Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20170306plCC
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: 3/6/2017 Document dates: 2/15/2017 – 2/22/2017 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 | 2/22/2017 8:28 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:City $1.1 million investment in SoBi I fully support the SoBi program on the Feb 17 consent calendar. Please approve the consent item. $1.1+ million investment seems out of context with $0.2 million for the Palo Alto TMA. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55965 I urge City Staff and Council to be on the public record with strong City evaluation methodology for SoBi investment within the next 3-6 months. In my limited experience, dating back 2 years, there is scant objective, unbiased information nationally about mode shift from Lyft, Scoop, ZipCar, SoBi, et al. In interest of due diligence I called city transportation staff in major cities such as Seattle and Minneapolis and asked about evaluation metrics. In general I found out that city agencies, while touting private mode shift companies, usually had no independent analysis other than promotional level information from corporate providers. In fact, some early stage programs failed due to very shaky assumptions and management by city governments , eg. the outgoing Palo Alto stagnant blue bike program. According to my informal conversations with local bike advocates, they feel Blue Bike was doomed because the launch failed to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:28 AM 2 identify sponsors, fund marketing program and expand geographically. I can accept this failure as cost of early stage innovation. Therefore, I urge the City Council direct City Staff to return to Council within 3-6 months with the evaluation framework for the SoBi program. This can be simple entry into the public record...just include it in a city manager's report. If a evaluation methodology is not designed by City of Palo Alto in 2017, then ROI on $1.1+ million three years from now will be speculative and biased to BiSo's superior information. 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 | 2/22/2017 8:49 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Steve Pierce <pierce@zanemacgregor.com> on behalf of Steve Pierce <pierce@zanemac.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 1:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page February 20, 2017 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Planning Code Amendments Dear Council Members: I urge you to support the staff recommendations to amend truck loading zone code which will be considered by the Council on February 27, 2017. What the staff had recommended is acceptable. If anything it does not go far enough. The proposed code leaves in place provisions that require new developments to provide on-site loading zones but gives the Director limited authority to waive the requirement. Because on-site loading zones are needed for only large scale developments, which are rare in our built-out city, I suggest that all projects be exempted from the loading zone requirements, unless imposed by Director for developments of one acre or more. Short of that, the truck loading zone should not apply to properties in the downtown or California Ave. areas. Respectfully, Steve Pierce City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 10:55 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dr. Jennifer Dore <helios.psychiatry@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: 115 Everett Ave Palo Alto Attachments:HeliosPsychiatryIncPaloAltoCityCouncilLetter.pdf To the city council of Palo Alto: Please see the attached letter to Mr Lait re: zoning of 115 Everett Ave Palo Alto and take into consideration. Thank you, Jennifer Dore -- Jennifer Dore MD Helios Psychiatry and Wellness Adjunct Clinical Instructor Stanford University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 115 Everett Ave/First Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-275-3549 MAY CONTAIN PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION The materials in this email are private and may contain Protected Health Information. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at 650-275-3549 or by return email. SECURITY Electronic mail, or email, communications between us are not encrypted and therefore are not secure communications. If you elect to communicate from your workplace computer, you also should be aware that your employer and its agents might have access to email communications between us. Finally, email communications may become a part of your patient medical record. Incoming email communications will be reviewed and answered as soon as possible. If you have not heard from your provider’s office with a response and are concerned that your message was not received, please call the office during regular business hours. EMAIL COMMUNICATION SHOULD NEVER BE USED IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY OR FOR URGENT REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.USING EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH ME ASSUMES THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE TO THE ABOVE DISCLOSURES. THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION OF CONTACTING ME IN WRITING OR BY PHONE AT 650-275-3549. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. Helios Psychiatry, Inc. 115 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 February 15, 2017 Dear Mr. Lait, My name is Dr. Jennifer Dore and I am writing with regard to the city of Palo Alto’s upcoming decision regarding the commercial property located at 115 Everett Avenue. My understanding is that the City of Palo Alto is currently considering changing the zoning of the property from commercial to residential. I cannot emphasize enough how detrimental this potential action will be to the health and well-being of my patients, many of whom are severely mentally ill. While I imagine the city, its mayor and representatives have only the best of intentions in considering this action, I would like to illustrate some of the reasons why I believe 115 Everett Avenue should remain zoned for commercial use, and in turn remain the location of this important psychiatric practice. First let me provide some background on myself and my ties to the great community of Palo Alto. I completed my psychiatry residency at Stanford in 2014, after serving as Chief Resident. Committed to balancing service to the community and service to academic medicine, I continued on as Adjunct Faculty while beginning a small practice at 550 Hamilton Avenue. While based at 550 Hamilton, my practice quickly became booked to full capacity due to the incredibly high