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 "
«>ÌÊwÝÌÕÀiʳÊ
ÕÃÌÊ
LÕÌiÌʳʫ>ÌÊ
ÀÜ
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