HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170102plCC 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: 1/2/2017
Document dates: 12/14/2016 – 12/21/2016
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 | 12/14/2016 3:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ncmartin@comcast.net
Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Groundwater pump off
To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council , I would like to register my displeasure with the City continuing to allow homeowners and developers
to pump off groundwater. I keep large buckets in my showers to collect water so I can water my
plants.
I keep a container in my kitchen sink to catch water to wash fruits and vegetables and decrease the water I use for rinsing dishes. I take Marine showers. And you are allowing people to just pump out and
waste important water. Neighbors of these projects are feeling the effects as their houses settle and
develop cracks. Please set an example and do not allow this wateful process to continue.
Respectfully submitted, Nancy C. Martin
777 San Antonio Rd. #132
Palo Alto, CA 994303
"It's not what we have, but what we enjoy that constitutes our abundance."
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/14/2016 3:45 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Darshana Maya Greenfield <darshanamaya@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:need rules to not waste groundwater when building
I was shocked the first time I saw water just gushing down the street into the storm drain from someone’s
building site.
It is shocking that you let them do this - and at no charge! - when there are better ways to build and/or save the
water.
Please do NOT continue to allow this wasteful practice!
Darshana Maya Greenfield
just across the Creek from you in the Willows, Menlo Park
"Love is the answer, whatever the question."
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/14/2016 3:45 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Meyer <meyere@concentric.net>
Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:de-watering - Do No Harm
Honorable Members of the City Council:
We live in a climate that has periodic droughts. We are still experiencing the effects of the
current drought, and while many of us have reduced our water use, others are squandering
this precious resource.
Ground water is a community resource. It belongs to all of us.
If you extract water, nearby water is drains into the space created. Simply put, that is how
nearby homes are damaged. There is considerable testimony about the damage caused by
de-watering,
That a few people feel free to squander a valuable resource - one that does not belong to
them - is unfair. It is not theirs, is not right for them to waste it.
It seems reasonable to ask those who want to extract our groundwater to show that it will
do no harm. Builders should present evidence, if they have any, that they do no harm to
neighbors' homes, their trees, etc.
We expect drivers to observe traffic lights, we don't wait till after an accident.
It should not be the responsibility of people who are damaged to have to complain or sue.
It is the responsibility of the perpetrator to do no harm.
A simple motto for the builders could be, Do No Harm. And the City should require that it
is observed. We should prevent damage and waste, not just hope for the best.
Elaine Meyer meyere@concentric.net 12/14/16
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/14/2016 3:45 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Carla Carvalho <ccarvalho98@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Groundwater Extraction
Dear Council Member,
Water is not a free resource. Significant energy is used to ensure that it is potable, and in its processing once it isconsumed (or wasted.)
The extraction of vast amounts groundwater also has adverse effects on our local environment [and beyond.]
This should not be a political issue; this an issue of common sense conservation.
Likely, more than 8 residential basements will require dewatering in 2017 and 2018. This wasteful practice is not sustainable.
Current regulations are not stringent enough, and suggest a permissive attitude towards homeowners who are
not mindful of their environmental footprint.
Please be forward thinking in your regulation of groundwater extraction. This needs to stop.
Sincerely,
Carla Carvalho,
1924 Edgewood Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/14/2016 3:45 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Groundwater
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council,
Please take steps to reduce the waste of our groundwater by dewatering during basement
construction. I have heard that the over 140 million gallons pumped this year is about
equal to all the annual rainfall in the flat part of Palo Alto! (excluding the foothills.)
Doing this for more basements every year, especially in dry years, must have an effect.
My understanding is that less than 1% was reused. Groundwater is our "insurance
policy" for drought and subsidence.
The house on Heather flooded in 1998, yet is not in a flood zone, and is allowed to have a
basement?
People who have a well pay for the water they pump, and people dewatering should have
to pay for their pumped water too.
All of us pay for storm drains. But if dewatering puts just as much water per year as flat
land rainfall through the storm drains, they should pay for storm drains too.
Thank you for safeguarding our groundwater for the future.
Penny Proctor
758 Greer Rd
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/27/2016 5:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Srdjan Petrovic <spetrovic@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Easement for in-law units
Hi,
My parents currently live with us and we are considering alternatives. Most of the affordable senior housing solutions offered by the city are booked up so much that even the wait-lists are closed. We frankly have no
other option but to build an in-law unit on our Eichler lot (7700 sq. ft.).
I am encouraged by the Planning and Transportation commission's recommendation to ease off on the permit
process and would like to see that you pass the law through. There simply is no other option for my parents to retire in peace.
Regards,
-Srdjan Petrovic
4014 Ben Lomond Dr.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/27/2016 5:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:31 PM
To:apersky@scscourt.org; smanley@scscourt.org; aflint@scscourt.org;
nklippen@scscourt.org; mgreenwood@scscourt.org; Stump, Molly;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; jsylva@scscourt.org;
mharris@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; myraw@smcba.org;
apierce@pierceshearer.com; dryan@scscourt.org
Subject:From the archives --looking back on the Brock Turner case now that the Commission
on Judicial Performance has cleared Judge Persky of misconduct
http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2016/07/28/brock-turners-probation
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/27/2016 5:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:35 PM
To:bballpod; Irv Weissman; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Mark Kreutzer;
midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; Tranil Thomas; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy
Lewis; Council, City; Mayor; CityManager; lee.brand; paul.caprioglio; sal.quintero;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; terry; beachrides; firstvp@fresnopoa.org;
francis.collins@nih.gov; President; russ@topperjewelers.com; kfsndesk; newsdesk;
jboren; bmcewen; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; richard.wenzel; popoff; Dan Richard;
dwalters; Paul Dictos; Mark Standriff; mike; Mark Waldrep; hennessy; bretthedrick; Chris
Field; Raymond Rivas; Gary Turgeon; Greg.Gatzka; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg;
igorstrav .; Jason Tarvin; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kclark; kevin cervantes; scott.mozier;
nick yovino; nmelosh@stanford.edu; david pomaville; Steve Wayte;
shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu
Subject:Fwd: Aspirin prevents pancreatic c. and Brits have laser + drug for prostate c.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Aspirin prevents pancreatic c. and Brits have laser + drug for prostate c.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Tues. December 20, 2016
To all- KCBS SF reports this morning that Chinese researchers in Shanghi say that aspirin can cut the
incidence of pancreatic c. I already take it to prevent H. attacks and strokes. One baby aspirin (81 mg.) per day,
with food, to help prevent heart attacks, recommended Randy Linde M.D. at the Palo Alto Medical Clinic to me
in the 80's. You don't want pancreatic c.
The KCBS report did not say what dosage of aspirin helped prevent pancreatic c. One has to be careful with
it. One dermatologist I saw at the Palo Alto Medical Clinic told me that he burnt a hole in his stomach with
aspirin while traveling in S. Calif. I think he was hospitalized for that.
Also, Brit. researchers have a new and successful treatment for prostate c. It involves a drug made from a deep-sea organism plus the use of lasers. Half those treated then showed no prostate c. and a good % of the
remainder avoided having their prostate removed.
Dr. Weissman at Stanford and Dr. Burns at Kaiser, please spread the news.
Thank you.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 11:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:37 PM
To:Dan Richard; popoff; richard.wenzel; dennisbalakian; Tranil Thomas; Doug Vagim; Steve
Wayte; Mark Standriff; lee.brand; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio;
sal.quintero; Mayor; CityManager; Council, City; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Kreutzer;
jboren; bmcewen; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; beachrides;
bearwithme1016@att.net; terry; President
Subject:Fwd: British HSR conference re slab track v. ballast. For engineers
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:18 PM
Subject: British HSR conference re slab track v. ballast. For engineers
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thurs. Dec. 15, 2016
Dan- This is interesting, especially for engineers involved with HSR. My eyes glazed over after a few
paragraph, but I am sending it to your engineers Mr. Popoff and Richard Wenzel. There are no doubt others in CHSRA that you might want to see it.
https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/12/15/fixed-track-forms-for-high-speed-lines/ BTW, Ch. 30 in Fresno (gleefully) reported two nights ago that someone in Kings Co. is suing CHSRA
saying that electrifying Caltrain tracks on the peninsula violates the terms of the Prop. that authorized HSR in
~2008.