demand from students, professionals and other members of the Palo Alto community. I knew I had to expand to meet the demands, but also feared that the ownership of 550 Hamilton would soon push out medical professionals like myself in favor of more lucrative tenants from the technology and venture capital world. Finding affordable real estate (commercial or residential) in Palo Alto is, as you know, next to impossible. It was a godsend therefor to discover the amazing building at 115 Everett Avenue and its incredibly kind steward, my landlord, Francesca Friedman. I rented just under 50% of the space in the building with the understanding that as my practice grew we would expand even further. Just two months ago I hired a Nurse Practitioner so that my practice could accommodate more patients. In the intimate surrounding of this historic house, we are introducing patients to new techniques in psychotherapy, as well as ancient practices including meditation, Qi Gong and Yoga. For the over 70 patients I serve, Helios Psychiatry is a lifeline that has helped many overcome often tragic adversity, including severe depression, and at times even suicidality. Any sudden shift to the routine of their relationship with their providers has the potential to cause catastrophic consequences. I say this not to sound to dire, or foreboding, but because it is true. Should the city of Palo Alto take an action that would require our practice to move, I am fearful that I will not be able to do so without considerable disruption to my patients. I am not sure I will be able to maintain practice in Palo Alto due to the shortage of available real estate and the volatility of what little real estate remains. I fully recognize the desire of the city of Palo Alto to maintain this amazing community. But I would very much ask that the city also consider the role medical professionals, especially ones operating in the underserved area of mental health play in maintaining the livelihood, happiness and health of that very community. I would be truly devastated if we lost what we are now building at 115 Everett Avenue. Helios has done so much good for so many people, and promises to do so much more for many years to come if given the chance. Thank you so much for your time and careful consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 275-3549. Sincerely, Dr. Jennifer Dore, MD City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:06 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Francesca Freedman <francesca.freedman4@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:12 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City Subject:115 Everett Attachments:zoning1.tiff Dear Johnathan, Pursuant to our prior arrangements, I am asking for assistance on the outstanding questions regarding my property at 115 Everett Avenue. I am copying the Council because there is so much confusion on the commercial use of my building. As you know the building is zoned CD-N (P). A picture of its zoning is attached. Some staff are treating it as a single family zoning which is causing a lot of confusion for me and my tenants. A quick resolution to any issues is critical to me as well as my tenants. When I bought the building, it was a 6-unit residential boarding house, built in 1913 and functioning as legal non-conforming. I bought it in 1987 because of its commercial zoning. At the time I wanted to rebuild it for my business, Z Typography. But that never happened. In 1997 I began using it as legal conforming office for my clothing business. The building has been in continuous legal conforming office use up to today. It has been an office building for 20 years. The tenants in the building never had any reason to hide their presence. I have never hidden its office use. A number of businesses have had signs on the front of the building. Commercial brokers have put signs out in front advertising office for lease. One of my new tenants, a month ago, applied for a parking permit, under the RPP program. They were told the building was a single family residence (it never was) and were denied. Another tenant applied for a commercial parking permit a month ago too, and obtained it, oddly enough. There seems to be confusion in the planning records about my building – it is both single family residence and office. There is no single family residence zoning surrounding my building. I went to Planning, and was also emailed that the building was a single family residence. An inspection by Fire and Building to check on safety issues is scheduled for Tuesday, February 21st. This is very disruptive to my tenants. And the confusion about the building status is distressing to us all. There are only 3 tenants in the building. They just moved in a few months ago. They are all services. A psychiatrist uses more than 45% of the building. There are only 6 people occupying the building presently. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:06 AM 2 The topic of occupancy permits was raised. It seems that none of my current tenants were aware that such a permit was required (except for my last tenant, Quest Scholars, who, I found out, are certain they had one). I am sorry I did not know about Use and Occupancy permits either in all these 20 years. I never heard of them until a month ago. A planner told me most people are unaware of these permits, that they are obscure. Again, there has been no intention to avoid any regulations. Perhaps the City could consider informing property owners in a more clear manner, especially given the comments from staff about the obscure nature of occupancy permits. I fear the City will force me to break the leases of my 3 tenants, thus causing them grave disruption, as well as my potential bankrupting. I am 60 years old and reliant on the rents from by building for my sole income. There has never been a complaint or an issue regarding my property. And any action by the City solves no problem, but simply creates catastrophic economic consequences for those of us involved. Again, I am asking for timely clarification on the purpose of the inspections next week as well as any other matters addressed in this letter and confirmation of City records on the zoning of my property as CD-N (P). Sincerely, Francesca Freedman City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:04 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lynted <lynted@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 3:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:1710 Newell Construction Proposal Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I'm writing to you to express my concerns over this new application for construction at 1710 Newell. I realize this gentleman is perfectly