to change lanes so close to the entrance/exit to Starbucks parking could also result in an accident waiting to happen because of the large number of Starbucks patrons entering and exiting Colorado. The average visitor does not spend hours on end at Starbucks and, upon exiting, might want to make an abrupt lane change so as to turn left onto Middlefield. 3) The proposed changes also include adding parallel parking spaces on the north side of Colorado outside of the Starbucks parking lot. This adds one too many lane uses close to the single left turn/straight traffic lane split and the parking lot entrance/exit. People attempting to parallel park very near to traffic in and out of the 7-11 and Round Table Pizza parking lots would increase the potential for accidents rather than lessen it. All these activities would occur within the space of a standard single lane, along with potential bike traffic. 4) At night it would be hard to see ground marking for the left turn lane section. No traffic light change is proposed adding a left- turn-only green arrow, meaning the change would also be ineffective. Traffic may still just treat it as one lane. A more logical solution would be to change the signal to a three-way one, with each direction of Colorado having a dedicated light. In addition, the entrance to the Wells Fargo lot is causing confusion and dangerous backups. As we have previously suggested to the parcel owner, the lot should be restriped with the entrance on Middlefield and the exit onto Colorado. We invite you to have a table at our Midtown Ice Cream Social on October 1st in Hoover Park from 1- 4 PM to hear residents’ feelings about these ill advised traffic changes. By sending this letter, we are officially expressing the Midtown Residents Association’s opposition to the proposed intersection change at Middlefield and Colorado. Sheri Furman MRA Chair on behalf of the MRA Steering Committee City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 9:19 PM To:Christine Bennett Cc:James Colton; Corrao, Christopher; Greenacres II; Council, City Subject:Re: [GA2] Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero I tried calling the Police Department a couple of times a few years ago to get them to enforce the speed limit on Georgia, and they said they did not have enough manpower to station officers on the street - citing all the crime they felt they had to deal with in North Palo Alto - coming over from East Palo Alto. Basically, they said “Drop Dead Green Acres” even if student safety is at issue. If this is the reality of our police department, then we should keep the trio of bumps, lower speed limits and demands for better enforcement. At this point I do not trust the police to do better as the sole alternative. Jeff Lipkin On Aug 25, 2017, at 8:57 PM, Christine Bennett cehbennett@gmail.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: The no parking signs 9-10 am definitely help keep parking out of the Georgia 6xx cul-de-sac, so thank you Jim Colton for helping to get those signs installed. From our perspective, the safety problem Arises with bikes ignoring the stop sign on Donald and speeding left onto Georgia, with many cars doing likewise; similarly when turning left from Georgia onto Donald . Perhaps we need speed bumps at each of those stop signs. Rather than all the expense of speed bumps and paint marks every where, why not resort to Sheryl Keller's simpler suggestion of posting a 15 mph limit on the whole of Georgia and enforcing it. Chris Bennett Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Sara Tomkoria stomkoria@yahoo.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: I am a resident on the 41xx block of Georgia Avenue who moved here about 5 years ago. I was not here when the initial signs were posted, but have seen a definite increase in students parking along Georgia during the school year as well as residents of the new complexes next to Gunn parking their cars for several days at a time without moving them. It's almost guaranteed that I won't find parking in front of my house during school hours. I would vote in favor of having limited parking on the block. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 2 Additionally, in the last two months we have had two incidents of cars driving too fast, turning the corner from Arastradero onto Georgia and jumping the curb onto the sidewalk and onto our property. Speeding along Georgia is a definite issue. -Sara On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:04 PM, "Jim Colton james.colton10@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: I was on the committee several years ago that resulted in the no parking 9-10 signs. It was an unnecessarily tedious process that took many meetings over a period of 18 months. In he end the city agreed to put up the signs wherever the residents wanted them. Initially they covered most of Georgia but later the neighbors along 41xx decided to remove them. I expect the signs could be put up wherever the neighbors agreed to hav them Jim Colton On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> wrote: Georgia also needs the speed hump on the section just North (“East”) of the yield signs at the cut-through to Gunn. For years, I have personally observed many cars going 40-50 mph in that stretch. It is long past the time that this should have been corrected. We don’t need more comments and meetings to fix the problem. Jeff Lipkin On Aug 24, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Mark Lin linshing@aol.