The fight almost to the death here in the Central Valley by the Republican scum to stop HSR continues. Keep people isolated and ignorant, and far from good jobs, and you can exploit them a lot better. Adults in
Fresno have never heard of Silicon Valley, Hewlett-Packard Co. or the term "CPA". You can hardly believe it,
right?
Well, they've never heard of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson or of Charles DeGaulle, either. Why would I lie about this?
Fresno is 165 miles from downtown Palo Alto.
Loran W. Harding
Fresno
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 11:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat <patstarrett765@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, December 15, 2016 6:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Groundwater
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Save Palo Alto's Groundwater" <savepaloaltosgroundwater@gmail.com>
Date: December 15, 2016 at 4:16:18 PM PST To: Pat <patstarrett765@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Groundwater
Thank you for the comment.
I assume that you also sent it to the Council, not only Save Palo Alto's Groundwater!
Keith Bennett
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Pat <patstarrett765@comcast.net> wrote:
Dear Council,
Please keep our community free of unwarranted wasting water for personal
desire to have a basement. This is a total action against our whole city.
Please take action on all behalf of all of us to stop this selfish procedure. Pat Starrett
Palo Alto citizen since 1962.
Sent from my iPad
--
Visit the Save Palo Alto's Ground Water initiative's website at:
http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/27/2016 5:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Heidi Schwenk <heidi29@me.com>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 9:35 PM
To:Info, Plandiv; Council, City
Cc:Schwenk Heidi
Subject:Midtown Shopping Center - New Sale - Land Use Suggestions
With Retail on the first floor protected by a City Ordinance
With Parking for the existing businesses currently being a huge problem, adding apartments without underground
parking would be a tremendous mistake.
With Traffic in Midtown currently being an issue during commuting morning and evening hours and during both
weekend days, apartments added at all would also be a tremendous mistake. How can more people and motor vehicles
possibly existing in Midtown with the current building layout. An Urban Planner's nightmare.
Regards
Heidi Schwenk
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, December 16, 2016 12:03 PM
To:Ann Hardy
Subject:Re: Letter to the editor re Chief Dennis Burns
FYI:
This piece ran in the Daily Post on Dec 15 ( yesterday).
12-
14-
2016
Dear
editor
:
I’ve
beco
me
good
friend
s with
soon
to
retire
Palo
Alto
Polic
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
2
e
Chief
Denn
is
Burn
s. As
a
retire
d
publi
c
defen
der
and
some
times
harsh
critic
of the
polic
e, we
have
stron
gly
disag
reed
on a
variet
y of
polic
e
practi
ces
issue
s.
Thes
e
inclu
de
the
effica
cy of
Taser
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
3
use
on
unar
med
citize
ns,
to the
best
interr
ogati
on
practi
ces
nece
ssary
to
avoid
coerc
ed
false
confe
ssion
s.
Despi
te our
disag
reem
ents,
we
have
maint
ained
an
open
dialo
gue
with
the
com
mon
goal
of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
4
worki
ng to
end
wron
gful
convi
ction
s,
and
to
enco
urage
non-
discri
minat
ory
and
const
itutio
nally
appro
priate
polic
e
practi
ces.
Finall
y, I
recall
askin
g
Chief
Burn
s to
meet
with
mem
bers
of
Palo
Alto's
unho
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
5
used
com
munit
y,
indivi
duals
who
felt
that
certai
n
polic
e
office
rs
were
discri
minat
ing
again
st
mem
bers
of
their
com
munit
y.
The
chief
readil
y
acce
pted
my
invita
tion.
At
the
meeti
ng he
went
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
6
out of
his
way
to
graci
ously
listen
to
every
comp
laint
and
to
answ
er all
quest
ions.
He
hand
ed
out
his
busin
ess
card
to all
in
atten
danc
e--
enco
uragi
ng
their
phon
e
calls
at
any
time.
Palo
Alto
will
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 1:28 PM
7
be
losin
g a
comp
assio
nate
leade
r, and
a
man
of
integr
ity
and
acco
untab
ility.
Aram
Jame
s
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/27/2016 5:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 12:32 PM
To:citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City; jseybert@redwoodcity.org;
council@redwoodcity.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
aflint@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; nklippen@scscourt.org;
mgreenwood@scscourt.org; RJonsen@menlopark.org; dryan@scscourt.org; Dennis
Upton; anna.griffin@rda.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly;
Burns, Dennis; myraw@smcba.org; mharris@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org;
Timothy Gray; apierce@pierceshearer.com; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;
joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org;
stephanie@dslextreme.com; jsylva@scscourt.org
Subject:Robert Reich: Like a Tyrant, Trump Is Deploying Seven Techniques to Control the
Media
>
> FYI: Will Trump appoint Supreme Court justices willing to overrule NY Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ?? NY Times
v Sullivan is the case that stands for the proposition that both the press, and members of the public, have the right ( and
arguably a duty, in appropriate circumstance) to harshly, vehemently, caustically, and even unpleasantly criticize and
verbally attack judges‐‐ and all other public officials.
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/20/robert_reich_like_a_tyrant_trump
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/16/2016 11:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Hodge <hodge@tenaya.com>
Sent:Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:42 PM
To:jBroadbent@baaqmd.gov; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org;
city.clerk@mountainview.gov; Marc Berman; schu@stanford.edu; Jerry Hill; Adam Stern
Subject:Volkswagen Consent Decree - ZEV Investment Commitment
Attachments:161214 VW Settlement CFPA Final.pdf
In support of our mutual carbon reduction goals, Carbon-Free Palo Alto has submitted the attached comments on
the Volkswagen Consent Decree - ZEV Investment Commitment. Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Bruce Hodge
Founder & Chair, Carbon-Free Palo Alto
http://CarbonFreePaloAlto.org
California Air Resources Board
Chair Mary D. Nichols
1001 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
November 16, 2016
Re: Comments on the Volkswagen Settlement, Appendix C
Dear Chair Nichols and Staff:
Carbon Free Palo Alto (CFPA) thanks you and your staff for the opportunity to comment on the
Volkswagen (VW) Settlement, Consent Decree, Appendix C and the California Air Resources
Board’s (CARB) presentation slides from the public input workshop held on December 2, 2016.
Summary:
1) We support the proposed programs in Appendix C as only relates to battery electric
vehicles
2) Settlement funding should not be wasted on hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles.
Background:
We support the proposed programs in Appendix C as relates to battery electric vehicles.
CFPA was formed to help Palo Alto reach its aggressive goal of 80% carbon reduction by 2030.
Car transportation is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in our community and many
others. Our city has converted to 100% carbon-free electricity in large part to support the
switch away from fossil fuels to electricity for transportation and buildings. Many other cities in
California also have a goal to provide 100% renewable electricity to their residents by 2030 or
sooner. This means that all funding available from the Settlement can be productively used
today to accelerate us along a proven route to zero emissions car transportation and a flexible
renewable energy infrastructure.
Our city focuses exclusively on plug-in, battery electric technology as the best path to carbon-
free car transportation for many reasons.
Carbon FreePalo Alto
CarbonFreePaloAlto.org
Accomplished So Far :
100% Carbon-FreeElectricity For All OfPalo Alto!
