HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170918plCC 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: 9/18/2017
Document dates: 8/30/2017 – 9/6/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 1:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 12:46 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:September 5, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #1A: SB 797 -- Oppose
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
September 5, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SEPTEMBER 5, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1A
SB 797 -- OPPOSE
Dear City Council:
There is no September 15, 2017, deadline for voting on SB 797, because the
bill can become a two-year bill and be acted on next year.
There is no way for Jerry Hill, Caltrain, or anyone else to make a deal
with the City of Palo Alto to give the City something in exchange for its
support of the bill, because Caltrain's decision must be supported by an
Environmental Impact Report and Caltrain has indicated that the lack of
financial feasibility is an overriding consideration that will permit
funding only some grade separations, while Caltrain's choice of which
grade separations to fund will be based on objective criteria that are
independent of any deals Caltrain could make.
Further, Caltrain's modernization project is part of the blended system
that would be part of the California High Speed Rail Authority project and
the Authority has said that it will not raise or lower the railroad's
grade in the San Francisco to San Jose segment, except for (1) the tunnel
for the San Francisco extension and (2) the viaduct to the Diridon station
that would be required because rerouting the existing train and bus lines
would be too expensive for an at-grade high speed rail line.
One Council Member said the sales tax election proposed by SB 797 would
take place in 2020, but there is no language in the bill to that effect,
and if the date for the vote was actually 2020 then there is no urgency to
act now.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 1:04 PM
2
At a recent Local Policy Maker Group meeting, there was a discussion of a
"Plan B" funding measure if Caltrain does not receive the $600 million
earmarked for Caltrain in the high speed rail appropriation bill, SB 1029
that could occur due to either a successful legal challenge to the $600
million transfer or the refusal of the California Transportation Agency to
disburse the money as a result of Caltrain's approved project omitting
modifications to its rail line needed for high speed rail, but not
required for Caltrain itself.
SB797 appears to be that "Plan B".
We should wait until we find out if Caltrain actually gets the $600
million from the California High Speed Rail Authority before acting on SB
797.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:24 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tiffany Griego <tgriego@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 4:33 PM
To:Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:City Mgr; Jean McCown; Lucy W. Wicks; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Item #3 9/5/17: Annual Office Limit (AOL) Ordinance Discussion
Attachments:2017-09-05__Stanford Research Park Comment Letter on AOL.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
We understand you will be discussing the AOL during the Tuesday September 5th hearing. If Council does not decide to disband with
the AOL ordinance altogether, we respectfully urge the City to maintain the existing boundaries of the AOL ordinance and continue
to exclude Stanford Research Park.
We at Stanford still support the position we took in 2015 that the Stanford Research Park should be excluded from the annual office
limit. Please find enclosed a brief summary of the points we have expressed to you about Stanford Research Park over the past
couple of years related to this matter.
Additionally, Stanford Research Park’s Transportation Management Association (TMA) has made huge strides since 2015, including
saving 1 million miles in commute trips with our carpooling programs alone. Stanford and the SRP employers will continue to
expand our efforts to reduce traffic congestion to achieve important benefits for SRP companies, their employees and the
community. We are eager to report back to you in March 2018 on our continued progress!
Thank you for your support and consideration of our position with respect to the AOL boundaries.
Respectfully,
Tiffany Griego and Jean McCown
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Stanford Research Park
Take advantage of our transportation programs:
www.SRPgo.com, transportation services at Stanford Research Park
Jean McCown,
Associate Vice President, Government and Community Relations
Stanford University
September 5, 2017
Mayor Greg Scharff and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Stanford Research Park Comments on the Annual Office Limit Ordinance (9/5/17 Agenda Item #3) Dear Mayor Greg Scharff and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide Stanford University’s comments on the Annual Office Limit (AOL) ordinance. As we and the many companies in Stanford Research Park have stated in 2015 and 2016, we believe
that the annual growth limit would have significantly detrimental impacts on the vitality of the Stanford Research Park. If Council does not decide to disband with the AOL ordinance, we respectfully urge the City to maintain the
existing boundaries of the AOL ordinance. Please continue to exclude Stanford Research Park.
Over the past two years, we have made the following points to Council and staff about the AOL:
1. An annual cap in the SRP would have unintended consequences of compromising Palo Alto’s ability to attract companies that create long-term economic viability for the community. Stanford Research Park has evolved
to become a major source of economic prosperity for the community. In 2016 alone, companies in Stanford Research Park generated $45.8 million in total direct tax revenues. Of this $45.8 million, Palo Alto’s general funds received $7.6 million and Palo Alto Unified School District received another $14.3 million. This
results from City policies that, thus far, have supported renewal and investment in the existing building stock and the buildout of additional square footage available under existing zoning regulations.
2. SRP employers are concerned because their business needs can evolve quickly, and when they do, companies must be able to grow within a clear, predictable and consistent set of parameters. Companies come to Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto because they believe the City will permit them to improve and expand
their aging facilities (up to the maximum allowed under zoning) in order to remain competitive in their respective industries.
3. Growth in Stanford Research Park is already limited by zoning. A discrete amount of additional square footage remains available under current zoning (7.5% of the SRP, or 850,000 sf). When SRP companies do
apply to the City for discretionary approval to expand their facilities under zoning, they are willing to mitigate
negative impacts that their growth will cause. This principle is also codified in the Mayfield Development Agreement, which demonstrates that growth in this discrete geographic area of Stanford Research Park can
be facilitated with a concurrent agreement to mitigate the impacts of growth. 4. Since 2004, build-out of the remaining square footage in the SRP has been minimal. Over the past 15 years,
from 2004 to 2017, the Research Park has grown at a modest average rate of 16,000 square feet per year, albeit actual growth fluctuates with economic conditions. For example, in 2012, 75,000 additional square feet was
September 5, 2017
Page 2
built in the SRP (Theranos, Lockheed). From 2012 to 2017, the growth has been zero. Given these variable
growth trends, Stanford feels it makes most sense to keep the current predictable zoning intact in order to
preserve the flexible, nimble and strategic approach the City and Stanford have deployed in recruiting the businesses we desire.
5. As the Palo Alto Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) met to draft the new Comprehensive Plan, they discussed that the CAC is not supportive of including Stanford Research Park in the AOL. In fact, support for
maintaining the SRP as a major employment center, and anticipating its evolution and need for change, was codified in the Comp Plan Business and Economic Element goals and policies, which state,
“Working closely with Stanford University and the hundreds of employers in the Research Park will help the Research Park remain competitive with others in the Bay Area and nation.”
“Maintain a healthy business climate, which provides for predictability and flexibility for those seeing City approvals.” (Policy B-5.1)
“Facilitate the ability of Stanford University and Research Park businesses to respond to changing market conditions that support the long-term viability of the Research Park.” (Policy B-7.1)
“Review policies and regulations guiding development at Stanford Research Park and revise them as needed to allow improved responsiveness to changing market conditions.” (Policy B.7.2.1)
6. When the interim AOL was adopted, Councilmembers stated in 2015 that excluding Stanford Research Park from the annual office cap makes sense. Instead, Council preferred Stanford and Stanford Research Park companies to focus on implementing a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program for Stanford Research Park, which we have done with enthusiasm, speed and our own private funding. Stanford Research Park’s Transportation Management Association (TMA) has made huge strides
since 2015, including saving 1 million miles in commute trips with our carpooling programs alone. Stanford and the SRP employers will continue to expand our efforts to reduce traffic congestion to achieve important benefits for SRP companies, their employees and the community. We are eager to report back to you in March
2018 on our continued progress. Thank you for considering Stanford University’s comments on the Annual Office Limit ordinance. Please do not
hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany Griego Jean McCown
Managing Director Associate Vice President Stanford Research Park Government & Community Relations Stanford Real Estate Office of Public Affairs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 1:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ross, Annette P. <Rossa@sullcrom.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Development Cap
Please KEEP it. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise and further exacerbate the jobs:housing imbalance.
Annette Portello Ross
2103 Amherst Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be privileged and confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 9:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Office Limit Ordinance
Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers; Sept. 4, 2017
When you review and act on extension of the limits on office development Tuesday (agenda item 3)
staff has suggested several options for addressing five issues that they discuss. My recommendations for which actions to adopt and why are noted below.
Should the ordinance be extended?
Yes, but not just until June 2018. It should be a permanent action without an expiration date. If in the
future the council, staff, or community believe that the ordinance needs to be revised, or even dropped, that can be considered if and when such actions seem to be needed.
Regarding the specific directions staff sked for direction, I urge you to adopt these choices:
Boundaries of the area subject to annual limits:
Make the ordinance apply citywide. I urged this position when the ordinance was first adopted. Omitting areas such as San Antonio, Fabian and Bayshore just pushes office developments into
these areas and thus total office development annually or overall will not be limited as the ordinance
intends. Also making it apply citywide eliminates any questions developers or occupants may have
as to whether the limit applies to their site, and also makes oversight and enforcement easier.
The quantitative annual limit should be maintained at 50,000 sq. ft. annually. This seems like a reasonable
amount, and in fact there are years when the economy was such that actual office development was less than
50,000 sq. ft.
Roll-over unused allocations for up to two years before they expire. Staff suggests rolling over for
three years, but I think a shorter time is more reasonable.
Modify the current list of exemptions for (a) office/R&D development less than 1,750 gsf; (b) medical
office development less than 4,000 gsf; and (c) self-mitigating projects that commit to providing
sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment.
When reviewing projects subject to the annual limit continue the current competitive process; and
award development approvals to those projects that show the least impact on traffic, parking, and
jobs/housing imbalance.
Palo Alto has been a magnet for office development for over 40 years. Our office rents are about the highest in the world. In 1978 the jobs/housing ratio was 3.0, and despite major efforts to limit office
development and encourage housing, that ration hasn’t dropped much. Limits on excessive office
development are needed. Please continue the ordinance with the modifications noted.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jean Wren <wrenjp@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 9:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Growth Limits of office space
Dear Council Members,
I understand that the City of Palo Alto will consider extending growth limits for office space in business areas of Palo Alto at the meeting on September 6, 2017.
Please extend the growth limits as follows:
1. Boundaries of the affected area should extend at least as far as the current ordinance for another year. There
is too much office space downtown and on California Ave. even now, and there is too little resident serving
retail. Much of what now passes for resident serving retail serves only a limited segment section of the population. The retail that does need to be maintained is shops and stores that directly serve many different
residents—bookstores, stationery and office supplies, men, women and children clothing and shoes, secondhand
shops, camera and electronics shops, furniture and housewares, galleries and craft shops. Exercise and fitness
shops do not qualify.
2. The limit on office space should continue to be 50,000 square feet.
3. Unused allocations should not be allowed to roll over for future years.
4. Maintain the current list of exemptions for (a) office/R&D development less than 2,000 gsf; (b) medical office development less than 5,000 gsf; and (c) self-mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet
the housing demand of additional employment.