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Thank Jim Colton, Joe Hirsch and some other members of Greenacres2 for the effort and input to the future plan from the city of Palo Alto. I agree with Colton and Hirsch on most of their insights on Georgia Avenue. Georgia is the avenue right next to Gunn High and so its traffic and parking patterns are mostly influenced by the activities from the Gunn. I have lived here long enough to see the traffic pattern and some traffic accidents on Georgia Avenue. I just like to voice my opinion here. 1. There are two sections in Georgia Avenue, 6xx & 41xx, connected by a curve path with two stop signs in between. Only about 50% of cars do the stop or almost stop in front of the stop sign. Some and many high school kids just drive through the sign without stop at all. The problem is that every once in a while, some kids drive at high speed without stop and then the car enters the curve section. Sometime the kids just lose the control of car & careen into someone's yard or hit the pole of the next stop sign. So it may be a good idea to add one hump (like the one on Donald or Maybell) just before the stop sign City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 3 near the intersection of Georgia & Hubbartt, preferably on the side of 6xx). You may think it is silly to put a hump right at the same spot of a stop sign. Yes, it is silly when you think normally. But this is the logic to take care of the anomaly that most people don't stop at the stop sign especially in the case of high speed run through the stop sign. We have seen many accidents occurring at this intersection and the cars lost control and careened into the corner of Georgia & Crosby Place. As Jim mentioned already, the city plans to install some humps near the side entrance to Gunn on Georgia 6xx. I am not sure the humps near the side entrance will reduce the problem near Hubbartt and Crosby. 2. This may be a separate issue, it is a parking problem. However, parking is part of the traffic (morning confusion) & safety issue (noise and trash). Since many years ago, many 'no parking between 9-10 am' signs have been put up in the section of Georgia 6xx, but not 41xx. The end result is that all cars move and park in the block of 41xx. This happens every year especially from January to mid June. As to why it behaves this way, one explanation is something related to driving permit of the high school kids. If Gunn keeps expanding, the parking problem will get worse. I don't quite understand why our neighbors live in Georgia 41xx, Wallis and Crosby courts are not concerned or bothered by this parking problem. If residents on Georgia 6xx (and also Hubbartt) are satisfied and live happily with those 'no parking' sign for so many years, perhaps they should be able to tell us their wisdom, opinion or give us some advice. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Colton james.colton10@gmail.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> To: Corrao, Christopher <Christopher.Corrao@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>; Alice Sklar <a2sklar@aol.com>; Frankie Farhat <farhat_101@yahoo.com>; Alison Simonetti <aliraesims@gmail.com>; Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>; Ruth Satterthwaite <ruth.satterthwaite@gmail.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 23, 2017 8:53 pm Subject: Re: [GA2] Fwd: Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero Chris, I have been following the plans for Georgia Ave for the past three years. I have attended all the meetings. I have made several inputs at those meetings. My input has been:  There are hardly any bicycles that that go from the Gunn entrance on Georgia to Arastradero and very few that go from Arastradero to this entrance to Gunn. Sharrows along this section do not serve a purpose.  There are too many speed humps. In my opinion there is only one speed hump needed and that is on Georgia between Hubbart and the Gunn entrance to slow the speeders along this straight section of the street. I raised this issue at the last neighborhood meeting and the person from your group (sorry I can't remember the name) agreed with me. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 4 The current plan is no different than the version three years ago and therefore does not take into account any of the input from those neighborhood meetings. Furthermore, your response to Joe indicates that you are going to execute the plan as it is. This will create a strong response from the neighbors. I think it would be in your best interests to have a meeting or two with the neighborhood and then actually take input from the neighbors who are so familiar with the traffic patterns in our neighborhood. Jim Colton 670 Georgia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ruth Satterthwaite ruth.satterthwaite@gmail.com [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:55 AM Subject: [GA2] Fwd: Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero To: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com, Alice Sklar <a2sklar@aol.com>, Frankie Farhat <farhat_101@yahoo.com>, Alison Simonetti <aliraesims@gmail.com> Cc: Ruth Satterthwaite <ruth.satterthwaite@gmail.com>, Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net> Neighbors, please note. Begin forwarded message: From: Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net> Subject: re: Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero Date: August 22, 2017 at 8:17:06 PM PDT To: Satterthwaite Ruth <ruthsatterthwaite@gmail.com> Reply-To: Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net> Ruth, Please send this email to the entire GAI and GAII list of people you have. Thx. Joe -----Original Message----- From: Joe Hirsch Sent: Aug 22, 2017 11:10 AM To: "Corrao,Christopher" Cc: Kou Lydia , DuBois Tom , Gal Eva , Satterthwaite Ruth , Hirsch Bette , Ziebelman Cindy <2cindy@gmail.com>, Zukowsky Zita City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 5 Subject: re: Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero Dear Chris, Thank you for your email response. You have heard (or should have heard) from the many residents on Donald who are thoroughly upset with the markings at the Donald/Arastradero intersection. Do you want to repeat that with the further plans the City intends to implement in our area (for example on Georgia, Maybell and Coulombe)? If implementation is not intended until summer 2018, you have plenty of time this year to have a meeting (or two) with residents in Green Acres I and II to get their input BEFORE any more roadway changes are made. Failure to do so will perpetuate the feeling that City Staff simply doesn't care what people in our area of town feel, which feeling is extremely strong in our area and had been ongoing for decades. I urge you to have at least one meeting with us after the kids get back to school. Problems I see are as follows: (a) sharrow markings already on Donald push bicycle traffic to the center of the road. Bikes should be off to the side, so why was that done? (b) changes (i.e., narrowing of the roadways) at the Coulombe/Maybell and Maybell/Donald intersections push cars and bikes closer together, which seems inherently wrong to me, as I would think we would want them further apart, not closer together. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 6 (c) a speed hump on Georgia between Wallis and Crosby Courts is NOT needed, as the problem there is NOT speeding, but drivers (teenagers and adults) not stopping at the stop sign, which a speed hump does not affect in any way (and, in fact, may have the opposite effect of causing drivers to not stop at the stop sign). (d) two closely placed speed humps on Georgia between Hubbartt and the Gunn bike path are NOT needed, as one will do just fine (if of the flat table top variety as we currently have on Maybell) - and another one is proposed between the Gunn bike path and the Georgia/Donald intersection. (e) a speed bump on Donald between Georgia and Maybell is NOT needed, as the distance is so short (a mere 8 houses total and an intersection with Willmar that drivers have to be watchful of) that speeding is NOT a problem along this very short stretch of roadway. (f) I hope that sharrows are not being proposed on Georgia between the Gunn path and Arastradero as there is very little school bike traffic in that direction (which would pass in front of my house) as virtually all of the school bikers go from the Gunn path in the opposite direction toward the Georgia/Donald intersection. Whoever suggested all these so-called "improvements" presumably does not live in this area (I have since 1974), does not drive here and, in my opinion, has proposed way more than is needed to achieve whatever safety goals are thought to be worthwhile. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 7 Finally, I ask you and the City to stop claiming that they have a goal of "reducing traffic congestion", as the City's efforts to date and future plans have dramatically INCREASED traffic congestion! A case in point. It took me four (yes, four) traffic cycles to turn left from ECR "north-bound" onto Arastradero "west-bound" so I could get home this morning from my early morning exercise class. Then, stop-and-go, bumper-to-bumper traffic, until we got past the light at Coulombe. In the opposite direction, stop-and-go, bumper-to-bumper traffic all the way from Gunn High to ECR. That happens many times a day and thus many, many times a week. That is NOT reducing traffic congestion, that is INCREASING traffic congestion. Another point, the recent lane changes in front of Gunn at the Arastradero/Miranda/Foothill Expressway intersection have created very frequent long (!) lines of right-turning traffic, in some cases extending backwards past the the Arastradro/Gunn intersection toward Georgia. Another instance of the City creating, not reducing, traffic congestion. Let's get together to talk, but I urge you to have a neighborhood meeting or two to sort out all these matters, which in the long run may save the City money as well as increasing resident participation in matters that affect them on a daily basis. Joe 493-9169 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 8 -----Original Message----- From: "Corrao, Christopher" Sent: Aug 18, 2017 1:07 PM To: "jihirschpa@earthlink.net" Subject: re: Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero Dear Mr. Hirsch,   Thank you for your email regarding planned roadway improvements to Georgia Ave. We have modest  improvements planned for Georgia Ave associated with our second phase of the Neighborhood Traffic  Safety & Bicycle Boulevard Project. This includes white sharrow markings, slotted speed humps to  slow vehicles and curb extensions at the corner of Maybell Ave. Unlike the markings recently installed  at Donald Drive/Arastradero Rd, improvements planned for Georgia Ave do not include any green  markings.    This Council approved project is the second phase of our Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle  Boulevard project, and construction is anticipated in Summer 2018. The Bicycle Boulevard  Improvement Plans for Georgia Ave provide a better idea of what is planned for Georgia Ave. The  goal of this project is to create calmer, safer streets which will encourage more people to ride and  walk.   This is a goal that the community has supported over several decades and is demonstrated through  the City’s commitments to reducing traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and creating safer  streets for our school children. One of the ways the City can increase bicycle use is by calming traffic  and including markings reminding all users to share the road. Traffic calming measures, such as speed  humps and curb extensions. These improvements have the added benefit of reducing cut‐through  (non‐local)  traffic and make our streets safer for motorists as well.   The City held a community open house last fall where we presented plans and received comments  from the public on this project, in addition to several years of community process that has  accompanied this project. Those comments have been incorporated into our current design and the  project has been refined based on that feedback. We understand that despite our best efforts in  reaching everyone in the community, there are always some that do not hear about our projects. I  would be happy to discuss the project with you further, hear your thoughts, and answer any  questions you may have.   Kind regards,   Chris Corrao   Chris Corrao, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner City of Palo Alto Planning + Community Environment City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 9 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329‐2106 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. Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Joe Hirsch [mailto:jihirschpa@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:03 PM To: Corrao, Christopher Cc: Kou Lydia; DuBois Tom; Holman, Karen (external); Hessen Bob; James Colton Subject: Proposed Bicycle Markings on Georgia Avenue between the path to Gunn, past Hiubbartt to Arastradero Chris, As with the markings on Donald Avenue, there is concern about the proposed markings on Georgia Avenue, particularly as there is very little bike traffic between the path to Gunn on Georgia past Hubbartt to Arastradero. Very little, and I lived here in my house since Jan 1974. I'm suggesting and requesting that you have a neighborhood meeting before any new markings are put in place. Thank you. Joe Hirsch 4149 Georgia Avenue 493-9169 jihirschpa@earthlink.net City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:44 AM 10 __._,_.___ Posted by: Christine Bennett <cehbennett@gmail.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender •Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (7) Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. TO DO THE FOLLOWING: Post a message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [Include your real name and street address - for use of moderators only] Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com VISIT YOUR GROUP  New Members 4 • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 26, 2017 4:10 PM To:Moore, Adrienne; Council, City Subject:Re: dump truck trailers and neighborhood noise. (To the City Council: sorry to contacdt you all; plesae forward to the appropriate office. Lt. Moore: Thank you for your response. It's hard to believe that you didn't hear or see anything when you drove by. Inconvenience, as you call it, iis definitely not the word. Yesterday and and the days before that and that, etc., we listen ot back-up horns. diesel smell etc. that happens off and on dailiy. For the past two weeks at least. They are using our streets as a "launching and decoupling/coupling yard." That's far more than a car parking for 72 hours. Or one truck. There are at least two trucks being used to haul dirt from the construction/excavation site at the corner of Ely and Carlson within the Walnut Gove neighborhood. Sometimes both trucks arrive at the same time (or within 10-15 mn of each other) to de-couple and couple their trailers, One couples; the second one decouples. Backup beeps going with the motors running, and diesel fumes smelling. They use the the crossroads of Ely/Mumford that affects the home owners at all four corners and others next to them. Within the next week or two, a second construction site at the end of the Mumford cul de sac will begin hauling dirt from that basement excavation. That street "empties" onto Ely/Mumford cross streets and most likely will cause an identical problem to the one I'/ve described above. Where should they go? We are near the San Antonio-101 overpass. Let them go over to the bay side and use that for their "launch pad." That areas is not zoned for residential. Inconvenient for the trucking company? Resident concerns trump trucking driver inconvenience. Gloria Pyszka 284 East Charleston (corner of Mumford and Charleston) Palo Alto On Saturday, August 26, 2017 11:46 AM, "Moore, Adrienne" <Adrienne.Moore@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Good afternoon I checked the area you described for the dump truck issue the last two mornings, but I was unable to locate what you were referring to Is this still occurring? If it is, please let me know. As long as the trucks are parked at the curbside, they are allowed to be present for 72 hours, although I understand this is unsightly and inconvenient. During the day, 8a-6p, these noisy trucks are allowed to operate, even with their back up horns sounding. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:45 AM 2 I am sorry for the inconvenience you are experiencing and hopefully the work will be completed soon Cheers adrienne A/Lt. Adrienne Moore Patrol Services Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell: 650 422 4949 Desk:650 838 2785 Email: Adrienne.Moore@cityofpaloalto.org …Proudly Serve and Protect the Public with Respect and Integrity City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:09 AM To:Minor, Beth Cc:Reichental, Jonathan; Keene, James; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Cullen, Charles Subject:Re: Oral communication - https://zoom.us Jonathan, Thanks for your consideration. In my opinion such approach would be innovative. potential providers: webx bluejeans ploycom Zoom.us Way beyond the rest... my entire career: ATT,(Bell Labs) IBM, Cisco Systems. So I know a thing or two. Not to be confused with Farmers Insurance Mark Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Thanks Jonathan.   Thanks,   B‐   Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650‐ 329‐2379  E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org   <image002.jpg> City Clerks Rock and Rule   From: Reichental, Jonathan   Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 7:49 AM  To: Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>  Cc: Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  Scharff, Greg <gregscharff@aol.com>; Kniss, Liz (external) <lizkniss@earthlink.net>; Cullen, Charles  <Charles.Cullen@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Oral communication ‐ https://zoom.us  Thank you for your suggestion.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:57 AM 2 Regards,   Jonathan.   ____________________________________________________________ Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D. :: Chief Information Officer :: City of Palo Alto :: @PaloAltoCIO Assistant: jeanny.weatherford@cityofpaloalto.org :: 650‐329‐2182   From: Palo Alto Free Press [mailto:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com]   Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 7:02 AM  To: Reichental, Jonathan <Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  Scharff, Greg <gregscharff@aol.com>; Kniss, Liz (external) <lizkniss@earthlink.net>; Cullen, Charles  <Charles.Cullen@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Oral communication ‐ https://zoom.us  We are aware the City Palo Alto touts itself at the forefront of technology and innovation. Please consider video conferencing as another means to bring its citizens together when unable to attendant oral communications personally. I'm biased in suggesting: https://zoom.us/ Only because my son Mark Jr. head-up the Denver Colorado division. BTW, he is unlike is dad.... Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 2:58 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Partridge, Harry (ARC-D) <harry.partridge@nasa.gov> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 1:04 PM To:Kamhi, Philip Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: To contact the Palo Alto City Council We had dinner with a number of our neighbors on Friday and spoke with others over the weekend that continue to raise  concerns about the parking policy and its implementation.    1) My wife and I have been told that we are the only ones who have called but we are told by several others that  they have both called and sent emails. Why the disconnect?  2) The parking passes say Crescent Park but we are not part of Crescent Park.  Why were we included with CP and  are the parking restrictions valid outside of CP? The major parking issues is on Channing (between the frontage  road and Wildwood) and it is inconceivable that this was not included.    3) Is the voting for this regulation public?  We would like to confirm that the required number of housing elements  voted for the regulation. We hear conflicting information on the requirements for implementing the parking  restrictions and it appears that things were ‘rushed”.   4) You asserted that the residents requested (demanded) immediate implementation of the parking  restrictions.  This appears to conflict feedback from my neighbors and emails on the list serves.  Who made the  requests and how was the immediate need ascertained?  Are the emails and correspondence making the  request public?    5) The implementation of the parking restriction policy is very poorly implemented and conflicting (and often  incorrect) information is provided.  There are no policies in place to address several common  problems.  Contrary to comments made to us, we have heard from others who have issues with multiple  cars/drivers that cannot be accommodated with the current pass policy.    Harry  From: "Kamhi, Philip" <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Date: Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 9:18 AM  To: Harry Partridge <harry.partridge@nasa.gov>  Subject: To contact the Palo Alto City Council  Harry,     If you wish to contact the City Council, their email address is: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org     Best,    Philip Kamhi  Transportation Programs Manager  PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT  Transportation  Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org  office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154      Use PaloAlto311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keene, James Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 4:42 PM To:Nancy Traube; Council, City Subject:Re: Senate Bill 35 Ms Traube, The City Council has taken a position opposing SB 35 Jim James Keene City Manager Get Outlook for iOS _____________________________ From: Nancy Traube <ntraube26@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 4:24 PM Subject: Senate Bill 35 To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Dear City Council, I am a resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work –Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely, Nancy Traube City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:58 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB35 Dear Mayor Scxharff and Council members I am a 46-year resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. SB 35 also ignores the major negative impacts that unchecked and unevaluated housing development can have on traffic, parking, congestion, schools, and the big negative impact such development would have on city finances. Thanks to Proposition 13 it costs cities over $2800/year more to provide services to each housing unit then is paid to the city in taxes. Thus SB 35 by pushing through major housing developments without proper CEQA evaluation could have a devastating negative impact on city finances and the environment. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely, Bob Moss City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:58 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 11:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Oppose SB 35 - Maintain Local Control! Dear Palo Alto Council,    I am a resident of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose  SB 35.    SB 35 would pre‐empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet  inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public  input.    Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the  principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their  representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for  the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with  growth management.    Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity,  Representation, Freedom and Justice.    Sincerely,  Ben Lerner  3482 Janice Way  Palo Alto, CA 94303  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:58 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Kathy Riley <ksr94306@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 6:02 AM To:Council, City; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Subject:SB 35 Dear members of City Council and Supervisor Simitian,    I am opposed to your SB 35 (Wiener), which would pre‐empt local discretionary land use authority by making  approvals of multifamily developments, that meet inadequate criteria, “ministerial” actions, thus bypassing  the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and public input.     Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes  against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the  community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. “Streamlining” in the context of SB 35  appears to mean a shortcut around public input and environmental review.  While frustrating for some to  address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking and other development impacts, those directly affected  by such projects have a right to be heard. Public engagement also often leads to better projects. Not having  such outlets will increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth  management.    