Next :60% Reduction of Emissions In 10 Years
DesigningStrategiesFor The Transition ToA Low-Carbon Future
Battery electric vehicles are:
• Cost-effective automobile transportation solutions today – they offer lower lifetime cost
of ownership than gasoline powered cars and can be charged in many existing locations
• Flexible and available in many forms, from plug-in hybrid to full battery electric, that
cover the complete set of range and charge time requirements
• The lowest carbon and energy footprint, light duty vehicles
• True Zero Emission Vehicles, wells-to-wheels, wherever renewable energy is on-line
• Complementary to a flexible and resilient electrical energy infrastructure where
renewable energy can be harnessed and building and transportation solutions can
rapidly evolve
CFPA strongly recommends against funding hydrogen infrastructure programs with public
money from the Settlement. Lack of infrastructure is often cited by industry groups as the only
obstacle to the development of a fuel cell vehicle market. However 95% of hydrogen fuel comes
from natural gas and will remain so for the foreseeable future. In addition, public investment in
the excessively expensive “fossil” hydrogen fueling network ($2M per station) is highly
speculative while vehicles are still expensive, unproven and largely unavailable.
There is no economical or energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen from carbon free,
renewable energy. It simply takes too much energy (2 to 3 times as much) to generate
hydrogen from water, compress it, distribute it and fuel a high pressure tank to power a fuel
cell vehicle compared to just charging a battery electric vehicle from the grid. Moreover,
producing hydrogen from water uses significant amounts of fresh water, a scarce resource in
California.
Fuel cell vehicles that use “fossil” hydrogen from natural gas generate the same amount of
emissions as today’s efficient hybrid vehicles with limited scope for improvement given the
technical limitations. They should therefore not qualify as “Zero Emissions Vehicles” (ZEV) for
the purpose of directing Settlement funds. Further, promoting hydrogen vehicles as a viable
near or medium term, low/no carbon transportation solution confuses consumers entering the
market looking for a low or zero emissions vehicle.
The following table developed by Carbon Free Palo Alto shows that the EV market is already
significant and accelerating while the Hydrogen Fuel Cell market remains just a projection. As
such, it is highly unlikely that Fuel Cells will play a significant role in reducing transportation
emissions.
California Count
Electric
Vehicles
Hydrogen Fuel
Cell Vehicles
Models for Sale* 20+ 2
2016 ~250,000 <500
2019 ~600,000 ~13,500
2022 ~1,200,000 ~43,600
Cost $29k-Leaf $57k-Mirai
Fuel $/yr** $450 $1,250
Energy/yr**
Tank to Wheel 4.5 MWh 7.6 MWh
Energy/yr***
Well to Wheel 6.5 MWh 33-40 MWh
* 20 EV models sold in all leading CA cities in 2016. November, 2016 ICCT report. FCV models for sale
in 2016: Toyota Mirai, 8 dealers, Toyota website; Hyundai Tucson, lease only, near H2 stations, Hyundai
website.
** Tank to Wheel based on 15,000 miles/yr base, Leaf: $0.10/kWH, 3.3 miles/kWH; Mirai, $5.5/kg H2, 2
miles/kWh; https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml
*** Well to Wheel based on renewable energy + electrolysis, http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-
economy-doesnt.html
Hydrogen fuel-cell transportation still needs “four miracles”. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s
comments from 2009 are, in essence, still true today; for hydrogen to work, “four miracles”
need to happen:
1) There needs to be an efficient and low-cost way to produce hydrogen
2) There needs to be a safe, high-density method of storing hydrogen in automobiles.
3) An infrastructure for distributing hydrogen has to be built so that fuel-cell vehicles
would have ample refueling options; and
4) We need to improve the capacity of the fuel-cell systems themselves
Chu concluded that achieving all four big breakthroughs would be unlikely. “Saints only need
three miracles,” he added. 1
CARB responded to Secretary Chu at the time as follows:
Industry projections for the fuel cell vehicle market are continually rolled back. Likewise, the
present CARB projections roll back the forecast above five more years to 47,000 Fuel Cells by
2022. Other technical and economic statements regarding fuel cell vehicles contained the
response have likewise failed to materialize. This lack of progress combined with the
accelerating EV market strongly suggests that the market has already decided that hydrogen
cars are not a winning technology for the foreseeable future. A recent Stanford study
comparing the longer term scenarios of hydrogen vs battery electric based transportation also
conclude that investing in the path toward hydrogen cars would not be a sound investment.2
The envisaged hydrogen car market has outsized infrastructure cost, untested products and no
clear economic or environmental value. Any public investment and promotion of hydrogen
stations will likely be seen as wasted on a “white elephant”.
Bruce A. Hodge
CFPA Founder and Chair
CC:
Jack Broadbent, BAAQMD, jBroadbent@baaqmd.gov
Palo Alto City Council, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Menlo Park City Council, city.council@menlopark.org
Mountain View City Council, city.clerk@mountainview.gov
Mark Berman, State Assembly Member Elect, marc@voteberman.com
Stephen Cue, Stanford, Former U.S. Secretary or Energy, schu@stanford.edu
Jerry Hill, CA Senator Assembly, 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo, CA 94402
Notes: 1 Paraphrased from: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413475/q-a-steven-chu/
2 Battery cars a better choice for reducing emissions than fuel cell cars. Stanford Precourt
Institute for Energy. Nov. 14, 2016. https://energy.stanford.edu/news/battery-cars-better-
choice-reducing-emissions-fuel-cell-cars
December 12, 2016
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
My name is Karly Hou, and I am a student at Gunn High School. Recently, we have been studying
public policy, and I am writing to suggest that before businesses are allowed to establish themselves in
Palo Alto, (1) residents are well notified and (2) resident approval is obtained.
Recently, America's Tire was established on the intersection of El Camino and Arastradero. This
could significantly impact the safety of all residents, especially students. Because America's Tire is a tire
repair shop, there will be an influx of cars needing to be fixed traveling through Palo Alto, as well as tow
trucks carrying those cars. Specifically, these automobiles would more frequently appear on Arastradero
and El Camino to obtain the business' services.
This poses a threat to pedestrians, especially students walking and biking to school. According to an
article from Palo Alto Online in 2013, 51% of Palo Alto's middle schoolers bike to school, followed by
43% of high schoolers and 13% of elementary schoolers. Arastradero/E. Charleston is home to many of
these schools: Hoover Elementary, Briones Elementary, Terman Middle, and Gunn High. Every morning
and every afternoon, hundreds of kids walk and bike along these roads. The addition of these repair-
needing vehicles and large vehicles increases these students' risk for injury through automobile collisions.
Because Palo Alto residents are affected, they should be informed and allowed to make the decisions of
whether these businesses should be allowed to stay.
Allowing new businesses to move to Palo Alto also means an increase in traffic. In this case, the
intersection of Arastradero and El Camino is already a busy 4-way junction, with a constant flow of cars,
bikes, and pedestrians. With the addition of America's Tire, there will be even more traffic from drivers
needing car repairs and tow trucks carrying repair-needed cars, which also poses a risk to pedestrians as
mentioned previously. This year, the Palo Alto City Council stated transportation and mobility as one of
its top priorities, and Palo Alto residents should be able to help achieve this goal by giving their input.
The most recent National Citizens Survey shows a decline in approval regarding mobility over the years.
In 2010, 47% of Palo Alto residents surveyed rated traffic flow as "good" or "excellent," as opposed to
only 31 % now. In addition, 66% gave these ratings to "ease of travel by car" in 2010, as opposed to only
44% now. Despite the council's goal to increase mobility, public approval is declining. If residents were
allowed to help make these important decisions, they could help ensure that the city achieves its
transportation goals and feel more impactful in their community.
Palo Alto residents should be able to decide what happens in their own city, especially because it
greatly affects them in both safety and mobility. Not only would this promote safety and mobility and
help the city achieve its goals, but residents would also feel a greater sense of contribution to their
community and have their voices heard. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on this topic.