5. Larger projects such as the new Facebook building should be placed in an industrial park.
When the jobs to housing ratio is considered, contrary to ABAG’s choice, the entire area should be considered
as a unit. Do not consider Palo Alto separate fromLos Altos. Los Altos is immediately adjacent to Palo Alto.
Historically those employed in Palo Alto have chosen to live in the communities in the area, not just in Palo
Alto. Often Los Altos or Atherton as example are first choices for a residence for those employed in Palo Alto.
The cities are so new to each other that they should all be considered as a unit with respect to having a balance in housing to jobs. It is foolish to separate Palo Alto as providing an excess of jobs relative to housing as those
who work in Palo Alto often choose to live elsewhere as a first choice, for example.
Jean Wren
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 7:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO more offices. We're gridlocked and under-parked enough
And uf you want to find idling vehicles, just patrol Middlefield and/or any area near a school, a poorly timed traffic light,
near Town & Country., the approaches to 101, Oregon. El Camino etc;.
Really enough is enough,
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.//www.needtoknow.com
650 329‐8655 or cell 650 269‐0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:KEEP THE CAP
These are two pictures I took today of the air conditions over our City as I was returning from my bicycle ride out of town into the
Woodside-Portola Valley. These pictures were taken heading east on Sand Hill. The first taken from just west of the entrance to SLAC and the second again on Sand Hill just east of the entrance to Sharon Heights. Both look directly at our downtown and as I continued
into town through the campus the air smell turned from ok to foul. This is the worst air conditions I have seen since the pre-auto pollution control days of the '70's. Adding more office space with the commensurate commute traffic and other man-made pollutions will only add to this poison we are breathing as global heating continues upward.
FYI yes some of this is grass fire smoke. But 45 mins before these picts were taken I was going thru Portola Valley. While there were high clouds there with some smoke it was nothing like what I experienced riding into our City. I almost did not want to return and
today is a non-commute holiday. We must control development in our City and the cap has been a successful throttle to that while we struggle to address the jobs-housing balance. This is a Bay wide regional issue but we as Palo Alto must continue to show environmental leadership especially at a time when that is lacking in DC and other parts of the country.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
6
Richard Brand-clearing my throat
281 Addison Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Soroush Kaboli <soroush@kaboli.com>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 12:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:office cap
Good afternoon all,
Council should be warned against considering this.
The cap has not worked and the staff is dead wrong on this.
They refuse to understand the reason why the likes of Messrs Zuckerberg , Page and other icons of the valley as well as
more regular folks like us choose to live and work here.
Menlo Park which adopted this anti growth policy for many years finally learned this the hard way and partially changed
their ways.
Our retail preservation policies have been discriminatory towards certain owners and have not contributed in a
meaningful way towards bettering our core retail. The only reason our retail is still flourishing is because of a continued
healthy economy and more importantly because of a continued strong office market attracting many new companies
and their employees. Capping the future potential of office development and conversion will result in many small and
large companies like Survey Monkey, etc. to move to other cities and fundamentally will force many of to be successful
companies to downtowns of other cities like Redwood City with opposite policies.
Regards,
Soroush Kaboli
tel: 650‐325‐7891
fax: 650‐325‐7345
cel: 415‐810‐2561
DRE# 00855753
The information contained in this communication is confidential, and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for
the use of the addressee(s).
Unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this entire communication and all copies thereof.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Christensen, Dwain <dwain.christensen@sap.com>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 2:53 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Fanucchi, Raquel
Subject:Annual Office Limit
Attachments:2015-02-09__Letter to Council from SAP_Annual Growth Limit.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and the City Council members,
I understand you will be discussing the subject topic during a hearing on Tuesday September 5th.
As such I wanted to make sure you are aware of SAP’s position on this topic.
We at SAP still support the position we took in 2015 (see attached) that the Stanford Research Park should be
excluded from the annual office limit.
We are heavily involved in the SRP TMA and making substantial progress in reducing local traffic congestion.
Thank you for your support and consideration.
Respectfully,
Dwain Christensen
Director, Global Real Estate and Facilites (GRF)
SAP Labs - Palo Alto
T: +1 650-320-3074 M: +1 831-234-1341 F: +1 650-433-5203
mailto:dwain.christensen@sap.com SAP Corporate Portal: /go/facility-services
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fine, Adrian
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 10:12 AM
To:Christian Pease
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Ordinance for Extension of Annual Limit on Office and R&D Uses
Thanks for your thoughts Christian. While not perfect, I'd encourage you to check out the TMAs recent results. The
weekly covered it recently and some of our new transit investments are paying off.
Thanks for your input here.
Regards
Adrian
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:07, Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
>
> First off, I hope you enjoyed your much deserved August recess.
>
> I write to urge you to extend the current interim ordinance limiting new office development in Palo Alto to a maximum
of 50,000 square feet per year until 30 June 2018 pursuant to a replacement ordinance.
>
> I suggest doing so will have three benefits because it will:
>
> 1) Help address and reconcile our widely recognized imbalance between Palo Alto‐based jobs and available local
housing. New development in our city should favor housing over new office space.
>
> 2) Provide an opportunity for city to focus on improving our outdated and inadequate infrastructure so it has at least a
chance to catch up with demands place on it by recent, large‐scale office development, both what has already come
online and what is remaining and approved in the development pipeline.
>
> 3) Allow us to see and measure results from recent and current traffic and commuter traffic growth mitigation
programs and investments. Doing so will facilitate better transportation and traffic mitigation investment choices.
>
> With respect to some of the specific aspects of this question, I further urge the following:
>
> A) Make this a citywide ordinance, including the Stanford Research Park. Leaving the SRP out will produce distortions
to office development that are unjust with respect to landowners seeking to develop new office space in areas other
than the SRP.
>
> B) Retain the quantitative annual cap as is at 50,000 square feet. If this number is to change, at least for short‐to‐
medium‐term is should be reduced, not increased.
>
> C) Unused annual office space development allocations under the current cap, if any, should expire at the end of each
year and not be rolled‐over.
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:20 AM
2
> D) Maintain, at least for now, the current list of exemptions to the to office development cap limit.
>
> E) Keep the current process for evaluating projects subject to the annual new office development as is.
>
> Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.
>
> Sincerely,
> Christian Pease
> Evergreen Park
>
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 2:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paedon, Jennifer L <jennifer.l.paedon@lmco.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:31 PM
To:Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:City Mgr; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Lockheed Martin's Comments re: Annual Office Limit (AOL) Ordinance, 9/5/17
Attachments:Lockheed Martin AOL ltr 090517.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council:
Attached please see Lockheed Martin’s comments regarding the Annual Office Limit Ordinance discussion, agenda item
#3 on tonight’s agenda, for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Paedon
Lockheed Martin Space Systems
California Government Relations
1
Lockheed Martin Space Systems
3251 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306
September 5, 2017
Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Annual Office Limit Ordinance (9/5/17 Agenda Item #3)
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council:
Lockheed Martin is proud to be one of the founding tenants in the Stanford Research Park. We
contributed to establishing the Park, which helped launch the City of Palo Alto as a research and
technology hub.
We are writing today to share our concerns with you regarding the Annual Office Limit ordinance (AOL)
and potential options on the table for consideration. We are concerned that the inclusion of Stanford
Research Park (SRP) in a permanent AOL ordinance would hinder Lockheed Martin’s ability to adapt our
campus for potential future business growth and threaten our long-term strategy in Palo Alto.
Within the past several years Lockheed Martin worked with the City to redevelop an outdated, single-
story 55,375-square-foot office/R&D building on our campus. In its place, we built a new two-story
85,959-square-foot office/R&D facility that much better serves our needs. Working within the zoning
and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards that have been in place for years, we added an additional 30,000
square feet on the site. Further, the new building followed California Green Building Code and LEED
requirements, resulting in a much more sustainable building. If a SRP growth limit had been in place at
the time of this work, it may have been impossible to build this new, state-of-the-art facility.
We have other buildings on our Palo Alto campus that, should the need arise in the future, we would
hope to renovate. A restriction on office/R&D development may make these plans impractical and
serve as a disincentive to our investment in Palo Alto for the long-term.
We understand and share your concern regarding traffic congestion in the City and for decades have
maintained a robust transportation demand management (TDM) program to assist our employees to
use commute options to work. Over the past two years, we have actively engaged in the Stanford
Research Park’s Transportation Management Association (TMA) to collaboratively and successfully
address traffic congestion in the City. The TMA has seen great success to date in reducing the number
of vehicle trips to SRP and looks forward to providing an update to Council in March 2018.
2
If the current AOL ordinance is extended and a new permanent ordinance is drafted, we urge you to
continue to exclude Stanford Research Park so that we may have the flexibility and consistency needed
to effectively respond to ever evolving business requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments.
Sincerely,
Derek Johnson
Vice President, Programs & Facilities Management
Lockheed Martin Space Systems
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 3:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:PNR21-Comcast <pnr21@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 3:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please extend the construction cap at 50,000 Sq. Feet
Dear Mayor Scharf and City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to extend Interim Ordinance #5357 which imposes a cap on construction of 50,000 sq. ft. of office development in the downtown area. Although that cap has not been reached, we are continuing to
see increased congestion in the city and its feeder streets, continuing lack of parking and generally no clear data
on how RPP permits are being used.
In addition, I think it is way to early in the process to go and authorization additional development beyond the cap. We really don’t seem to know how we are doing to cope with the need for more residential units, more
parking and more congestion.
I think we still need a more complete comprehensive plan that will more fully integrate the needs of the city in
terms of business, professional services, residential units, housing and traffic. Let’s keep the cap until we can more fully integrate these important elements.
Sincerely,
Peter N. Rosenthal, Ph.D. 585 East Crescent Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Len Filppu <lenfilppu@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on Grade Separation Design Planning
Dear City Council,
Please green‐eyeshade consider and vote for a stakeholder CSS approach to the railroad grade separation design plan.
Doing so:
‐‐Helps ensure staff stays on track and covers all potentialities by tapping into wide‐ranging and deep expertise
‐‐Informs the plan with the expertise of citizens who helped write the book on the HSR issue
‐‐Builds both public and press support for eventual outcomes
‐‐Is the path for an examination of the broadest range of options, such as tunneling, funding, Silicon Valley‐caliber
solutions
‐‐Will counter‐intuitively save time and money by “measuring not twice but thrice and sawing once”
‐‐Provides for citizen/voter input, an ethical and political obligation for a project of this size and impact on the
community.
Thank you most sincerely,
‐‐Len Filppu
Fairmeadow neighborhood, Palo Alto
Virus-free. www.avast.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 1:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 1:16 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:September 5, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #4: Rail Program Problem Statement
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
September 5, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SEPTEMBER 5, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4
RAIL PROGRAM PROBLEM STATEMENT
Dear City Council:
The suggested problem statement is silent about the potential funding from
the VTA sales tax (Measure B) and omits the effect on traffic congestion
at Caltrain street crossings that would be caused by increased
development evaluated by the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
the yet to be adopted Comprehensive Plan.