Regards,    Kathryn Riley    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:58 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Jean Wren <wrenjp@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 9:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:SB35 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org DearCity of Palo Alto Council, I am a resident of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener). I urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 negates the democratic process. It will increase the already high public distrust of government and any future ballot measures dealing with growth management. The consideration of each city individually when considering a “fair” allocation of multifamily housing and development ignores the fact that people who work in a particular city do not always choose to live in that city. This decision is not necessarily dictated by economics. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy should work – Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely, Jean Pereira Wren City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 10:59 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 10:42 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James Subject:Please Oppose Senate Bill SB 35 Dear City Council Members,    I am a property owner in the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to  oppose SB 35.    SB 35 would preempt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that do  not meet adequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and  public input.    Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the  principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their  representatives of their support or concerns. The purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the  democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with  growth management.    Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy works – Equity,  Representation, Freedom, Justice, and Common Sense.    Thank you for your attention.    Sincerely,    Thomas Rindfleisch  31 Tevis Place  Palo Alto, CA 94301        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 10:59 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Thomas A. Vician <tvician@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 10:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:SB-35   August 28, 2017 Dear City Council Member, I am a resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely , Thomas A. Vician, Sr. 850 Webster Str. Palo Alto, Ca. 94301   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 2:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Markevitch <pat@magic.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 11:34 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:Senate Bill 35 Honorable Council Members and City Manager Keene,    I am a resident of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener).    SB 35 would pre‐empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet  inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public  input.    Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the  principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their  representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for  the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with  growth management.    Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity,  Representation, Freedom and Justice.    Sincerely,    Pat Markevitch        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 9:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) Dear Council Members, I am a resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. The affordable housing will not really be so with the current stipulations in this bill, the taxpayers, mostly residents, will be subsidizing the difference. The effect on cities will be huge, more traffic congestion than we already have, parking issues, overburdened city services, parks, open space and especially schools. While frustrating for some to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects have a right to be heard. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:56 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 1:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB35 Dear City Council Members, I am a resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely, Jim Colton 670 Georgia Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:56 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Michael Griffin <jazzbuff@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposed to Senate Bill 35 pre-empting local land use review... Dear Council Members, I am a resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) and urge you to oppose SB 35. SB 35 would pre-empt local discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments that meet inadequate criteria into “ministerial” actions thereby bypassing the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and public input. Eliminating opportunities for environmental and public review of major multifamily developments goes against the principles of local democracy and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representative of their support or concerns. SB 35’s purported “streamlining” in the context of SB 35 does not allow for the democratic process and will only increase public distrust in government and additional ballot measures dealing with growth management. Please oppose Senate Bill 35: It is not fitting under the basic guidelines that help govern how democracy work – Equity, Representation, Freedom and Justice. Sincerely, D. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, PA 94301   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/30/2017 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:California SB 35 Dear Palo Alto City Council, I urge you, collectively, to make every effort possible to oppose CA Senate Bill 35. I would think that each of you would naturally oppose the SB 35 legislation as it would reduce your responsibility to act on behalf of your constituents, the residents of Palo Alto. There appear to be serious flaws with SB 35. For example, requiring union wage labor to build affordable housing has a likelihood of causing such housing to no longer be affordable ... unless the citizens of Palo Alto contribute additional funds. Moreover, as a Palo Alto resident I count on YOU to administer the affairs of Palo Alto, not the State Government. Sincerely, James Cornett 420 Sequoia Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Sater <bsater@stephenz.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop Jet Noise in Palo Alto Dear City Council Members.    We have been waiting and waiting for some relief from the jet noise that has invaded our skies. Instead of relief the  planes are more and more planes are coming across palo alto at lower, noiser levels.  To date all we have heard is: Oh the FAA budget was past so no changes for at least a year… Oh now we have new  committees so no changes for 2 more years.    It is critical at this stage that you take any action you can to speed up this process and mitigate the damage that is being  done to the livability of our neighborhoods.    Sincerely,    Barbara Sater  828 Ilima Court   Palo Alto        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Bob Wenzlau <bob@wenzlau.net> Sent:Thursday, August 24, 2017 7:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Carnahan, David Subject:Stormwater Oversight Interviews Council members, I apologize for missing an interview as I am in San Antonio Texas and flights are being canceled given hurricane. I would be pleased to serve, but rest the circumstances of missing an interview. Yours, Bob Wenzlau -- Bob Wenzlau bob@wenzlau.net 650-248-4467 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:41 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 25, 2017 1:11 PM To:dprice@padailypost.com Subject:Taser Rally & Press conference http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2017/08/24/activists-to-protest-santa-clara-county-sheriffs-taser-request/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/29/2017 1:58 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lew, Michele <MLew@stanfordhealthcare.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 29, 2017 9:47 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James Subject:Tentative Agreement Reached with SEIU-UHW Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the Palo Alto City Council:    We are pleased to announce that our hospitals have reached a tentative agreement with SEIU‐UHW on a new  three‐year contract for our SEIU‐UHW‐represented employees.  The tentative agreement is now subject to  ratification, and the union has announced that it will schedule the ratification vote to take place on September  8.  SEIU‐UHW and its bargaining team are unanimously recommending ratification of the tentative agreement.   We also agreed to another contract extension, which means the current contract will not expire before the  ratification vote.    Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions and concerns.    Sincerely,    Sherri R. Sager                                                                                                                                                              Michele  Lew  Chief Government & Community Relations Officer                                                                                              Local  Government & Community Relations Director  Stanford Children’s Health│ Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford                                                        Stanford  Health Care  (650) 497‐8277                                                                                                                                                            (650)  498‐4639  ssager@stanfordchildrens.org                                                                                                                                  mlew@ stanfordhealthcare.org     Confidential Information: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of the communication and attachments. Thank you.       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:37 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:41 PM To:Council, City; Jeanne Fleming; CriticOne@metricus.net Subject:This list should be printed and responded to as discussed. Thank you. Thank you. I look forward to updates on the points to keep Palo Alto beautiful, peaceful and serene neighborhood and community, If you are going to circulate for a meeting here are the points: 1 ban/restrict verizon cell towers: ugly, toxic, (radiation) noisy, obtrusive and disruptive to serene mental and physical landscape lowers property values 2 ban planes from flying so low and over our peaceful residential neighborhood-- below FAA regulations,... as well directly over our homes versus the Bay which studies have shown is not a problem and nothing to do with one inexperienced pilot 3 ban leaf blowers (of all kinds) noise pollution air pollution disruption of ecology: leaves as vital mulch and non disruption of reciprocal eco-system --rake if you must City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:37 AM 2 4 rule against and enforce that no dogs are left alone in yards who bark at every passerby... often for an extended period -- or at least courteously request they be trained 5. create signage about courtesy: neighborliness and community Awareness! Encourage people walking and biking to refrain from talking loudly on cell phones, nor littering with plastic bags of feces We are all connected hopefully in community and kindness. Sincerely, your neighbor, Lynn Hollyn Seale Avenue On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2017 10:37 AM 3 If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. -- lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/28/2017 9:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 27, 2017 4:32 PM To:chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; stb_discussion@googlegroups.com Subject:Tiny Housing program needs reboot ( Sunday Mercury Editorial, Aug 27) mercurynews.ca.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=0b9975759 Sent from my iPhone