Sincerely,
Karly Hou
370 Edlee Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
( 650)-804-6856
6£ :6 WV OZ 330 S ~
. -.., ~ -. ..,
.. ,.,-1 "'
November 19, 2015
Decernber17,2015
--. -
February 18, 2016
March 17, 2016
April 26, 2016
May 26, 2016
June 23, 2016
I
August 18, 2016
September 15, 2016
October 20, 2016
November 17, 2016
December 15, 2016
-~ -
City School Liaison Committee
2014 to 2016 Agenda Items
• Discussion of Ventura School Site
• Review and Discussion of District/City
Emergency Preparedness
• Review and Discussion of District/City
Sustainability Programs and Services
• City Sustainability Programs and Services
• PAUSD Enrollment Report
• City Housing Element - ----- -- - --
• Discussion Regarding Purpose of the
Committee
• Discussion of 2016 Committee Meeting
Agenda Items
• Discussion of Residential Parking Program
• Discussion of City and PAUSD Summer
Programs
• Discussion Regarding Shared Communications
Between the City and PAUSD
• Discussion Regarding City and PAUSD
Transportation Demand Management
Strategies
• Update on City-wide & District Construction
Activity for Summer 2016
• Discussion Regarding Impacts of new
Kindergarten Schedule
• Discussion Regarding Early Education and
Childcare Capacity and Needs
• Update on Project Safety Net and Centers for
Disease Control's Epidemiologic Assistance
(Epi-Aids) Study
• Update on Safe Routes to School
• Discussion Regarding Teacher and Public
Employee Housing
• Discussion Regarding Middle School Athletics
Program
• Discussion Regarding Cubberley Planning
Process
• Discussion Regarding PAUSD and City
Sustainability Programs
• Update on t he City's Comprehensive Plan
Process
• Discussion and Review of Enrollment Report
• Discussion About 2017 Committee Topics and
Schedule of Items
Page 2of2
Groundwater Conservation
Draft Policy Framework
December 14, 2016
Danit/ Garber & Ktlth Bennett
Groundwater is a limited resource and as such should be conserved. The aspects of this as a goal
are many and can impact the entire City's In a variety of ways. Issues regarding construction
dewatering fs only one part of this framework-but an important one. And while construction
dewatering resulting from the construction of a single family home basement Impacts only a
portion of the City, the location of these homes where this is an issue runs through many of our
residential neighborhoods. Soils in these areas also play a related role absorbing water during storm
events and buffering flooding Impacts.
Draft Policy Framework
Goal: Conservation of Palo Alto's Ground water
A Policy: Reduction of existing extraction sources
1 Underpasses (Oregon Expressway -400 acre feet/ year)
2 Buildings & Structures
B Policy: Reduction of Ground Water depletion due to Construction
1 Buildings & Structures (Commercial, Multi Use, Multi Dwelling, etc.)
2 Houses (R-1 I single family) (Total of-430 acre feet in 2016)
C Policy: Utilization of Surfaced Ground Water
1 From existing extraction sources
2 From Construction
0 Policy: Ground Water Recharge
1 Underpass Recharge
2 Construction Recharge
3 long term -Recycled Water Recharge Program
4 Long term -Purified Water Reuse
E Policy: Utilization of ground water times of water scarcity
F Policy: Coordination with other municipalities
.. .. .. ...
2017 & 2018 Program Recommendations to Reduce Groundwater Pumping
in Single Family Home Construction
December 14, 2016
page 2
deliveries (for each hose) during the two week start up period
defined below. (as suggested in the Staff Report)
j) Do not require analysis of projected or anticipated quantities of
water to be pumped or draw down curves to be calculated (thus
avoiding $30,000 to $50,000 in additional or "enhanced"
geotechnical and hydrological reports and analysis).
k) Increase outreach to applicants and contractors on the benefits and
importance of shallow aquifer groundwater as a water resource.
(New)
l) Requlre on site in public view a posting that;
(1) Declares that this project uses a Broad Area Dewatering
method and the start and end dates of the permitted
pumping period. (New)
(2) A contact with responsibility and authority to promptly
address and respond to concerns related to program
Implementation from cltizens and water recyclers. (New)
2 Monitoring
a) Using standardized, city-specified and certified meters, measure the
amount and duration of water pumped daily from the ground and
disposition (percolation / local use, offsite beneficial use, storm
drains), with meters safely available for viewing by inspectors or
interested members of the public:
(1) Percolated back into ground on site or neighboring
properties
(2) Beneficially utilized off site i.e.; trucked water
(3) Discharged to City Storm Drain System
(4) Record the dates of pumping, total number of days pumped,
and total amount of water in each of (1)-(3) above.
b) Using standard surveying methods, measure the elevation of the
ground water dally, starting before excavation starts, and ending 2
weeks after the backfilling of the excavation.
c) Using standard surveying methods, measure the elevation of the soil
surface at the property line and the elevation of adjacent structures
before dewaterlng starts and at the end of the pumping period.
Accuracy to be± 1/8 inch or better.
d) Report on actions taken during construction to minimize
groundwater pumped.
e) City to make information available publicly within 30 days.
3 Likely Costs -Range from $190,000 to $236,000*
a) Fees
(1) Additional fees related to more trucks taking water off site.
Example: $0.025 per gallon x 1,.500,000 gallons (10% of
15,000,000 gallons) = $37,500.
2017 & 2018 Program Recommendations to Reduce Groundwater Pumping
in Single Family Home Construction
December 14, 2016
page 3
(2) City Permit Fees: approximately $5,000 (no change from
today)
(3) Additional City Monitoring Fees: $10,000 (from Staff Report).
b) Construction
(1) Standard Geotechnical Report: $4,500 to $7,500. Do not
require additional/enhanced Geotech and hydrology
reporting that may cost $30,000 to 50,000 more.
(2) Two Monitoring wells with Piezometers: $1,500 to $3,000
(3) Base Excavation Costs today (assume project requires
shoring): Survey, Engineering, Backfill, Temporary shoring,
Shoring, Dewatering system set up I tear down, Dewatering
system rental: $139,000 to $170,500 (does not include
Contractor's fees or actual basement construction costs). No
substantial changes to these costs.
c) •Most sites in Palo Alto require shoring. Shoring can be avoided if
the site is large enough to slope the earth and excavate safely. In
instances where a project is on a property that is large enough to not
require shoring, the costs range lower: $80,000 to $140,000.
D Encourage Localized Dewatering -Cut off walls
1 Regulations
a) Require submittal of the standard Geotechnical report including
borings to 20' and static groundwater elevation (no change to
today's requirements)
(1) Add: CPTesting to 45 feet (Newl
b) Require submittal of cutoff wall design and engineering for review
and approval. Consider expediting this review. (New)
c) Require that surfaced ground water first be percolated back into the
site' property outside of the cut-off wall and I or on neighboring
properties. (New)
d) Require the surfaced ground water that isn't percolated Into the
ground then be trucked and utilized offsite, to the extent logistically
(working hours, trip duration, size of truck, etc.) possible. (New)
e) Allow any remaining surfaced ground water to flow to the City's
Storm Water Drain System (especially during the 2 week start up
period). Remove 12-week restriction on pumping duration because
the amount of ground water surfaced Is likely to be very small
compared to Broad Area dewatering strategies. (New)
f) Do not require analysis of projected or anticipated quantities of
water to be pumped or draw down curves to be calculated. (New)
g) If the project circumstances are such that no water will be
discharged to the storm drain system, extend the dewatering season
from March 1-November 15. (New)
h) Require on site in public view a posting that;
2017 & 2018 Program Recommendations to Reduce Groundwater Pumping
In Single Family Home Construction
December 14, 2016
page4
(1) Declares this project uses Loca lized Dewatering Cut-Off Wall
method and describe the permitted pumping period and
exceptions. (New)
(2) A contact with responsibility and authority to promptly
address and respond to concerns related to program
implementation from citizens and water recyclers. (New)
2 Monitoring (same as "Broad Area" Dewaterlng Monitoring above)
a) Using standardized, city-specified and certified meters, measure the
amount and duration of water pumped daily from the ground and
where it goes, with meters safely available for viewing by inspectors
or interested members of the public:
(1) Percolated back into ground on site or neighboring
properties
(2) Beneficially utilized off site i.e.; trucked water
(3) Discharged to City Storm Drain System
(4) Record the dates of pumping and total number of days
pumped, and total amount of water in each of (1) -(3)
above.
b) Using standard surveying methods, measure the elevation of the
ground water daily, starting before excavation starts, and ending 2
weeks after the backfilling of the excavation.
c) Using standard surveying methods, measure the elevation of the soil
surface at the property line and the elevation of adjacent structures
before dewaterlng starts and at the end of the pumping period.