The arguments made by former Council Members and candidates for Council to
adopt a true Context Sensitive Solutions process assume that the "No
Project" alternative for grade separations has already been rejected and
that the purpose of evaluating railroad grade separation alternatives is
to get the community to buy into a decision by the Council to approve some
grade separation project that would be eligible for a portion of the funds
provided by Measure B.
Other Council Members and staff also assume the "No Project" alternative
has already been rejected and that the goal is to get the community to buy
into a decision the Council intends to make official, but those Council
Members and staff believe they can accomplish their goal without using a
Context Sensitive Solution process while just naming whatever process they
do use as Context Sensitive Solutions.
A more accurate problem statement would begin with the Council's desire to
obtain the Measure B funding to permit increased development contemplated
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 1:19 PM
2
by the Comprehensive Plan FEIR that would generate traffic that cannot be
accommodated by the existing road network without grade separations.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <Northern.California@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:California High-Speed Rail: Northern California E-Update – September 2017
To view this email as a web page, go here.
Northern California Regional Update
The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) continues its commitment to conduct public outreach. Here are a few updates this month:
Statewide Updates
Governor Brown Appoints Nancy Miller to Board of Directors On Thursday, August 25, 2017, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed Nancy Miller, Esq. to the Authority’s Board of Directors. Ms. Miller currently serves as Senior Counsel for Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP (Public Law Group), with offices in Sacramento and the Bay Area. She has over 30 years of experience in providing legal services to numerous public agency and private clients, including cities, counties, local agency formation commissions, special districts, joint powers authorities, transportation commissions, and councils of governments.
Ms. Miller’s appointment fills the final vacant position on the Authority Board of Directors. There are now nine Board
members and two ex-officio members.
Leaders in California Legislature Tour High-Speed Rail Construction
In August, both California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon visited high-speed rail construction sites in the Central Valley. Senator de Leon was already in Fresno on business
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:13 PM
2
and requested a brief tour to see how high-speed rail construction is progressing. Speaker Rendon invited Fresno-area elected officials and local labor representatives on his tour of three construction sites.
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon gets a first-hand look at construction in Fresno.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon tours construction at the San Jose River Viaduct.
September Construction Update
Hard work is paying off at the high-speed rail project sites in the Central Valley. Since the start of construction more
than a year ago, the project now has eleven active sites with more to come this fall. In this month's construction
update, we showcase multiple images that highlight the progress we are making to build high-speed rail. It also
includes a new video that showcases the true magnitude of this project with recent aerial photos of the construction
sites. You can find the September Construction Update online, here.
What's New in the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section
In August 2017, Caltrain and High-Speed Rail hosted a joint Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) meeting. The Authority continues to work closely with Caltrain staff and hosts an LPMG meeting every other month, which is open to the public. During this meeting Caltrain presented an update on their Business Plan and an update on the
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. High-Speed Rail presented a statewide update, project section update,
and upcoming outreach events. Information and presentation materials from the August LPMG can be found here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:13 PM
3
LPMG meeting in San Carlos on August 24, 2017
In the coming months, the Authority continues stakeholder coordination and outreach along the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section corridor with additional public meetings in station cities, Environmental Justice outreach, and ongoing coordination and collaboration with Caltrain staff. Additional public meetings along the corridor include:
San Francisco and Millbrae on high-speed rail stations;
Brisbane on the location of a light maintenance facility;
San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City on passing tracks; and
Santa Clara and San Jose on the aerial approach to Diridon Station.
What’s new in the San Jose to Merced Project Section
Representatives of the Authority met with members of the San Jose Community Working Group (CWG) on
Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at the San Jose State Student Union. During the two-hour session, the Authority
presented the alignment alternatives around Diridon Station and downtown San Jose. The Authority described why
the underground option at Diridon Station was eliminated, particularity relating to concerns relating to soil
conditions.
During this meeting, the Authority also unveiled its new video that details the Geotechnical Drilling that is taking place in the Pacheco Pass. Other topics explored during the meeting included the range of alternatives that are being considered in the downtown San Jose area and a flyover of the San Jose to Merced Project Section. On Wednesday, August 30, 2017, the Authority representatives and CWG members met at San Jose City Hall at 200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Some of the topics discussed included the right-of-way process and property acquisition, construction impacts and mitigation A discussion of noise and vibration issues was deferred to a future meeting. Meeting materials can be found online, under Community Meetings, here.
Additionally, the team is working to extend this outreach at least through mid-2018.
Here are several ways to stay involved by providing comments or asking questions:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:13 PM
4
Via Email: san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov
Via Phone:
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section:
(800) 435-8670 San Jose to Merced Project Section:
(800) 455-8166
Sincerely,
Ben Tripousis
Northern California Regional Director
SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV
California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206
San Jose, CA 95113
northern.california@hsr.ca.gov (408) 277-1083
This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US
Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ligia Harrington <harrington.ligia@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:35 PM
To:Council, City; zachery.ross@asm.ca.gov; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Opposing Cell Phone Tower Installation in Palo Alto, CA
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a resident/citizen of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) and urge you to oppose SB 649.
I am strongly opposed to SB 649, which would represent a major shift in telecommunications policy
and law by requiring local governments to lease out the public’s property, cap how much cities can
lease this space out for, eliminate the ability for cities to negotiate public benefits, the public’s input and full discretionary review in all communities of the state except for areas in coastal zones and historic districts, for the installation of “small cell” wireless equipment.
Despite the wireless industry’s claim that the equipment would be “small” in their attempt to justify this
special permitting and price arrangement solely for their industry, the bill would allow for antennas as large as six cubic feet, equipment boxes totaling 35 cubic feet (larger than previous bill version of 21 cubic feet), with no size or quantity limitations for the following equipment: electric meters, pedestals,
concealment elements, demarcation boxes, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, and cutoff
switches.
My husband and I purchased a very expensive house in Palo Alto, California 8 months ago. During our house search, we specifically targeted neighborhood without cell tours. We believe that these
type of towers could litter the neighborhood and cause environmental and safety issues, as well as
decrease the value of our house.
The industry also claims that SB 649 retains local discretion, but by moving the bill into the ministerial process, also known as over-the-counter or check-the-box permitting, their “attempt” at giving locals
discretion falls flat. Cities would have to live with the size parameters established by the bill for “small
cells.” Furthermore, cities would be unable to impose any meaningful maintenance requirements for
the industry’s small cells and are limited to requiring building and encroachment permits confined to the bill’s parameters written by the industry. True local discretion exists only through the use of discretionary permits, not through building or encroachment permits, especially since the public has
no say in the issuance of the latter.
Furthermore, the ability for cities to negotiate any public benefit (typically negotiated because of the level of discretion cities currently have) would be eliminated by this bill. Benefits, such as network access for police, fire, libraries, and parks, negotiated lease agreements for the city general fund to
pay for such services, or the ability to use pole space for public safety and/or energy efficiency
measures are effectively stripped down or taken away entirely. Even if every single city resident
complained about a particular “small cell” and its visual blight, cities and their councils would have no recourse to take them down, move them, or improve their appearance or any other community
impacts under SB 649.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
2
In addition to the permitting issues raised by this bill, it would also cap how much cities can negotiate
leases for use of public property and a city’s ability to maximize public benefit at $250 (was $850
under prior version of the bill) annually per attachment rates for each “small cell”. Some cities have been able to negotiate leases for “small cells” upwards of $3,000, while others have offered “free” access to public property in exchange for a host of tangible public benefits, such as free Wi-Fi in
public places, or network build-out to underserved parts of their cities, agreements usually applauded
by both cities and industry.
What’s truly perverse about SB 649 is that it would actually fail to deliver on stated promises and make it especially tough for cities that always seem to be last in line for new technology to see
deployment, while also completely cutting out these communities from the review process. For
example, SB 649 fails to require that their “small cells” deliver 5G, 4G, or any standard level of
technology. The truth is that standards for 5G are still being developed, which is why the bill can’t require it to meet that standard which begs the question as to why this bill is necessary at all. It also fails to impose any requirement for the wireless industry to deploy their networks to unserved or
underserved parts of the state.
While California has been a leader in wireless deployment, many rural and suburban parts of the state still don’t have adequate network access. The lease cap in the bill guarantees prices for the
wireless industry to locate in the state’s “population hubs,” leaving other parts of the state stranded
and when the technology finally does deploy, they’ll have no say in the time, place, manner, or design
of the equipment, creating two different standards depending on where one lives in the state, one for
coastal and historic, and a lower standard for everyone else.
As if SB 649 wasn’t wreaking enough havoc on the ability for cities to protect their residents, the June
20, 2017 amendments completely deregulate and eliminate all oversight for “micro-wireless” facilities
which can be equipment nearly three feet long dangling between utility poles, raising significant public
safety issues such as obstructing traffic sight distance without any oversight. The bill also now applies a utility pole “attachment rate” formula which is inappropriate for equipment being placed on city
buildings, street and traffic lights.
As amended, the bill is no longer limited to just “small cells.” It now applies broadly to all
telecommunications providers and the equipment they use from “micro-wireless” to “small cell” to “macro-towers.” It’s clear from the direction of this bill, that this is not about 5G wireless deployment,
but more about local deregulation of the entire telecommunications industry. This latest version
places a new ban on city/county regulation of placement or operation of “communication facilities”
within and outside the public right of way far beyond “small cells.” This new language would extend
local preemption of regulation to any “provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights of way,” which can include communications facilities installed for services such as gas, electric, and water,
leaving cities and counties with limited oversight only over “small cells.”
Ultimately, cities and local governments recognize that the wireless industry offers many benefits in
our growing economy, but a balance with community impacts must also be preserved. SB 649, however, is the wrong approach and benefits corporate bottom lines rather than communities. The
bill undermines our ability to ensure our residents have a voice and get a fair return for any use of
public infrastructure. Residents that don’t happen to live in a coastal zone or in a historic district will
have to wonder why their communities deserve such second-tier status. Furthermore, this bill is no
longer about small cells; instead it’s about all telecommunications regulation. Such a massive shift in law and policy is unprecedented and would warrant statewide stakeholder meetings before even
considering such a shift, let alone trying to jam this through between now and September.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
3
For these reasons, I opposes SB 649.
Sincerely,
Ligia Harrington
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Lum <annelum@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
As a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood in Palo Alto, I am urging you to take every step possible to
defend our neighborhood's aesthetics, home values, and peace and quiet. The health impacts and 24/7 hum are
of great concern to me.
Do not allow any more of these cell towers in Palo Alto.
Anne Lum
Resident of 781 Barron Avenue.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Lum <outrageouslums@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
As a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood in Palo Alto, I am urging you to take every step possible to defend our
neighborhood's aesthetics, home values, and peace and quiet. The health impacts and 24/7 hum are of great concern to
me. The noise pollution and degradation of our neighborhood’s value should be foremost on the city council’s concern.
We already need to be concerned with the noise of the airplanes now flying overhead, please do not add to our pain.
Do not allow any more of these cell towers in Palo Alto.