within his rights to build to the maximum square footage that is allowed according to the square footage of the lot size. But the plans do not look like this will be used preliminary as a single-family residence. In regard to the Basement: The Common Room is approximately 44ft x 18ft. Doesn't that sound rather large for a single-family home? It sounds more like a meeting/conference room, or being directly below the kitchen it could be a large dining room for a group. Or, after construction is finalized, they could (without permits) convert this common room into another kitchen and dining area. Doesn't it seem odd that there are three full bathrooms and 3 powder rooms in the basement and only two bedrooms? Game Room with an equipment room attached and a Theater Room with an equipment room attached. Sounds again like they want to have activities for more people to congregate. Now the First Floor: The Study Room has a closet and bathroom attached. This is a bedroom. The Study could be another bedroom with access to the bathroom of the Study Room. Now the Second Floor: My only comment is that the balcony is now overlooking 1721 Guinda instead of 1711 Guinda. The previous submittal rejection stated that you could not have a balcony overlooking other houses especially looking into their bedrooms. I know that this balcony is recessed but it still looks over 1721 Guinda's yard and home. All in all this home has 9 bedrooms, 8 bathrooms, and 4 powder rooms. Does this really meet the criteria of a single- family home? I know right now the drawings show only one kitchen. Based on the size of the kitchen it could be enlarged (again without permits) to accommodate more people. Right now the drawings show two dishwashers. Does that sound like a single-family home with only four persons living there? Of course, the major concern would be the construction site and it's proximity to bike and pedestrian traffic. Of course, there is No Parking on that side of Newell during the day due to the bike and pedestrian traffic going to the four major schools in the area of Embarcadero. The schools being Walter Hays, Castilleja, Palo Alto High School, and Jordan Middle School. Where are the construction crews going to park? On the other side of Newell blocking all parking for residences? They can not park on Guinda because the street just isn't wide enough for car traffic and parking. They can't park on Embarcadero either. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:04 AM 2 Also, regarding construction and traffic. There will be lots of construction directly across the street with the new fire house construction. This is going to create a real bottle-neck with cars, bikes, and pedestrians. And, if the Castilleja project goes forward, Embarcadero is REALLY going to be a mess!!! Regarding the trees, I noticed that the one concerned oak tree that is next to the current garage is to be removed. What are the reasons for it's removal? Is it diseased? Will the existing trees have sufficient water accessibility when the basement is being built since they will be pumping out a huge amount of ground water. I have heard from some residents from other construction sites that the removal of the ground water has caused the ground to shift and settle which has caused some cracks to the interior of the homes and settling of the ground around the homes adjacent to the construction site. Is the city aware of any problems relating to the removal of ground water? In closing, I feel that this home will be used as a single-family residence but will be also used for large gatherings or maybe lodging. Does the city have any thoughts or concerns about people using their single-family homes for other purposes? I would think that this would be a major concern for our neighborhoods. This home will be out of scale to the rest of the neighborhood which are primarily ranch-style 3-4 bedrooms with 2-3 bathrooms homes. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. Lynda Brown 1711 Guinda Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650-327-1497 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:06 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ashish Singhal <asinghal07@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:4146 El Camino Real Dear Council Members, I am Ashish Singhal residing on Thain Way in Palo Alto, adjacent to the 4146 El Camino Real property. I'm writing to voice my strong objection to the proposal to increase zoning from RM15 to RM30 for this small, 3/4 of an acre, lot. I urge you to keep the RM 15 zoning and insist the project conforms to the ¾ acreage limits. RM15 zoning will better allow for more adequate underground parking for residents and their guests and more open space above. Fewer units would keep population density increase at a reasonable pace. Over density will negatively impact and increase traffic in this already congested area. Keeping it to RM15 will keep parking from creeping into the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, Ashish Singhal City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:07 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Michael <michaeljhickey@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airbnb complaints Who do I talk to at the city to understand regulations for rentals and airbnb? We have an airbnb in our neighborhood that is a nuisance. Michael City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:35 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lee Christel <lee_xtel@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2017 3:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Amy Christel Subject:Aircraft Noise Monitors Attachments:BK WebTrak Response to City of Palo Alto 2015.pdf Dear Council, I hope you all understand the importance of a data driven approach to the aircraft noise issue. I want to remind the new council that about 15 months ago, Brüel & Kjær proposed a noise monitoring system for Palo Alto as part of Palo Alto's RFP for assistance in dealing with the FAA and this issue. I urge you to review this proposal again, and to seriously consider it as an option for Palo Alto as a way of taking control of its aircraft noise issue with real data that can used as leverage for action by SFO and the FAA. In particular, the 'Alternate Methods' described in Section 4.6 of attached is a very rational and cost effective approach and should be given serious consideration. I hope that Palo Alto can take the lead in establishing independent noise monitoring in Palo Alto, perhaps as a nucleus for a more widespread regional monitoring strategy. Thank you for your consideration, Lee A Christel © Brüel & Kjær Confidential Information BBrüel & Kjær Response to City of Palo Alto for Professional Services Airplane Noise Assessment & Mitigation Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page i - Confidential Information - Contents 1 Proposal Summary ............................................................................ 