Accuracy to be ± 1/8 inch or better.
d) Report on actions taken during construction to minimize
groundwater pumped.
e) City to make information available publicly within 30 days.
3 Likely Costs -Range from $205,000 to $260,000. The construction costs of
secant wall for local area dewatering costs $15K -$24K more than the cost
of wide-area dewatering when shoring is used. Most residential properties in
Palo Alto use shoring for basement construction, however for those
situations where shoring would not be required, the additional costs of local
area dewatering adds about $100K.
a) City Fees
(1) There will be costs related to trucks taking water off site. We
anticipate that these costs will be in the range of $3,000 to
$20,000 and tikely will only occur in the startup period.
If the "broad area" method requires trucking or local
recharge of 10% of the water that would otherwise go to the
storm drain system, then local dewatering within a cut·off
wall will cost less because total flows coutd be less than 10%
of the broad area dewatering method flows.
2017 & 2018 Program Recommendations to Reduce Groundwater Pumping
in Single Family Home Construction
December 14, 2016
pages
(2) City Permit Fees: approximately $5,000 (no change from
today)
(3) Do not require additional Clty Monitoring Fees.
b) Construction
(1) Standard Geotechnical Report: $4,500 to 7,500. Do not
require additional/enhanced Geotech and hydrology
reporting that may cost $30,000 to 50,000 more.
(2) Add: CPTesting (for secant wall design) to 45 feet: $7,000 to
$9,000
(3) Two Monitoring wells with Plezometers: $1,500 to 3,000
(4) Secant Cut-off construction and Excavation Costs: Survey,
Engineering, Secant wall (shoring & cutoff), Shoring, Dewater
wells, Dewatering system set up I tear down, Dewatering
system rental (monthly change): $184,000 to $215,500 (does
not include Contractor's fees or actual basement
construction costs).
Ill 2018 Program
A Evaluate results of 2017 Monitoring to determine how reeulations should be
modified to reduce ground water pumping.
1 2016 v 2017. Compare the amount of water pumped in 2016 to 2017 to
determine if the 2017 program lowered the amount of Broad Area
dewatering and if so by how much.
2 Broad v Localized Area Dewatering. Compare the amount of water pumped
in Broad Area versus Localized dewatering projects to evaluate if Localized
dewatering strategies substantially reduced the quantity of water pumped
compared to project using Broad Area dewatering.
3 Evaluate the effectiveness of percolating and trucking water In diverting
water from the City's storm drain system.
4 Evaluate the daily elevation of ground water In Broad Area projects to better
understand the hydrology of these properties and the impact of ground
water pumping.
5 Compare the daily elevation of ground water of Broad and Localized Area
projects to better understand the hydrology of these properties and the
impacts these strategies have on ground water pumping.
6 Evaluate the dally elevatlon of ground water from the different monitoring
wells to determine if below grade constructions interrupt the flow of ground
water.
7 Evaluate if the elevation of the soil surfaces at the property Jines have
changed between the starts and end of the pumping period. •
2017 & 2018 Program Recommendations to Reduce Groundwater Pumping
in Single Family Home Construction
December 14, 2016
page6
8 Evaluate if the elevation of the neighboring adjacent structures have
changed between the start and end of the pumping period and a minimum
of 2 months after pumping Is completed.*
9 *Evaluate if a better understanding of the soils at a particular site, or water
table drawdawn is minimal will negate the need to continue ta require the
measuring of adjacent soils surfaces and structures for the local area
dewatering method.
B Administration
1 Effective immediately upon Council approval for all projects which do not
have Street Work Permits as of the date of Counci• approval.
2 Transparent disclosure, implementation, enforcement and collection of
applicable penalties.
C Complete related studies to determine If they should be incorporated into
regulations to reduce groundwater pumping.
1 Charging for discharge of groundwater. (p4 #1) .
Implement by July 1, 2017, concurrently with the proposed extension of the
Stormwater Management Fee (2017 ballot issue).
2 Determine if groundwater pumping on multiple properties within some area
requires regulation. (p5 #3)
For 2017, require that applicants who intend to develop multiple properties
within 500' or less between the border of the excavation during the same
"season" be required to use the local area dewatering strategies.
3 Impact of below grade constructions on soil absorption of water and impacts
on stormwater flows through soils. (pS #7)
Draft of 12/ 13/ 16
Section 1. Title
Titis ordinance shall be known as the Palo Alco Surveillance Technology & Community Safety
Ordinance.
Section 2. Council Approval Requirement
a) A City entity must obtain Council approval at a properly.noticed public hearing prior to any
of the following:
1) seeking funds for surveillance technology, including but not limited to applying for a
grant or soliciting or accepting state or federal funds or in-kind or other donations;
2) acquiring new surveillance technology, including but not limited to procuring such
technology without the exchange of monies or consideration;
3) using new surveillance technology, or using existing surveillance technology, for a
purpose, in a manner, or in a location not previously approved by the Council; or
4) entering into an agreement with a non-City entity to acquire, share, or otherwise use
surveillance technology or the information it provides.
b) A City entity tnust obtain Council approval of a Surveillance Use Policy prior to engaging in
any of the activities described in subsection (2)(a)(1)-(4).
Section 3. Information Required
a) The City entity seeking approval under Section 2 shall submit to the Council a Surveillance
Impact Report and a proposed Surveillance Use Policy at least forty-five (45) days prior to
the public hearing.
b) The Council shall publicly release in print and online the Surveillance Impact Report and
proposed Surveillance Use Policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing.
Section 4. Determination by Council that Benefits Outweigh Costs and Concerns
A City entity may not take any of the action described in Section 2(a) of this ordinance unless the
Council first determines that:
a) the benefits co the community of the surveillance technology outweigh the costs;
b) the proposal will safeguard civil liberties and civil rights; and
c) no alternative with a lesser economic cost or impact on civil rights or civil liberties would be
as effective.
Section 5. Compliance for Existing Surveillance Technology
·'
Drq/i ~j' 12/ 13/ 16
Each City entity possessing or using smveillance technology prior to the effective date of this
ordinance shall submit a proposed Surveillance Use Policy no later than one hundred eighty (180)
days following the effective date of this ordinance for review and approval by Council. If such
review and approval has not occurred within sixty (60) days of the submission date, the City entity
shall cease its use of the surveillance technology until such review and approval occurs.
Section 6. Oversight Following Council Approval
a) A City entity which obtained approval for the use of surveillance technology must submit an
Annual Surveillance Report for each such surveillance technology to the Council within
twelve (12) months of Council approval and annually thereafter on or before November t.
b) Based upon information provided in the Annual Surveillance Report, the Council shall
determine whether the requirements of Section 4 are still satisfied. If the Council determines
that any requirement of Section 4 is not satisfied, the Council shall direct that use of the
surveillance technology cease and/ or require modifications to the Surveillance Use Policy
that will resolve the above concerns.
c) No later than January 15 of each year, the Council shall publicly release in print and online a
report that includes, for the prior year:
1) a summary of all requests for Council approval pursuant to Section 2 or Section 5,
including whether the Council approved or rejected the proposal and/ or required
changes to a proposed Surveillance Use Policy before approval; and
2) all Annual Surveillance Reports submitted to the Council.
Section 7. Enforcement
a) Any violation of this Ordinance constitutes an injury, and any person or entity may institute
proceedings for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or writ of mandate in any court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce this Ordinance.
b) Before instituting such a proceeding, the person or entity must first provide written notice to
the Council or City entity regarding the specific alleged violation of this Ordinance, and
provide at least 90 days to investigate and remedy the alleged violation.
c) A court shall award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the plaintiff who is the prevailing
party in an action brought to enforce this Ordinance.