Robert Lum
Resident, 781 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Diana Lee <earlyorbit@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Do not allow cell phone towers in our residential neighborhoods
Dear City Council members,
Please take steps to keep cell phone towers out of the residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto. Pass ordinances to protect
neighborhoods from un-aesthetic, noisy, radiation-emiting antennas; these antenna will ruin the aesthetics of our neighborhoods, decrease home values, and have un-determined (yet likely) health issues.
thank you,
Diana Lee 180 N California Av
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Annelie Myers <annelie.myers@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 4:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon antennas
To members of the Palo Alto City Council
I am concerned about Verizon’s proposed installation of new antennas in our neighborhood. I am
particularly troubled that this decision is apparently being made without public hearings. Placement of the
antennas is not merely an administrative matter but one that will significantly impact many residents. I urge
you to put this matter on the Council agenda for open review and discussion.
Annelie Myers
2215 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Michael J. Freeberg <michaeljfreeberg@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 02, 2017 3:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Installation of 93 Cell Towers- Opposed
To: Palo Alto City Council:
This letter is written in opposition to the proposed installation of 93 cell towers in the Palo Alto Orchards, Barron Park,
Charleston Meadows and Fairmeadow neighborhoods. The first concern is the unknown negative health effects of the
radiation‐emitting antennas. Although the antennas meet Federal guidelines, there is concern that the guidelines are
over twenty years old, predating the entry of increased radiation‐emitting equipment. No one knows the long‐term
health impact of day‐after‐day close proximity to towers such as the ones Verizon is proposing. All we know for sure is
that the towers will increase the radiation level. This is a signficant concern with individuals who already suffer from a
serious illness such as cancer, especially if they live near a proposed cell tower site.
Our neighbor share a utility pole with us at a propossed site to install the cellular equipment. The master bedroom
window at the front of our house is only 37 feet from the utility pole, and 39 feet from the front living room window.
This is a significant concern.
The second concern is the cellular installations will produce an annoying 24/7 hum, impacting quality of life, and forcing
residents who live close to cellular antennas to keep their windows closed.
I read if Verizon is allowed to go forward, more cell antennas are certain to follow. AT&T has already told the City they
also plan to install more cellular equipment here.
I am not suggesting moving the cellular antennas from our neighborhood to another neighborhood. Instead, I am urging
City Council keep cell phone towers out of residential neighborhoods altogether. I read that some California cities have
passed new ordinances to protect neighborhoods from the cell phone companies unsightly, noisy, and radiation‐
emitting antennas.
I urge City Council to do the same by understanding there are unknown health risks and defending our neighborhood
aesthetics, home values and quality of life by keeping cell phone towers out of residential neighborhoods.
Respectfully,
Michael & Rose Ann Freeberg
Palo Alto Orchards
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 8:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cell phone towers and telecommunications policy
Dear city council,
I am a resident of the City of Palo Alto and I am writing in opposition of Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) and
urge you to oppose SB 649.
I am strongly opposed to SB 649, which would represent a major shift in telecommunications policy
and law by requiring local governments to lease out the public’s property, cap how much cities can
lease this space out for, eliminate the ability for cities to negotiate public benefits, the public’s input and full discretionary review in all communities of the state except for areas in coastal zones and historic districts, for the installation of “small cell” wireless equipment. Despite the wireless industry’s claim that the equipment would be “small” in their attempt to justify
this special permitting and price arrangement solely for their industry, the bill would allow for antennas
as large as six cubic feet, equipment boxes totaling 35 cubic feet (larger than previous bill version of 21
cubic feet), with no size or quantity limitations for the following equipment: electric meters, pedestals,
concealment elements, demarcation boxes, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, and cutoff
switches.
The industry also claims that SB 649 retains local discretion, but by moving the bill into the ministerial
process, also known as over-the-counter or check-the-box permitting, their “attempt” at giving locals
discretion falls flat. Cities would have to live with the size parameters established by the bill for “small
cells.” Furthermore, cities would be unable to impose any meaningful maintenance requirements for
the industry’s small cells and are limited to requiring building and encroachment permits confined to
the bill’s parameters written by the industry. True local discretion exists only through the use of
discretionary permits, not through building or encroachment permits, especially since the public has no
say in the issuance of the latter. Furthermore, the ability for cities to negotiate any public benefit (typically negotiated because of the level of discretion cities currently have) would be eliminated by this bill. Benefits, such as network
access for police, fire, libraries, and parks, negotiated lease agreements for the city general fund to pay
for such services, or the ability to use pole space for public safety and/or energy efficiency measures
are effectively stripped down or taken away entirely. Even if every single city resident complained
about a particular “small cell” and its visual blight, cities and their councils would have no recourse to
take them down, move them, or improve their appearance or any other community impacts under SB
649.
In addition to the permitting issues raised by this bill, it would also cap how much cities can negotiate
leases for use of public property and a city’s ability to maximize public benefit at $250 (was $850
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
10
under prior version of the bill) annually per attachment rates for each “small cell”. Some cities have
been able to negotiate leases for “small cells” upwards of $3,000, while others have offered “free”
access to public property in exchange for a host of tangible public benefits, such as free Wi-Fi in public
places, or network build-out to underserved parts of their cities, agreements usually applauded by both
cities and industry.
What’s truly perverse about SB 649 is that it would actually fail to deliver on stated promises and make
it especially tough for cities that always seem to be last in line for new technology to see deployment, while also completely cutting out these communities from the review process. For example, SB 649 fails to require that their “small cells” deliver 5G, 4G, or any standard level of technology. The truth is that standards for 5G are still being developed, which is why the bill can’t require it to meet that
standard which begs the question as to why this bill is necessary at all. It also fails to impose any
requirement for the wireless industry to deploy their networks to unserved or underserved parts of the
state.
While California has been a leader in wireless deployment, many rural and suburban parts of the state
still don’t have adequate network access. The lease cap in the bill guarantees prices for the wireless
industry to locate in the state’s “population hubs,” leaving other parts of the state stranded and when
the technology finally does deploy, they’ll have no say in the time, place, manner, or design of the
equipment, creating two different standards depending on where one lives in the state, one for coastal
and historic, and a lower standard for everyone else.
As if SB 649 wasn’t wreaking enough havoc on the ability for cities to protect their residents, the June
20, 2017 amendments completely deregulate and eliminate all oversight for “micro-wireless” facilities
which can be equipment nearly three feet long dangling between utility poles, raising significant public safety issues such as obstructing traffic sight distance without any oversight. The bill also now applies a utility pole “attachment rate” formula which is inappropriate for equipment being placed on city buildings, street and traffic lights.
As amended, the bill is no longer limited to just “small cells.” It now applies broadly to all
telecommunications providers and the equipment they use from “micro-wireless” to “small cell” to
“macro-towers.” It’s clear from the direction of this bill, that this is not about 5G wireless deployment,
but more about local deregulation of the entire telecommunications industry. This latest version places
a new ban on city/county regulation of placement or operation of “communication facilities” within
and outside the public right of way far beyond “small cells.” This new language would extend local
preemption of regulation to any “provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights of way,”
which can include communications facilities installed for services such as gas, electric, and water,
leaving cities and counties with limited oversight only over “small cells.”
Ultimately, cities and local governments recognize that the wireless industry offers many benefits in
our growing economy, but a balance with community impacts must also be preserved. SB 649,
however, is the wrong approach and benefits corporate bottom lines rather than communities. The bill
undermines our ability to ensure our residents have a voice and get a fair return for any use of public infrastructure. Residents that don’t happen to live in a coastal zone or in a historic district will have to wonder why their communities deserve such second-tier status. Furthermore, this bill is no longer about small cells; instead it’s about all telecommunications regulation. Such a massive shift in law and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:00 AM
11
policy is unprecedented and would warrant statewide stakeholder meetings before even considering
such a shift, let alone trying to jam this through between now and September.
For these reasons, I opposes SB 649.
Jyotsna Nimkar
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:32 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ruthellen Dickinson <ruthellenc@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 8:48 PM
To:Council, City
To the Palo Alto City Council:
Please deny Verizon's applications to install radiation-emitting antennas in our neighborhoods. I am very concerned
about the potential health affects of this equipment.
- Ruthellen Dickinson
962 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:44 PM
To:Kou, Lydia
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:City staff is misleading City Council. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou
Dear Lydia,
Thank you for your prompt action on my request for a meeting with Mr. Keene and Ms. Stump. I trust
you’ve received copies of the emails that followed between Mr. Keene, Ms. Stump and me. If you
haven’t, please let me know and I will forward them to you. I’d like you to see firsthand the no-can-do—with a touch of not-invented-here—attitude expressed in their emails.
From what they’ve said, I fear these two key city employees have been misleading you and other
members of City Council regarding what Palo Alto can do to protect its residential neighborhoods—
protect them from Verizon’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations. I hope you are as angry about their misrepresentations as my neighbors and I are.
As you now know, many sophisticated California cities are successfully saying “no” to Verizon and other cell companies on the basis of the serious negative impact the antenna sites have on
community aesthetics, neighborhood character and adjacent home values. There is no excuse for
Palo Alto not doing the same.
SB 649 would strip municipalities of the rights they now have to prevent multi-billion dollar, out-of-state companies such as Verizon from littering their residential neighborhoods with cell towers. But
contrary to what city staff have been trying to get you to believe, the cities of California are not
helpless—not yet.
I don’t know why staff are misleading you. Perhaps they are poorly informed (but think they know it
all). Perhaps they are being bullied or otherwise manipulated by Verizon. Perhaps having made the
terrible decision to allow AT&T to install towers in some places, they are trying to cover up their error
by pretending nothing can be done. Whatever the problem is, though, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to use the authority vested in them to stop Verizon.
I voted for you, Lydia, as did many of my neighbors who have been in touch with you about the cell
tower installation proposal. In doing so, we expected you and your colleagues on City Council to look
after our interests, not to defer to uncaring unelected administrators—to match your promise of enlightened governance with actual pro-active governing.
Please don’t allow city staff to continue to try to sell you the fiction that nothing can be done. I urge City Council to do three things: 1) Direct staff to do everything in their power to keep Verizon out of
Palo Alto’s residential neighborhood, including retaining Jonathan Kramer to advise them; 2) hold its
own public hearings on Verizon’s planned installations; and 3) if necessary, pass by urgency measure
new ordinances to lawfully protect your constituents’ neighborhoods. Jonathan Kramer knows exactly
how to do this, even though city staff wants to believe it can’t be done.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:06 PM
2
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street 650-325-5151
JFleming@Metricus.net
From: Kou, Lydia [mailto:Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:40 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene,
James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dear Dr. Fleming,
I sent an email this morning to the City Manager, Jim Keene, and City Attorney, Molly Stump, requesting a meeting. I am sure they will be in touch soon.
Kind regards,
--------
Lydia Kou - Council Member
Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:58 AM
To: Council, City
Cc: Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Keene, James
Subject: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dear Lydia Kou,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:06 PM
3
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate hearing from you.