Section 8. Definitions
The following definitions apply to this Ordinance:
a) "Annual Surveillance Report" means a written report concerning a specific surveillance
technology that includes all of the following:
2
..
Dreft of 12/ 13/ 16
1) a description of how the surveillance technology was used;
2) whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology
was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data
disclosed, under what legal standard(s) the information was disclosed, and the
justification for the disclosure(s);
3) a summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology;
4) the results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the Surveillance
Use Policy, and any actions taken in response;
5) information, including crime statistics, that help the community assess whether the
surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purposes;
6) statistics and information about public records act requests, including response rates;
and
7) total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other
ongoing costs, and what source of funding will fund the technology in the coming
year.
b) "City entity" means any department, bureau, division, or unit of the City of Palo Alto.
c) "Council" means the City Council of the City of Palo Alto.
d) "Surveillance Impact Report" means a publicly released written report including at a
minimum the following:
1) information describing the surveillance technology and how it works;
2) information on the proposed purposes(s) for the surveillance technology;
3) the location(s) it may be deployed and crime statistics for any location(s);
4) any potential adverse impacts on civil liberties and civil rights, including but not
limited to any disparate impacts on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, national
origin, income, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression; and
5) the fiscal costs for the surveillance technology, including initial purchase, personnel,
and other ongoing costs, and any current or potential sources of funding.
e) "Surveillance technology" means any electronic device, system utilizing an electronic device,
or similar technological tool used, designed, or primarily intended to collect, retain, process,
3
Drqfi ~/ 12/ 13/ f6
or share audio, electronic, visual, location, thermal, biometric, olfactory, or similar
information specifically associated with, or capable of being associated with, any individual
or group.
"Surveillance technology" includes, but is not limited to, drones, automated license plate
readers, closed.circuit cameras/televisions, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)
trackers, Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, radio-frequency identification
(RFID) technology, biometrics-identification technology, and facial-recognition technology.
"Surveillance technology" does not include, among other things, routine office software
such as operating systems and word processing software, and routine office hardware such
as desktop computers and printers.
£) "Surveillance Use Policy" means a publicly released and legally enforceable policy for use of
the surveillance technology that at a minimum specifies the following:
1) the specific purpose(s) that the surveillance technology is intended to advance;
2) the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required prior to such use, and
the uses that are prohibited;
3) the information that can be collected by the surveillance technology;
4) the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and
processes required prior to access or use of the information;
5) the safeguards that protect information from unauthorized access, including
encryption and access control mechanisms;
6) the time period, if any, for which information collected by the surveillance
technology will be routinely retained, the reason such retention period is appropriate
to further the purpose(s), the process by which the information is regularly deleted
after that period lapses, and the specific conditions that must be met to retain
information beyond that period;
7) how collected information can be accessed or used by members of the public,
including crimin2l defendants;
8) if and how other City or non-City entities can access or use the information, including any
required justification or legal standard necessary to do so and any obligauons imposed on the
recipient of the information;
4
Draft of 12/ 13/ 16
9) the training required for any individual authorized to use the surveillance technology
or to access information collected by the surveillance technology, including any
training materials; and
10) the mechanisms to ensure that the Surveillance Use Policy is followed, including
internal personnel assigned to ensure compliance with the policy, internal
recordkeeping of the use of the technology or access to information collected by the
technology, technical measures to monitor for misuse, any independent person or
entity with oversight authority, and the legally enforceable sanctions for violations of
the policy.
Section 9. Severability
The provisions in this Ordinance are severable. If any part or provision of this Ordinance, or the
application of this Ordinance to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this
Ordinance, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons or circumstances,
shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue to have force and effect.
5
I ,9 \.f~f~nNG
[ ] Placea Before Meeting I M" Received at Meeting
Comments Regarding Staff report #7481 7
Directions to Staff Concerning Further Requirements and Restrictions
Related to Basement Construction and Dewatering
December 14, 2016
Dan/el Garber & Keith Bennett
Think Bigger
Improve the effectiveness of today's methods and move forward with alternative strategies
that may significantly reduce groundwater pumping.
The staff report, while doing a good job of capturing all of the suggestions that have been
made doesn't do as good a job as it could at cutting through them to better address I get us
closer to the goal of conserving our groundwater faster and with a higher likelihood of
acceptance by homeowners and their contractors.
Therefore we recommend:
A Recognize and Establish two Dewatering Regulation Paths; One for the Broad Area
Dewaterlng methods that are used by nearly all projects today, and a new
alternative path to allow for Localized Dewaterlng methods to be used.
There is nothing today that precludes the homeowner from pursuing their project
using localfzed Dewatering methods; they can submit an alternative means report
for the City's review and action. However that doesn't promote, encourage or
incentivize the home owner to do this. Creating two regulation paths will -
especially if one path adds more hoops to jump through (Broad Area Dewatering)
than the other (Local/zed Dewaterlng).
B Remove expensive and less effective studies and requirements from both paths. And
focus on the key measure of how much water is taken off site to the City's Storm
Draln System. See item II Expensive Requirements, below.
C Remove other issues that have been conflated with dewatering and do not deal
directly with the technical issues of dewatering from the programs being proposed.
See Item Ill Conflated Issues, below.
II Expensive Requirements
A Role of the City. In the most broad terms, whereas applicants of commercial projects
usually have cost recovery mechanisms in place (i.e. the sale of the project or rental
of space), homeowners do not.
Thus ,asking a homeowner to fund expensive studies (the "Enhanced Geotechnlcal
Report," likely to cost the homeowner from $30,000 to $50,000 for a quality report)
to evaluate alternatives and take on the risk of those studies not being right, is
Inappropriate.
It ls the City's place to create prescriptive requirements that take the risk out of the
homeowners decision making. This is done for typical structural foundations and fire
sprinklers, for example. This should be done for dewatering, too. This isn't to
exclude the homeowner from doing these studies, should they find reason (an
unforeseen existing condition) or efficiency (time, money, risk reduction) in pursuing
an alternative to the City's prescription.
B Enhanced Geotechnical Report (p7). Regarding the suggested addition of an
"Enhanced Geotechnlcal Report" that asks the Geotechnlcal engineer to predict
subsurface conditions, draw down curves and pumping rates of water that will be
pumped (so that the work of homeowner's contractors can be monitored by City
Staff) and then produce and certify a "Statement of Dewatering Effects" is likely to
. ·-·
I
..
Comments Regarding Staff report #7481
Directions to Staff Concerning Further Requirements and Restrictions
Related to Basement Construction and Dewaterlng
December 14, 2016
page2
be very ineffectual, especially for the amount of money it's likely to cost ($30,000 to
$50,000).
These sorts of statements are typically boilerplate heavily couched in contingent
language to avoid liability issues and thus are not often effective documents to
manage actual work. Further they will require the homeowner to hire one more
consultant; a hydrologist.
C Bonds & Insurance (pS #4). "Require homeowners to purchase bonds or Insurance
before allowing dewatering".
The likely extremely high cost of obtaining this sort of assurance means that only the
ultra wealthy will do these projects. For the rest of the community, this likely and
effectively stops any project requiring dewaterlng from being considered.
Ill Conflated fssues
The single family house construction dewatering program should be tightly focused on the
technical aspects of single family house basement construction and it's impacts on
groundwater pumping. Several other issues have become conflated with this scope In the
Staff's Report and obscure the effort that needs to be applied and should be excluded from
the report, including:
A Developing dewatering requirements tailored to drought situation. (p4 #2)
Compelling conceptually but it is not clear if truly meaningful if we ore looking to
conserve ground water regardless of circumstance.
B Study and recommend possible reductions of all existing groundwater pumping
activities in the City. (pS #5)
An important study to perform, but outside the scope of this program.
C Review of zoning code issues, Including FAR adjustments for basement and not
allowing two-store basement, or any basement, in areas with shallow groundwater.