I would very much like to have a short meeting with you, Mr. Keene and the city attorney to discuss this issue further. I understand that Mr. Keene believes that municipalities cannot say “no” to a cell
company’s intrusion into residential neighborhoods. But there is ample evidence that they can—
specifically, the cities of Berkeley and Palos Verdes have recently done exactly that, and Piedmont is
in the process of doing so. It is my understanding that Palo Alto, through the vehicle of, for example, ordinances with respect to noise, aesthetics, sight line obstruction and street tree impacts, has the tools at its disposal to effectively restrict the cell industry’s antennas to commercial areas. My
neighbors and I would like to work with you to accomplish this end.
As you know, the 150 day clock is ticking on this issue. And as you also know, hundreds of Palo Altans have contacted City Council asking you and your colleagues to take steps to defend the quiet beauty of our residential neighborhoods. If City Council is unable to stop Verizon, the Palo Alto
neighborhoods with above-ground utilities are going to work very hard to see that the city delivers on
its promise to put all of the city’s neighborhood’s utilities underground, not just the utilities of favored
neighborhoods.
Thank you for raising the issue of SB 649. You will be happy to know that many Palo Altans have
already contacted our representatives in the state legislature about this matter.
Lydia, I am very appreciative of your concern about the cell towers. My neighbors and I are eager to work with you to ensure that multi-billion dollar companies such as Verizon don’t steamroller Palo Alto
into allowing them to put their noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting equipment on the utility poles next to our
homes.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:06 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Rachel Feinberg <rfeinberg14@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 10:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:cell towers
I am writing to request that you deny Verizon's current applications to install the radiation-emitting antennas in Palo Alto's
residential neighborhood. The current plan that I have seen on the light posts place my home in the center of possible 4 surrounding towers. I have written to the company and the have not supplied me with adequate information regarding the harm to my child in their bedrooms on the second level and closer to the tower.
Thank you for your time.
Rachel Mayberry
-- CONFIDENTIAL: This email, including enclosed files, may contain
confidential information and is intended only for the use of the
individual and/or the entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of
the information included in this email is prohibited. Please immediately and permanently delete this email and/or notify us by
replying to this email.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:06 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Ada Zhang <adazhang2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 10:06 AM
To:Ada Zhang; Council, City
Subject:Stop building cell phone tower in Palo Alto
Hi dear city council ,
I'm a resident of Palo Alto on 381 Carolina ln , I'm writing to you regarding the proposal of cell phone tower in the Palo Alto. I strong against to build cell phone tower in the beautiful tree line city Palo Alto.
We all care about health, noise and city view also the value of the property. Please stop building those tower ,
we can compromise cell phone service single. No one wants to encourage our next generation holding the phone
every single time too.
Please do consider us as residence , we DO NOT want cell phone tower in our city !
Please
Ada
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, September 04, 2017 1:03 PM
To:Council, City; cityofpaloalto@cityofpaloalto.org; Clerk, City
Subject:Fwd: Poverty and Homelessness in San Mateo County Talk 9/24/17
Attachments:Flyer-for-Homelessness-and-Poverty-Talk.docx; NHN-ABOUT US-2015 (1).docx
Dear Council Members and City Manager:
We need to hold such discussions in Palo Alto. What is the city doing to address this crisis?
Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: neighborshelpingneighbors2013 <neighborshelpingneighbors2013@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:17 AM Subject: Poverty and Homelessness in San Mateo County Talk 9/24/17 To:
http://www.csumchurch.com/poverty-and-homelessness-in-san-mateo-county/
"Getting to Know Our Neighbors” Poverty and Homelessness in San Mateo County
Sunday, September 24th at 7:00 p.m.
Crystal Springs UMC: 2145 Bunker Hill Dr., San Mateo
8.4% of San Mateo county residents live in poverty.
Please join us for a panel discussion on poverty and homelessness in San Mateo County. This discussion will
address:
• What is being done
• What needs to be done
• How to break the cycle
• Our biggest challenges • What San Mateo County is doing right • How you can help
We are excited to bring together leaders from the following charitable organizations who are working to address
poverty and homelessness in San Mateo County:
Lynnelle Bilsey, Senior Manager Volunteer Programs www.lifemoves.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:30 AM
2
Meg Clark, Executive Director
www.homeandhope.net
Bart Charlow, Chief Executive Officer www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear NHN Contributors & Friends,
These are important discussions to have. NHN is also a community benefit. And unlike these other
organization, we serve a different demographic, City of Santa Clara to Belmont, mostly "middle income households" who's needs should not be left out of these discussions, What is being done
• What needs to be done
• How to break the cycle
• Our biggest challenges
• What San Mateo & Santa Clara Counties are doing right • How you can help
FOR DONATIONS:
📧 NHN.U.GiveFunds@Gmail.com
☎ 650-283-0270
P.O. BOX 113
Palo Alto, CA 94302
🚙 Drop off locations (Palo Alto & Mountain View)
🚗Funds donations of $100 or more can be picked up, call 650-283-9910.
For Volunteering & Logistics Team:
📧NHN.Volunteers@gmail.com
☎650-283-9910 (No Texting, please)
Caryll-Lynn Taylor , Executive Director
📧NeighborsHelpingNeighbors2013@gmail.com
☎650-283-0270 (No Texting, please)
P.O. BOX 113
Palo Alto, CA 94302 Facebook: https://facebook.com/NeighborsHelpingNeighborsPaloAlto
🎵🎻Watch & Listen to NHN theme songs...2016 'Love is All', https://youtu.be/q4T37EaW4eU1 2017 'Be
Happy', https://youtu.be/uWXUWepSak4
"We may not have all the solutions. NHN will do our best to fill the gaps."
"Getting to Know Our Neighbors”
Poverty and Homelessness in San Mateo County
Sunday, September 24th at 7:00 p.m.
Crystal Springs UMC: 2145 Bunker Hill Dr., San Mateo
8.4% of San Mateo county residents live in poverty.
Please join us for a panel discussion on poverty and homelessness in San
Mateo County. This discussion will address:
• What is being done
• What needs to be done
• How to break the cycle
• Our biggest challenges
• What San Mateo County is doing right
• How you can help
We are excited to bring together leaders from the following charitable
organizations who are working to address poverty and homelessness in
San Mateo County:
Lynnelle Bilsey, Senior Manager
Volunteer Programs
www.lifemoves.org
Meg Clark, Executive Director
www.homeandhope.net
Bart Charlow, Chief Executive
Officer
www.samaritanhousesanmateo.org
*Any donations collected during the event will be divided equally among the 3 organizations
represented. Checks should be made payable to "CSUMC" or "Crystal Springs United Methodist
Church" with the designation "Poverty Panel Donation." You may also donate directly to the
organizations via their websites.
NEIGHBORS HELPING NEIGHBORS
We may not have all the solutions. NHN will do our best to fill the gaps.
Serving: Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View and Los Altos.
Coming to other cities soon.
What We Do: We are a group of non paid volunteers
striving to provide basic needs & counseling to middle income ($150K
to $24K) households who do not qualify for 'safety net' programs. And
those who receive other inadequate social services.
All programs & services are free.
Our trained volunteers who are retired & working counselors,
healthcare & credit professionals, provides counseling and referrals for
other life's challenges (housing, healthcare, professional counseling,
legal issues, etc.) for those who may need help. NHN has a variety of
programs & service to assist most everyone with their basic needs. Plus
we offer emergency case management for those families and
individuals in crisis.
Ray Bacchetti, City Palo Alto-Human Relation Commission, “You know I admire your work”.
Like us on face book to get more details Click this link,
https://www.facebook.com/NeighborsHelpingNeighborsPaloAlto
GROCERIES – we provide fresh, canned and packaged food items
so housed ‘at risk’ and un-housed who have access to cooking facilities may
prepare seven days of meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks and dessert)
once per month. We strive to include whole grain foods, low or no fats,
sugars or sodium and adhere to our clients’ dietary restrictions.
Housing Networks – Rental listings are provided weekly.
Room Rentals and 1-2-3 Bedroom rentals. Support, moving supplies
& more…
Home Sharing Program – For participating landlords
with rentals. Support, blank forms, rental agreements, all renters
screened & vetted.
Jobs Networks –Quick Cash, Part Time, Full Time – Temp &
Permanent.
Volunteer Opportunities: All ages welcome. Age appropriate
tasks & physical limitations observed.
Jonathan Lyons, founder, Plontz, http://www.plontz.com “I hadn't heard
of your organization but this is terrific.”, “I would be happy to feature your
Contact Us:
For general info.
NeighborsHelpingNeigh
bors2013@gmail.com
650-283-0270 (No Texting,
please)
P.O. BOX 113
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Peer Counseling Team
Ph: 650-283-0270 (No
Texting, please)
NHN.FamilyAmbassador
@gmailcom
HOUSING
COORDINATOR NHN.HousingProgram
@gmail.com PH: 650-283-0270
(No Texting, please)
Home Sharing
Program -
Housing Coordinator
Landlord Inquires – Room Rentals/other rentals. NHN.HomeSharing2015@ gmail.com
Backyard Bounty
Coordinator
NHN.Backyard.Bounty.P
rogram@gmail.com
Go to this link,
cityofpaloalto.org
Click on the heading
"Community Partners" scroll
"N P fi "
NEIGHBORS HELPING NEIGHBORS
We may not have all the solutions. NHN will do our best to fill the gaps.
Serving: Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View and Los Altos.
Coming to other cities soon.
organization and work on my company's blog, this is exactly the type of group I want our team to support.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dr.Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Interim Ordinance 5357 and Rail Grade Separation
Dear Mayor Scharf and City Council Members:
I am writing to ask you to extend Interim Ordinance 5357 which imposes a cap on construction of 50,000 sq. ft. of office
development in the downtown area. Although that cap has not been reached, my personal observation is that traffic in
the downtown and traffic exiting Palo Alto on University Ave. and the feeder streets leading to the Freeway entrance
has increased significantly as Labor Day has approached. Many drivers, myself included, are frustrated by the length of
time it now takes to reach local destinations. This is exacerbated if the 101 Freeway is part of the route. I urge Council
members to support the proposed cap, or even reduce the amount of space authorized for new office construction
while the concept is still in the implementation phase.
In addition, I request that Council allow maximum input from residents regarding rail grad separation issues. These
decisions will effect current and future residents. It seems reasonable to me that quality of life issues should be decided
by of those individuals who will be impacted by them. Please do not take the power of choice away from those who will
be most effected.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:23 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 3:19 AM
To:Dave Price; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; Sue
Dremann; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; gsheyner@paweekly.com;
Keene, James; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:jeramygordon@me.com; jnowell@padailypost.com
Subject:Is this CopyRighted? Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
9/5/17, 4:13 AM
@PaloAltoPolice @PaloAltoCityMgr @DavePrice94301 @SFPPC This so called #1stAmendment
publisher vehemently protect his newsstands in #PaloAlto. He's now extended ideology to his twitter
account pic.twitter.com/wJm5gSqRYG
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Stern <stern.anne@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 02, 2017 5:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New weekend kids' pool Riconada schedule
Hello,
My name is Anne Stern and I am a resident of Palo Alto.
I believe that Palo Alto Swim and Sport has recently taken over operations at Rinconada Pool and has changed
the schedule for open kids' pool time. What used to be a fairly open schedule for families to enjoy the
community resource is now restricted to late afternoons only on weekend days. Note that the pool is large, with
five sections. And all five sections are now dedicated for most daytime weekend hours to swim school.
I am disappointed and sad. No matter what words Palo Alto Swim and Sport puts on their website about
serving the community, their new arrangements if anything betray that mission. Please help restore what
previously was a great family resource for working parents on the weekends and now has become far less
accessible and available.
Thank you kindly.
Anne Stern
810 Miranda Green St Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 248-8281
stern.anne@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nounou Taleghani <nounout@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 6:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Office space
Council members:
Please please please, no more office spaces in crescent park and downtown.
Every cute little house converted to business ( like every house on Kipling), or mom and pop shop converted to higher
tech offices or loss of our neighborhood laundromat ( next to 7‐11), ruins our quality of life by ruining our city.
Oh how I look forward to holiday Monday's and weekends when I can ACTUALLY run into my neighbors walking around
or grocery shopping!
Every other day is a miserable effort to fight traffic, construction, closed and diverted roads just to get from point A to
point B!
Enough growth already, please!!!!!!
Thank you!
N. Taleghani
Fulton Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ordinance for Extension of Annual LImit on Office Space Additions
Dear Council Members,
Voting to renew the cap on new office space in the downtown and California Ave areas should be a no
brainer. Of course, we should renew this. It does not hurt developers, and it provides a modicum of protection to neighbors who fear their neighborhoods will become a wall of office buildings that bring people from outside
Palo Alto and traffic.
But, here are some additional considerations.
First, we already have a jobs-to-housing ratio that is out of balance. Adding more office space will only make
that worse. We need to catch up on housing before adding a LOT more office space. Note that the current cap does NOT mean a moratorium on office space additions -- it only keeps it to a pace that allows for infrastructure
to keep up.
Second, downtown and California Ave. have both now becomes places that are not very welcoming to people
who actually live in the areas. The influx of many highly paid, high tech workers to California Ave. has
resulted in that street becoming a row of high priced restaurants. Class A office space drives up rents, as rents rise, merchants and service providers have to raise their prices. We used to walk over to California Ave for
dinner at of several restaurants that were nice, but did not cost $100 for the two of us. Now, that is no longer
the case. Several projects are already underway in the California Ave. area. These result in lanes/streets closed
to accommodate construction vehicles, parking taken up by construction workers, increased traffic, etc. There
needs to be some controlled flow of these activities.
Which, of course, leads me to another observation. Previous councils allowed the construction of office space
with little or no parking. The result is that the retail merchants who used to be find with the surface parking lots
now need additional parking for their workers and customers. The current Council has agreed to construct -- at
city expense -- a multi-story garage. This is a transfer of wealth from the community to the developers of the
office buildings built with too little parking. The money to build this garage needs to be identified, the garage needs to be designed, and it needs to be built. If you approve more that 50,000 feet of office space a year in the
California Ave area, then there is no way there will be a garage built in time for the needed parking. In fact, the
garage will be obsolete before it is built.
Lastly, I'd like to challenge the Council to be as innovative and smart about development as Silicon Valley has a
reputation of being. Anyone can give developers anything they want. That does not require a great deal of brains. Similarly, anyone can shut down all development. The challenge is to have a plan for development that
is creative and provides for the quality of life that Palo Alto has always been known for. Parks, recreation
facilities, sewer systems, utilities, schools, opportunities for children after school (e.g., Children's Theater),
libraries, and on and on. The City Fathers laid out a pretty nice town with the infrastructure to have a thriving
economy AND a high quality of life that drew us all here. I hope that your legacy will be as a Council that created a city that is a great place to live -- not another San Francisco, not another Manhattan, not another
Mountain View or Redwood City, and not another Atherton or Woodside. Instead, Palo Alo should have a high
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:10 PM
2
quality of life for families (as well as single tech workers) and a thriving economy. I know we can find a city
planner that can come up with creative and novels ways to make this happen.
In other words, challenge yourselves to do better that selling out to developers. Just look at places that have no zoning requirements and allow unbridled development. I hope that is not what you want your legacy to be.
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park neighborhood
--
Carol Scott
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 31, 2017 12:32 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Keene, James
Cc:Joe"Joe Simitian
Subject:Palo Alto and Impact of SB35
The housing gristmill grinds on.
San Jose City Council recently identified 99 possible sites for tiny
homes for its homeless citizens. Immediate public pressure
reduced possible sites to three and actual implementation is far
from certain.
Menlo Park City Council, listening heavily to its public school lobby,
shifted suddenly from family oriented housing to housing suitable
only to singles and couples without children. Menlo Park housing
policy swings almost daily on El Camino Real and Belle Haven.
Palo Alto City Council along with all California cities may soon find
its local autonomy for housing policy usurped by Senate Bill 35. A
strong, core majority of politicians have consolidated political power
behind SB 35 for a massive redefinition of sense of
community. The California League of Cities representing cities
and their elected officials oppose SB35.
Most citizens seem to be unaware of SB35 implications. Therein
lies political risk of unhealthy divisiveness.
What can be learned from these three, real world, political
situations? One of most insightful,universal public comments came
from a letter to the SJ Mercury Editor:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:28 AM
2
The editorial (“San Jose’s ‘tiny homes’ plan needs re-boot,” Editorial, Aug. 27) is correct that the San
Jose Bridge Housing Community project needs re-working. The problem with this roll out so far is that
the project has not yet been defined so that angry neighbors’ questions can be answered. The solution
is not to engage a “professional moderator” because the fear of the unknown that takes over
neighbor’s thinking will still occur no matter who moderates a meeting. A solution is to establish a
task force that includes experts who have successfully created these transitional villages in other
municipalities to help define the project. The effort to identify sites should not be done first but should
be one of the final steps that should be taken if best practices are to be followed. We can get this done
with a collaborative approach. So yes, I agree with the editorial that we should “work the bugs out”
for a 2.0 version. Karen Gillette I urge the Palo Alto City Council to avoid support of SB35. Despite good intentions SB35’s
centralization of government power is moving forward with political expediency and without due
diligence. Too many politicians like San Jose City Councilpersons are failing to heed the wisdom and
advice of citizens such as Karen Gillette. Change does not have to be so difficult.
She is wiser than I and most politicians.
I offer one very old quotation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If this does not sit well, try another. No good deed goes unpunished.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Humphries <mhumphries@mindspring.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course/ Baylands Golf Course
This email concerns the future management of the Baylands Golf Course which should open later this fall.
I am a 33 year resident of Palo Alto currently living in Crescent Park on Hamilton. When I started playing golf in about
1990 Palo Alto Muni was a primary place for me for lessons, practice and rounds of golf. Over the years I played it
hundreds of times, sometimes with friends and sometimes I just showed up and met new people to play with. I have
used the pro shop for lessons over the years and also purchased a lot of golf equipment, clothing and shoes. My friends
and I have also used the café and bar for after game gatherings and lunches as well. So I have a lot of experience with
the course and facilities spread over a lot of time. And I have many choices where to play golf.
I am hoping that the management choice for the new course will be every bit as good as I expect this exciting new
course will be.
Here is a replay of comments I made online earlier this year in response to an article by Palo Alto Weekly Online. My
comments apply also to the staff members that Brad Lozares has assembled over the years and I have interacted with
extensively. Brads results and records reflect both him and his staff.
Since I play at many other greater Bay Area courses I have a pretty good basis for comparison to other courses and their
staff and competencies. I understand that some members of Brad’s experienced staff are going to bid with the City to
manage the course and shop. Most of his staff have been there for at least 20 years‐some longer. They are professionals
with good proven results. I support the work they have done and their results building relationships with golfers like
myself. It has been a big factor in the play I have paid for on the course over many years.
From my Palo Alto Weekly comments last May:
Posted by MikeCrescentPark
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 30, 2017 at 9:30 am
Despite some opinions expressed above Palo Alto Muni has had many, many years of consistent play by golfers of all
ages and from communities all around the Bay. I have played there for 30 years and met golfers from not only the
East Bay, San Jose and San Francisco but folks visiting from out of town and business people in town for a few days.
The course previously had ambiance and challenges at a good price. The teaching and practice facilities have helped thousands learn the game. The friendliness and skills of the staff are exceptional- I know because I play many other courses from Monterey to Sonoma that lack on or more of these qualities. Also, many school teams use PA for the practice facilities and rounds as well. Among those are Castilleja and East Palo Alto. Golf is not an elite activity as thought by some who have not been around muni courses. And declining play around the country is not a great predictor for play here. Palo Alto has provided a major service to residents like me as well as surrounding towns. Kids that learn golf will possibly play for a lifetime. Only the smallest minority of adults continue to play soccer after college but vast sums are spent in our communities providing soccer facilities. Palo Alto Muni Golf Course has had golfers of all ages for the whole time I have been playing there. 10-85!
The many years of government discussions, arguments, false starts and permitting issues have caused a lot of
problems for the course, golfers and staff. With a bit of luck this will still produce a positive outcome when the course
is complete later this year.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:26 AM
2
The Brad Lozarus Pro Shop and teaching professionals have been exceptional in their interaction with
golfers and the community. In my 30 years in PA I notice the stability and level of competence of the staff
at the course which is not something I see at any other public courses in our area. They are an asset. I
hope they get a fair shake in winning the new management contract. Recent history has shown our local
government officials capable of unexplainable decisions which produce unforeseen consequences later on.
Let's hope we can enjoy the same previous high standards when this new course opens.
(((END of COMMENT)))
I encourage the City of Palo Alto to take into account the track record that Brad and his long time staffers have
established, and the future benefits they are likely to impart on the new course and its golfing community, of which I am
a member.
I will be happy to volunteer to be a part of any hearings or discussions that may take place as you evaluate who is going
to manage this great new asset for the City of Palo Alto…Mike
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Martha <marthalg@sonic.net>
Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Housing Development at 3709 El Camino Real
Dear City Council,
We were thrilled when we learned of the proposed development at 3709 El Camino Real. Initially the
Daily Post reported that there would be 61 low income homes and half of them would be reserved for the developmentally disabled. We were very disappointed when today's Daily Post reported as many as 25% would be reserved for the developmentally disabled. What number is it? Our son is disabled
and has been waiting for years for an available apartment. The location is great since it is right on El
Camino Real.
One observation on new developments on El Camino Real is that the new buildings are all replacing existing businesses that seem to be doing well. For example the Olive Garden was busy on the other hand empty old buildings or empty lots just sit there. The development in question was where we and
many of our neighbors went to get our hair cut. Family Cuts moved a year ago because they were
told to move due to the new development.
There was some question about how to use the ground floor of the proposed housing development. We suggest classes that everyone would be welcome to attend. For example, my son attended a class off Park Ave.called Art for Well Beings run by artist Judy Gittelsohn. It closed several years ago
due to an unaffordable rent increase. It was designed for people with special needs but everyone was
welcome. Judy lived in the Ventura neighborhood. I'm sure exercise classes would also be welcome.