(pS #6)
The City should separate the technical issues of excavations that require dewatering
(a Public Works task) from the need and use of basements (a Planning Department
or City Polley task).
These are often conflated and shouldn't be; they are separate issues. For the most,
part these ore occupancy related issues and outside the scope of these programs. FYI
the CAC hos made several suggestions that the City Council will review for inclusion
in the Comprehensive Plan that address these questions surrounding basement
occupancy.
D Investigate whether Palo Alto should assume a groundwater management
leadership role for the North County area. (p5 #9)
Reasonable far the City Council to consider but outside the scope of this program.
E Increasing use of permeable surfaces to assist with Groundwater recharge. (p5 #10)
An important task to support the conservation of our groundwater, but outside the
scope of these programs.
• ..
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
Policy & Services Committee
James Keene, City Manager
AGENDA DATE: December 14, 2016 ID#: 7561
City Council
[x] Placed Before Meeting
3
Title: Discussion and Recommendations for 2017 City Council Priority Setting Process
Attached to this At Places Memo are two documents transmitting Councilmember and
Councilmember-Elect feedback regarding 2017 priorities. Attachment A is verbatim language
provided to staff. Attachment B is the grouping of the feedback.
Attachment: A -Summary of City Council Feedback -2017 Council Priorities
Name Priority Area
Scharff • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility
• Infrastructure
• Healthy City, Healthy Community
• Completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update
• Financial health of city
Kniss • Partnering w Schools
• Cubberley/ the future
• {lconic)Bike bridge
• Approve one {I) affordable housing project
• Grade separations. New study
• {Meaningful) retreat
• Complete comp plan (really!}
Holman • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility
• Healthy City, Healthy Community
• Long term staffing strategy (focused resource needs, sustainable funding mechanisms and planning, hiring, retention ... )
• Living up to City promises I agreements {code enforcement, traffic violations, noise violations, assessing and collecting appropriate
fines, adherence to project plans and conditions of approval)
Filseth • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility
• Infrastructure
• Healthy City, Healthy Community
• Long Term Financial Stability
Dubois • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Mobility
• Infrastructure
• Long term staffing strategy {to Include hiring, retention, pension and benefits, leveraging technology to increase efficiency)
Wolbach • Housing
• Transportation
• Human and Civil Rights
Kou • The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, Livability, and Moblllty
• Infrastructure
• Healthy City, Healthy Community
Fine • Mobility options (for all 'users' of our city)
• Housing
• Smart, efficient, experimental city
Tanaka • Increase City revenue by 50% without new tax increases
• Underground Caltrain
Page 1of1
Attachment: B
Grouping of City Council Feedback -2017 Council Priorities
Priority Area Tally
The Built Environment: Housing, Parking, livability, and Mobility 9•
Infrastructure 4
Healthy City, Healthy Community 4
Completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2
Financial Stability 2
long term staffing strategy 2
Caltrain -underground and grade separation (Infrastructure?) 2
Partnering with Schools (Healthy City, Healthy Community?) 1
Cubberley Community Center (Infrastructure?) 1
Bike bridge (Infrastructure?) 1
Affordable housing project (The Built Environment?) 1
City Council Retreat 1
Living up to City promises I agreements 1
Human and Civil Rights (Healthy City, Healthy Community?) 1
Smart, efficient, experimental city 1
Increase City revenue by 50% without new tax increases 1
Page 1of1
Records Retention). The Committee should survey the existing field of regulation as part
of its preparation for developing new regulations;
5. Measures to accommodate community Interests in smart city initiatives and other
innovations, data-gathering to support planning efforts and other policy development,
use of technology to facilitate access to City services and programs, security of persons
and property, and cost efficiency, to strike the right balance for Palo Alto;
6. Information sharing between jurisdictions; and
7. What type of oversight, evaluation, auditing, or enforcement are appropriate.
For further discussion of possible components, see the model ordinance by the American Civil
Liberties Union (Attachment A, pages 22-25) and recommendations by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (Attachment B, pages 3-7).
BACKDGROUND
Technology
Examples of technology with surveillance applications include but are not limited to: automated
license plate readers (ALPRs), image and video recording, audio recording, unmanned aerial
vehicles (aka "drones"}, voice recognition, facial recognition, gait analysis, location tracking,
automated social media monitoring, cell phone Interceptors I cell phone tower emulators I
(international mobile subscriber identity catchers "IMSI", e.g. Stingrays), electronic
communication surveillance (e.g. internet and phone interception}, hacking, and data mining.
Palo Alto
Palo Alto currently uses audio recording, cameras in police vehicles, body-worn cameras for
police officers, and received one ALPR through a County grant. The Council also recently
(October 5, 2015) approved a contract to deploy low resolution cameras to count pedestrian
and bicycle traffic (the City Manager added a privacy clause to the contract). For video
recording in particular, Palo Alto has a staff-written policy that was revised as recently as
January 2015. (See Attachment E).
Other Cities
Other municipalities around the state (see Attachment C) and country have adopted various
other technologies, often without notification to the public or elected officials, and without
robust policies governing data protection, data access, and data retention. Boston, it was
recently revealed, collected ALPR data (tracking residents' locations) which was stored online
and accessible by the public. Alameda, CA, recently adopted a policy for Stingrays which was
transparent, and well received by privacy advocates and the community as a good example.
County
Santa Clara County recently rejected adoption of Stingray cell phone interceptors after
concerns raised by Supervisor Joe Simitian, in particular due to concerns about transparency.
(See attachment D). Santa Clara County is currently considering an ordinance governing
surveillance technology use by county agencies.
April 25, 2016
(ID #6876)
Page 2 of 4
State
In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed several bills regarding privacy and modern technology.
Two by Senator Jerry Hill deal with ALPRs (SB 34} and cell phone interceptors (SB 741). SB 178
by Senators Mark Leno and Joel Anderson requires a warrant prior to searching cell phones,
emails, etc. AB 856 by Assemblymember Ian Calderon restricts use of drones over private
property. AB 1116 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto restricts uses of voice recordings by private
companies.
Federal
The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (aka NCRIC or Fusion Center) in San
Francisco links local surveillance with federal, raising concerns for residents about how data
collected by local agencies will be shared with federal agencies. Federal intelligence, military,
and law enforcement have been the subject of much controversy regarding surveillance
technology -the nature, adoption, use, security, and legal justification of which have been
questioned.
DISCUSSION
Law enforcement and government depend on the trust of the community. Use of technologies
which has the appearance, potential, or effect of violating privacy or civil liberties can diminish
community trust in government, particularly when adopted and used without transparency.
The City's contracting processes include security and other requirements for data and personal
information, and the City has a video management procedure that applies to visual information
gathering, such as at sensitive utility infrastructure facilities, public garages, etc.
Rapidly evolving surveillance tech·nology raises concerns for the City including, but not limited
to: privacy of residents and visitors; chilling effects on expression, research, travel, association,
or other rights; misuse of data; data breach (access by unauthorized parties); and adoption,
use, or expansion of capabilities without Council oversight.
Rather than attempt to predict or react to each piece of emerging technology, the proposed
ordinance would proactively establish a high level policy to be followed prior to the City (or
contractor or partner) seeking funding, adopting, or re-purposing any specific technology. This
standard operating procedure would provide clarity and predictability for City departments, the
City Council, and the community.
As technology advances in coming years, our Police Department in particular will benefit from
the confidence of our community that such technologies will only be adopted and utilized in a
transparent and responsible manner with clear oversight by the elected City Council and the
public to whom they are accountable.
Staff Impact
Resources from the following departments will be needed to support a policy discussion in
Policy & Services: Information Technology, Police Department, Planning & Community
April 25, 2016
(ID# 6876)
Page 3of4
Environment, Utilities, Public Works, Emergency Services, City Manager's Office, City Clerk's
Office and City Attorney's Office.