Thank you for your consideration.
Martha and Paul Gregory
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 1:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 1:13 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:ps two photos for you, taken Sept. 5
Attachments:IMG_2206.jpg; IMG_2204.jpg
Hi,
Ps Here are photos from today, Sept. 5, of the SE corner at Embarcadero and Middlefield, taken from Embarcadero
road.
The down‐sloping asphalt apron is the object of safety concern that l have written to you about.
Posts out there might serve some pedestrian protection, but will probably get nicked by cars making the sharp right turn
off northbound Middlefield turning east towards 101.
And, secondarily, posts will be an eyesore out there.
Thank you,
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Schwab <dave@vvp.vc>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 4:01 PM
To:Jeanne Fleming
Cc:Keene, James; Kou, Lydia; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Dauler, Heather; Shikada, Ed;
Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Re: An Open Letter to Palo Alto City Manager James Keene
Mr. Keene. I have lived in Palo Alto for 15 years. My wife has lived here for 31 years.
I hope you will contact Jonathan Kramer; this would seem to be an excellent next step.
I'd be interested to hear what he recommends.
Regards,
Dave
David Charles Schwab Managing Director Vertical Venture Partners 3000 Sand Hill Road 2/145
Menlo Park CA 94025
www.vvp.vc On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Keene,
Thank you very much for your prompt response and for your willingness to look into how other cities
have succeeded in rebuffing cell phone carriers who have sought to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods.
Having looked into this a bit myself, there is an attorney I strongly urge you to retain to work with the
city attorney and the Architectural Review Board on this matter. His name is Jonathan V. Kramer, and his phone number is . Dr. Kramer has been successfully helping California cities—including, in our area, San Francisco and, right now, Piedmont—to reject applications such
as Verizon’s using the grounds afforded by the law. He also, by the way, represented San
Francisco in the T-Mobile case, a case that concluded in a 2016 court ruling in San Francisco’s
favor. He is, in short, an expert on the issues Palo Alto faces and someone who knows how to keep
Verizon from pushing Palo Alto around.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 8:16 PM
To:Jeanne Fleming
Cc:Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Kou, Lydia; Gitelman, Hillary; Dauler, Heather; Shikada, Ed;
Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Re: An Open Letter to City Attorney Molly Stump
Dear Jeanne,
You are to be commended in your articulate and thoughtful response-- and for your efforts to
proactively protect our neighborhood !!! the city council and ARB should have us, the
neighborhood,its sancrsanct beauty, quiet and peacefulness --as the number one concern. i hope they
begin to work diligently to try to block the erection of verizon towers.
A neighbor and vigilant supporter of stopping the installation of verizon towers
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Date: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:04 PM Subject: An Open Letter to City Attorney Molly Stump
To: "Stump, Molly" <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: "Keene, James" <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kou, Lydia" <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Dauler, Heather" <Heather.Dauler@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>
My pleasure, Ms. Stump.
Please be assured that our neighborhood group does not presume to tell you how to do your job. We have simply been mystified by the City Manager’s assertion that Palo Alto cannot prevent Verizon
from installing its antennas next to our homes, when other cities are succeeding in doing so.
I am delighted that Dr. Kramer’s is a name you know and that the city apparently has a relationship
with him. That said, I would appreciate it if you would clarify one thing: Is Jonathan Kramer working
with you and the City of Palo Alto on the issue of responding to Verizon’s applications to install its
antennas next to our homes? Specifically, has he been retained to work with you to reject Verizon’s
applications on, of course, lawful grounds?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
7
Yes, I realize that the San Francisco case has gone to the state supreme court. But the facts are,
1) Dr. Kramer won a favorable verdict for the residents of San Francisco in Superior Court, and 2)
the clock is running on Verizon’s Palo Alto application, and we cannot wait for the California Supreme Court to rule on the San Francisco case before challenging Verizon’s applications to litter our lovely neighborhoods with cell towers.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Stump, Molly [mailto:Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 3:18 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gitelman, Hillary
<Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Dauler, Heather <Heather.Dauler@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board
<arb@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Palo Alto City Manager James Keene
Thank you, Dr Fleming.
My office works with Jonathan Kramer and other specialized outside counsel as appropriate.
Please note that the San Francisco case of which you speak is not resolved. The California Supreme Court has
taken the case and will decide it later this year or next.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
8
Molly Stump
City Attorney
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Keene,
Thank you very much for your prompt response and for your willingness to look into how other cities have succeeded in rebuffing cell phone carriers who have sought to install
cell towers in residential neighborhoods.
Having looked into this a bit myself, there is an attorney I strongly urge you to retain to work with the city attorney and the Architectural Review Board on this matter. His name is Jonathan V. Kramer, and his phone number is . Dr. Kramer has been
successfully helping California cities—including, in our area, San Francisco and, right
now, Piedmont—to reject applications such as Verizon’s using the grounds afforded by
the law. He also, by the way, represented San Francisco in the T-Mobile case, a case that concluded in a 2016 court ruling in San Francisco’s favor. He is, in short, an expert on the issues Palo Alto faces and someone who knows how to keep Verizon from
pushing Palo Alto around.
I believe you’ll be pleased to discover how successful other cities have been in keeping
out of their residential neighborhoods the ugly, noisy equipment cell companies want to
install there. Palo Alto can do the same, and my neighbors and I expect no less.
Please let me know if we can be of any assistance. In particular, we have contacts in Piedmont, San Francisco, Berkeley and Palos Verdes that I would be happy to share
with you. But the person to start with is Jonathan Kramer.
Thank you again for your attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
9
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Keene, James [mailto:James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:11 PM
To: Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly
<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Dauler, Heather <Heather.Dauler@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dr. Fleming,
Thanks for your email. Please don’t misunderstand my comments at the Council meeting. I don’t favor
the preemptive status of the Federal Government in this matter. And it doesn’t mean that we are
entirely helpless, although our regulatory ability is limited generally to aesthetics and sound, potentially,
which is often limited to Db measures, which small cells may typically be under the established
threshold. That said, we are reaching out to other cities, most notably Berkeley, where I used to be City
Manager. I will be surprised if they are able to restrict installs across residential neighborhoods. But we
are pursuing. Additionally, as you know, we have opposed SB 649 which attempts to limit local
government control in this area.
We take your concerns and advice seriously. At this point, a meeting would not be most effective, but
we’ll reconnect after we conclude our research.
Thanks
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
10
<image002.jpg>
<image004.jpg>
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!
From: Kou, Lydia
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:40 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly
<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dear Dr. Fleming,
I sent an email this morning to the City Manager, Jim Keene, and City Attorney, Molly
Stump, requesting a meeting. I am sure they will be in touch soon.
Kind regards,
<image005.png>
--------
Lydia Kou - Council Member
Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:58 AM
To: Council, City
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
11
Cc: Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Keene, James
Subject: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dear Lydia Kou,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate hearing from you.
I would very much like to have a short meeting with you, Mr. Keene and the city attorney
to discuss this issue further. I understand that Mr. Keene believes that municipalities
cannot say “no” to a cell company’s intrusion into residential neighborhoods. But there is ample evidence that they can—specifically, the cities of Berkeley and Palos Verdes
have recently done exactly that, and Piedmont is in the process of doing so. It is my
understanding that Palo Alto, through the vehicle of, for example, ordinances with
respect to noise, aesthetics, sight line obstruction and street tree impacts, has the tools
at its disposal to effectively restrict the cell industry’s antennas to commercial areas. My neighbors and I would like to work with you to accomplish this end.
As you know, the 150 day clock is ticking on this issue. And as you also know,
hundreds of Palo Altans have contacted City Council asking you and your colleagues to
take steps to defend the quiet beauty of our residential neighborhoods. If City Council is unable to stop Verizon, the Palo Alto neighborhoods with above-ground utilities are
going to work very hard to see that the city delivers on its promise to put all of the city’s
neighborhood’s utilities underground, not just the utilities of favored neighborhoods.
Thank you for raising the issue of SB 649. You will be happy to know that many Palo Altans have already contacted our representatives in the state legislature about this
matter.
Lydia, I am very appreciative of your concern about the cell towers. My neighbors and I
are eager to work with you to ensure that multi-billion dollar companies such as Verizon don’t steamroller Palo Alto into allowing them to put their noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting
equipment on the utility poles next to our homes.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:34 AM
12
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
--
lynn hollyn
www.lynnhollyn.com
1.650.799.1129
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph <jihirschpa@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:22 PM
To:Suzanne Keehn
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Annual Office Cap
To all City Council members,
I agree fully with Suzanne Keehn's email to you. The annual cap should remain with no rollover for any unused
amounts. There are so many years ahead of this community that development should proceed slowly for the sake of future Palo Altans.
Joe Hirsch
Georgia Avenue
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> wrote:
Dear City Council,
I urge you to continue to extend the 50,000 gross square feet as the annual limit for office/R and
D
development . Or come up with a lesser amount, we are already overcrowded, congested, and
loosing too much of Palo Alto to developers.
Please do not have any roll over for unused allocations for future years.
I feel strongly that the ordinance should impose an annual limit on growth to no more than 50,
000 feet.
Thank you for listening and taking these viewpoints into consideration.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 3:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 3:08 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Subject:RE: corner curb design at Embarcadero and MIddlefield
Dear Mr. Mello,
Thank you for responding to my correspondence.
Mr. Mullen has already given much of his time to me on the phone, as well as having sent me an illustration of the
project design.
If you have read carefully the points I tried to make in today’s letter, there is nothing more I can add.
Mr. Mullen indicated to me on the phone in August that the plan would be going ahead as is.
I only hope that my letter was read carefully, and that its points were considered.
Thank you again for your time,
Kim Atkinson
From: Mello, Joshuah [mailto:Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 1:23 PM
To: atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Cc: Mullen, Jarrett <Jarrett.Mullen@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: corner curb design at Embarcadero and MIddlefield
Dear Ms. Atkinson:
Thank you for writing. I appreciate your input. This is an unfinished project that is still under construction, and will be
until November or December. The current condition in the field is not indicative of the finished product.
I invite you to come into our office and meet with our project manager Jarett Mullen, who can give you an overview of
this complete street project. He can be reached at 650‐329‐2218.
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 3:16 PM
2
From: atkinsonkim@pacbell.net [mailto:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Mello, Joshuah
Subject: corner curb design at Embarcadero and MIddlefield
To Mayor Greg Scharff, Palo Alto City Council, and Mr. Joshua Mello (Chief of Transportation Division),
On August 16 I wrote to you with concerns about the changes to the 4 corner curb areas at the intersection of
Middlefield and Embarcadero.
I was most concerned about the southeast corner, and that is what I write to you about today, although all corners are
of concern.
I would like to amend the previous letter sent to you, which had perhaps wrongly emphasized the visual esthetics of
the curb treatment at this key intersection.
Pedestrian safety is of course of the greatest importance.