Depending on its breadth and specific requirements, significant staff resources may be needed
to administer and maintain any new program. As a result of the evolving landscape of
technology and security threads, privacy issues and the value of well-conceived policies are not
limited to police and public safety activities alone. Utilities, for example, are increasingly
working with data that can be sensitive for customers, and this sensitivity will increase with the
roll-out of smart meter and smart grid technologies. Similarly, the capability of traffic and
parking technologies to collect granular data presents another opportunity to examine the
need for balancing data analytics and privacy priorities, while advancing the City's smart city
initiatives.
Staff is not suggesting that these issues be overlooked. To the contrary, this may be a topic in
which Palo Alto is uniquely positioned to demonstrate leadership in thoughtful stakeholder
engagement and policy development. It should be recognized, however, that this effort may be
a significant undertaking requiring consummate resources and prioritization to address
effectively.
April 25, 2016
(ID# 6876)
Page 4of4
CONTENTS
Technology Overview ·························································-·····························································2
Key Questions to Answer Before Moving Forward with Any Sµrveillance Proposal ...... 3
Why It Matters: The Costs and Consequences ofS~ce ............................................ .4
Surveillance Carries Both Immediate and Ongoing Financial Costs .. -......... -....................... .4
Surveillance Carries Costs for the Community as a Whole ...................................................... 5
Surveillance Faces Increased Scrutiny from Public Officials ...................... .!.. .......................... 7
Key Steps when Considering a Smveillance Proposal .............................................................. 9
Collectively Evaluate the Effectiveness, Costs, and Alternatives Before Making !1ccisions
about Surveillance ...................................................•....................................................................... 9
Establish a Surveillance Technology Use Policy to Mitigate Hanns and Protect Rights .. 15 ;
Ensure Accountability by Enforcing Policies and Encouraging Ongoing Public
Engagement ... .............................. ... ........ ... . ..................... .............................. ............................... 19
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix: Model Surveillance & Community Safety Ordinance ...................................... 22
Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................... 216
Authors: Chris Conley, Matthew Cagle, Peter Bibring,Jessica Fan:is,
Llnda Lye, Mitra Ebadolahi and Nicole Ozer, ACLU of California
Contributing Writers: Addison Lltton & Thomas Mann Miller
Design & Layout Gigi Pandian & Daniela Bernstein
Printing: lnkWorks Press
This publication was underwritten with support from the ACLU Foundation
and the ACLU's generous members and donors.
PUBLISHED BY THE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 2014
1
ONLINE AT ACLUNC.ORG/SMARTABOUTSURVElll.ANCE
l
'
T E CHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS ("ALPRS"): Sophistic:ued c:imcr.t systems
niountcd to police cm ot liglu pons that scan license plates that come inm view. They arc oftm used to look for vehicles
ofinrcrcst, such as smlcn c:m, but in the process may record the time and place of every single vehicle that dri~ 'by.
BODY CAMERAS: Small cameras worn by police that record audio and video. These C1met25 c:m rcco~ ahydllnj
6om typical public intcraetions with polio: m sounds and images ar rallies or cw:n lewd banter in a squad car. Some
body cameras are 2lways on. others arc controlled by the wcarCL
DRONES: Unmanned :aerial vdlldcs that may carry camcms, miaophoncs, or omcr sensors or devices. Drones
range from small "quadcupi:crs" thar cm .maneuver near ground lcw:I to high-altitude planes with cmandy powciful
cameras. Drones are ottcnquieD:r than traditional airaafr, making it possible to use them for surreptitious surveillance.
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE: Camera systems that allow remotc observation or rccording of activiry in J.>µblic
spaa:s. Video &eds may be actively monitoml in hopes of spotting crime as it happens or recorded for porential use
fur investigation and pfosccution. Studies have rcpcai:edly .shown cameras are costly and of limited use in preventing or
~lving serious crime.
FACIAL RECO~NITION: Sokwuc that identifies a pcrsi>n i~ phoms or videos based on various chaiaacrisda
of the person's face. The accuracy of &cial recognition can v:iry widely.
LOCATION TRACKING: A range of a:dutiqucs used to rcmotdy traek a person's location. GPS (Global
Positioning Syst~) devices, ranging &om modem cell phones to "dans" that can be fired at a moving ar, dctcnninc
their own location b3Scd on satellite sigP4ls. Elccuonic communic:irions dcvia:s including phones can also be tracked by
identifying the cell toWCrS orwirclcss networks the device uses. Location information an be obtained c:vc:ry few seconds
and may be accurate to within a few feet.
AUTOMATED SOCIAL MEDIA MON!TORING: Software tools that collects posts and other infonnation
on sites such as Twitter and Faccbook. These tools may also analyze the collected dati in order to derive information
such as social connections or politic:il views.
INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SUBSCRIBER IDENTITY ("IMSI") CATCHERS: A device that
emulates 11 cdl phone cowCT in order w interact with nearby cell phones. IMSI atchcrs, commonly known as Stingrays
(the: hr.ind name of one wch dc:via:), idc:nrify ncarb}' dc:via:s :md can also be con6gurc:d co ina:rcc:pr and ciptun: the:
contc:nts of communicat~s including calls, text mc:ss:igt.-s, or lntc:mc:t activity/ Many IMS! c:itchc:rs opc:r:itc: in dragnet
fushion, scooping up information about every phone in range.
DATA MIN ING: Tc:chniquc:s to discover st:itistical p:mc:rns, trends :ind othc:r information in a collt.-ction of data. For
example. analysis of connt."Ctions on social networks c:in reveal hidden, sensitive inform:ition such as st.-xual oricnmcion.
2
MAKJNG SMART DECISIONS ABOUT SURVElLLANCE: A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES
KEY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
B~FORE MOVING FORWARD WITH
ANY SURVEILLANCE PROPOSAL
WHY A~E YOU CONSIDERING SURVEILLANCE?
·o What spcd6c problem is your community uying to ·address?
IZI How cffeaivc will 5urvcillancc be in addn$Sing this concern?
0 Arc .there alternatives tbatwouid be more ~ve. lcss.expeosive, or have I~ impaa on civil liberties?
Wf;iAT ARE THE COSTS AND RISKS?
.tJ . What are the fuian~ ~ of~ce, including long-term training, operation and main~nancc?
CJ What .impact would sum:illancc h2ve on privacy, &cc speech, and civil rights?
J
0 How couid ~aJ&cr aust in law enfo~c?
Cl Have you completed a Surveillance: In'lpaa Report?!
IS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY ENGAGED IN EVALUATING THE PROPOSAL ,. . . .
FROM THE OUTSET?
0 ~ave you SQught input on priorities. costs and risks fiom all segments of your community?
0 Is there .a Surveillance Impact kpon and Surveillance Use Policy fur the community to review?
.0 Will there be pubUc h~ .and debate before seeking any funds or purchasing any technology?
IS SURVEILLANCE THE RIGHT CHOICE?
Cl Have: dc:ac:d policymakers reviewed the Surveillance: Impaa Report and Survc:illancc Use Policy?
Have: thc:y had an opportunity to hc:ar public concerns?
0 Will local policymakers specifically vote to approve the: project moving forward? Will this happen
before seeking any funds or purchasing any technology?
0 Will your community re-evaluate any surveillance program annually and determine whechc:r the
program should be continued, modified, or abandoned?
WILL THESE QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED EVERY TIME?
CJ Has your communicy passed a Surveillance & U>mmunity Safety Ordinance co make sure chese
questions arc consistently asked and answered every time surveillance is considered and to ensure
proper transparency, oversight and accouncabilicy?
3
ONLINE AT ACLUNC.ORG/SMARTABOUTSURVEILl.ANCE
'
_J
f.
>
-
We hereby request the City of Palo Alto require construction practices that protect and make wise use of
our groundwater and implement land use policies that account for climate change and the importance of
our soils for stormwater management.
a uestions: info@savepa loaltosgroundwater. org
SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS: E-MAIL
C;0tiM ~ ~qys 1u 1dq,,n '--J &~:e.~