Since August 16 you have installed gray concrete pedestrian ramps running in each direction, which is great, but the
safety of the broad asphalt corner aprons ramping down to street level remain of concern.
Living on the block of Middlefield just south of this intersection, I often drive up to Embarcadero to make a right turn,
to head down to 101 or to other destinations in that direction. It is a tight, 90 degree turn.
When making a right turn at that SE corner, where now a broad new asphalt ramp leads right down to street level on
the corner, it is very tempting to “cut” the corner when making the turn, allowing the car too close to where pedestrians
might
be.
Cars must make a sharp right‐angle turn there. The sloping asphalt ramp on that corner is tempting to drive over
when making the swing to the right, as it comes down to street level and is the same color as the street asphalt.
With your design of no curb or change in height, or paving material, from street level, many cars making that sharp
right turn may turn too close to pedestrians. This could possibly endanger pedestrians or bicyclists standing there.
If I understand correctly, there may be a plan to put some posts there. Installing some posts may simply result in the
posts getting bashed by right‐turning cars.
And posts out on the corner there ‐‐‐yes, they will be a distracting eyesore !
You are asked to please kindly re‐look at this design. Please kindly consider reinstating a higher curb there, to keep
car tires away, and to define a traditional raised area where people may stand higher than street level.
I am guessing that your sloping asphalt design is to allow bicyclists to flow through posts (that are not yet installed)
for easy transition to cross the street, down the asphalt ramp onto the street to cross it.
But I wonder if this design is not overly complicated and confusing, with separate pedestrian concrete ramps that
simply could have been made wider to accommodate bicycles, while keeping a raised, well‐defined corner curb above
street level.
Thank you for your time to read this opinion. I hope it was written with clarity ! I am worried that the new design may
lead to people getting hurt.
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto 94301
.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hope Raymond <mshoperaymond@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:18 Roosevelt Circle
Dear Members of the City Council,
Once again I need to ask for your help with a situation next door to me.
My next door neighbor at 18 Roosevelt Circle, who is a hoarder, has allowed his property to get cluttered again as it was
before when I contacted you. You may remember, you kindly arranged to have all the clutter outside his home removed,
which I greatly appreciated! But now it is back again.
I heard via the grapevine that his home is in foreclosure, though I don't know that for sure. If it is, when do you expect
the foreclosure to take place? If not, would you please make arrangements for the clutter to be removed again?
I'm sorry to bother you with this, but it is problematic to live next door to such a continual fire hazard, eyesore, and
ready‐made nest for rats (which my exterminator pointed out to me).
Thank you for giving this your attention and, hopefully, helping me find a way to resolve it.
Gratefully,
Hope Raymond
20 Roosevelt Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650‐493‐4806
mshoperaymond@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 2:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB35
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members,
Please do all you can to oppose SB35. This bill would prevent you from
having a
choice in multiple housing and where you build it and would probably be
totally
contrary to our Comprehensive Plan. Further, you would lose any CEQA
reviews
and any housing built would increase traffic just where you might not
want it.
Thanks for your efforts in this difficult subject.
Enid Pearson, Former PA City Council Member, Vice Mayor, etc
--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 11:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 01, 2017 3:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SOP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYFx5UH4Tn4
Nurse gets Arrested for not giving Cop
blood sample
www.youtube.com
A Salt Lake City, Utah University Hospital nurse named Alex
Wubbels, was arrested for not allowing a Police Officer to
obtain a blood sample from an unconsci...
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/5/2017 4:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jamie S. Jarvis <jjarvis@stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:29 PM
To:Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Cc:City Mgr; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Corrao, Christopher; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi,
Philip
Subject:Stanford Research Park Transportation Video
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
As part of our on‐going marketing efforts for Stanford Research Park’s Transportation Program, SRPGO, we’re
developing a series of inspiring videos featuring our enthusiastic transit riders, carpoolers and bicyclists.
The first video is online at http://stanfordresearchpark.com/transportation (click the Play Video button below the logo).
You may see a few familiar faces!
Jamie Jarvis
Transportation Manager
Stanford Research Park
(650) 683‐5418, jjarvis@Stanford.edu
SRPGO.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 7:43 AM
Subject:The October Palo Alto VOTER from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
Attachments:October 2017 VOTER Final.pdf
The Palo Alto VOTER
The October 2017 issue is attached as a PDF. Please save this to your desktop and enjoy!
On the front page:
The LWVPA invites you to hear
Ali Noorani, Director of the National Immigration Forum, in conversation with
Raj Mathai, news anchor for NBC Bay Area
Wednesday, October 18, 7:30 pm
Congregation Beth Am 26790 Arastradero Rd. Los Altos Hills
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
LWVPA !2 October, 2017
Your League is off to a wonderful start this year with exciting events to keep you abreast of the
issues.
We are kicking off the year with a conversation with our Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, at the
MidPen Media Center on September 9. The following Saturday, on September 16, at an event co-
sponsored with AAUW in City Hall Council Chambers, we will hear from County Supervisor Joe
Simitian - “Listening to Trump’s America”. Our October 18 event at Beth Am will be featuring Ali
Noorani on the topic of immigration.
I am particularly excited by the new energies in our many committees and I urge you to become involved in one of
them. Please go to our website to learn about when these committees meet -- there is something for everyone:
Housing & Transportation, Education, Civic Savvy, Immigration, Gun Safety, Voter Services, Communications,
Fundraising, Membership, and more. We are considering creating a new committee: Food Justice.
Last month my message addressed the housing crisis. LWVPA submitted a letter in August urging the Palo Alto
City Council to provide positive direction to a proposed affordable housing project on El Camino and Wilton
Avenue. On Wednesday, November 15, our League will have a special opportunity to participate in a Silicon
Valley Community Foundation event: On the Table: conversations about our region’s housing challenges.
LWVPA will host two or three of these of these conversations; however, we encourage you to register as an
individual to host your own conversation. This is a unique opportunity to get together with your neighbors, your
book club, your walking group or any gathering of your friends and/or family to talk about this most pressing
issue in a relaxed setting around food and drink. As a host, you will be provided with all the tools you need to host
this conversation. Please see the article on page 5.
September 26 is National Voter Registration Day and our intrepid team of Voter Services folks will be at the
Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital once again to register veterans. This is always a rewarding
experience. The team will also be registering new citizens on September 19 and 26 in Campbell. You can join
them. See page 3 for more information.
I enjoyed seeing so many of you at our Summer Social at the Foster Gallery – a wonderful venue and an inspiring
talk from its founder, Jane Woodward. Special thanks to Maureen O’Kicki and all those who helped her with the
arrangements and the food to make this event so special.
Thanks to all of you for being part of the League.
Bonnie Packer
Bonnie Packer President
president@lwvpaloalto.org
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
1st Vice President
Ellen Forbes
2nd Vice President,
Communications,
Webmaster
Karen Kalinsky Secretary, Collaborations Co-chair
Steve Levy Treasurer, Housing and Transportation Chair
Diane Rolfe
Edu. Co-chair and
Collaborations Co-Chair
Sigrid Pinsky Edu. Co-chair
Veronica Tincher
New Voices for Youth
Valerie Stinger
Budget Chair
Mindy Anderson
Facebook Admin.
Mary Jo Levy
League Presentations
Liza Taft
Voter Reg., VOTER Distr.
Mary Alice Thornton Fundraising Chair
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Civic Savvy Chair
Kathy Miller Voter Services Co-Chair
Paula Collins Auditor
Nominating Committee
Chris Logan, Chair Nancy Smith Ellen Springer Lynne Russell
LWV of Palo Alto: Officers, Directors, Off-Board Roster (650) 903-0600, www.lwvpaloalto.org
OFF-BOARD
Jeannie Lythcott
Voter Services
Megan Swezey
Fogarty &
Lynne Russell
Membership
Lisa Ratner
Advocacy
Maureen O’Kicki
Program/Events
Organizer
Sue Hermsen
VOTER Editor
Tory Bers
Publicity/Media
David Springer
Voter’s Edge
Ellen Smith Board Development Chair
DIRECTORS
Message from our President
OFFICERS
LWVPA !3 October, 2017
Your Board
• Approved a letter to the Palo Alto City Council in support of a proposed Palo Alto
Housing low-income housing development
• Approved the appointment of Mila Zelkha as Secretary and Paula Collins as Treasurer to
the LWV Santa Clara County Council
• Approved migrating the LWVPA website to a new League web template
Discussed
• Future speakers and social events
• Hosting a LWVPA table at the Palo Alto Community Health Fair to be held at City Hall plaza on September 23
• The possibility of a county-wide civil discourse committee
• Outcomes from our retreat regarding priorities and goals; and reports from our committees that relate to these
goals
Learned
• Steve Levy will be our representative to the LWV Santa Clara County Council Housing Committee
• Lisa Ratner will organize our Observer Corps efforts
• Off-board member Paige Costello will offer the Board a presentation on the effective use of social media for
our League Karen Kalinsky, Secretary
Board Meeting Highlights - August, 2017
Contact Liza Taft to Join in These Voter Registration Events:
New Citizens Ceremonies:
Tuesday, September19
Tuesday, September 26
Four ceremonies will be held on each day starting at 8:30 am, 10:30 am, 12:45 pm, and
2:45 pm. Voter registration volunteers should be ready to help for about one hour starting
an hour after each ceremony start time. (9:30-10:30 am following the 8:30 ceremony, etc.)
National Voter Registration Day: Tuesday, September 26
We will be at the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital 10 am - 2 pm.
Want a positive, uplifting experience?
Sign up to help new citizens register to vote in September! This is your last chance to participate
until next summer, so don't miss the opportunity to welcome new citizens into the world of
elections. Lynne Russell and I volunteered for the first time and loved every minute. Hear the
cheers for each country in the ceremony, see the excitement of the new citizens, and make a
difference in our democracy. Alison Cormack
On Thursday, August 24, nine volunteers with the Palo Alto League of Women Voters traveled to Campbell to help
register new citizens. There were four sessions with about 400 people in each group, young and old, totaling nearly
1,600 people, in one day! More than 70 countries of origin were represented.
It is a thrill to witness these ceremonies. Family and friends line up excitedly to enter the theater. One man came
early in the morning even though his own ceremony was the last session!
I want to thank the following people for all their help: Alison Cormack, Ellen Forbes, Liz Jensen, Barbara
Millen, Shauna Rockson, Lynne Russell, Virginia Millen and Sallie Whaley.
If you would like to volunteer for either of the remaining ceremonies, or for National Voter Registration Day at the
VA, please contact me. We will be sharing the New Citizen Ceremony opportunity with other local Leagues on
September 26.
Liza Taft
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/6/2017 1:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:38 PM
To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Council, City;
Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Perron, Zachary;
pressstrong@gmail.com; Philip, Brian; Reifschneider, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
Bullerjahn, Rich; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Keith, Claudia;
dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; Ryan, Dan; Lum, Patty
Subject:Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
The two of you are complete frauds and a total waste of palo alto tax dollars... Assholes
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 iPhone