1 2 Profile on the Proposing Firm ............................................................ 4 2.1 About Brüel & Kjær ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Stability, Capacity and Resources .................................................................................. 5 2.3 Local Organization for the Response ............................................................................. 5 2.4 Litigation ........................................................................................................................ 6 3 Qualifications of the Firm .................................................................. 7 4 Work Plan or Proposal ...................................................................... 8 4.1 Generation of ‘mock’ data output for review/approval ................................................ 8 4.2 Flight data by Cell ........................................................................................................... 8 4.3 Noise Modeling ............................................................................................................ 11 4.4 Airline Route Analysis .................................................................................................. 11 4.5 Assessing Alternatives .................................................................................................. 12 4.6 Alternative Methods .................................................................................................... 12 Alternative Methods .................................................................................................................................. 13 Rationale for the Alternative Approach ..................................................................................................... 14 The Brüel & Kjær Approach ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.6.1 WebTrak Replay ............................................................................................................................. 19 4.6.2 Air Traffic Complaint Collection and Management ........................................................................ 25 4.6.3 Noise Measurement ....................................................................................................................... 26 5 Proposed Innovations (Optional) .................................................... 27 5.1 WebTrak MyNeighbourhood ....................................................................................... 29 5.2 Personalized WebTrak MyNeighbourhood .................................................................. 31 5.3 Community Response Assessment .............................................................................. 32 5.4 Noise and Operational Reporting ................................................................................ 33 6 Project Staffing ............................................................................... 34 6.1 James Honey – Project Manager ................................................................................. 34 6.2 Robert Drozdz – NoiseOffice Manager ........................................................................ 35 6.3 Victoria Garmy – Senior Account Manager ................................................................. 36 6.4 Proposed Organization ................................................................................................ 37 7 Proposal Exceptions Brüel & Kjær ................................................... 38 8 Proposal Costs Sheet and Rates ...................................................... 39 Proposal Summary About Brüel & Kjær Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 1 - Confidential Information - 1 Proposal Summary This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet. The approach Brüel & Kjær proposes to the City of Palo Alto would achieve the following objectives: EEducate Assist the community at large to better understand how they are affected by aviation activities and how aviation activities have been trending in their community Better understand the relative contribution of annoyance from the multiple airports contributing to overflights in Palo Alto. Develop analytics for those seeking a more in-depth understanding Track noise metrics that meaningfully describe, track and monitor the residential experience Better understand how residential neighborhoods are differently affected by aviation noise Take Action Engage in productive and informed discussions with residents, neighboring communities, airports, aviation operators, and the FAA Monitor implementation of potential improvements to assess their affect Monitor potential future airspace changes that might adversely affect and/or benefit the community Give the community voice in the process of airspace decision making Proposal Summary About Brüel & Kjær Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 2 - Confidential Information - TThe Approach In order to accomplish these objectives, Brüel & Kjær is proposing the City address the information asymmetry inherent is dialog with aviation stakeholders. Without detailed knowledge of aviation activities, negotiations are dependent on the other party’s information, analysis, and data reduction. Positive Outcomes Working with Brüel & Kjær, the City could focus its efforts on: 1. Getting the FAA to make the investment to investigate advantageous adjustment of routes; 2. Develop a better understanding with various operators who might use the flexibility within the airspace routes to provide noise relief; 3. Insert Palo Alto into the process by ensuring the City is always kept informed of current and future activities. In order to accomplish the primary objective, to adjust the routes, the City could develop in-depth understanding of current flight patterns. Alternatively the City could learn how specific flight patterns create differing annoyance. In this way, the City can make its requests clear and achievable. In order to accomplish the second and third objectives, to seek continuous improvement in how operators respond to the residents of Palo Alto, the City would develop the means to become part of a larger process. As the City does not have a large airport within its boundaries to lead this process, the City itself would monitor compliance with potential voluntary agreements made with operators, and in doing so, set a new standard for a community’s empowerment in aviation monitoring. Proposal Summary About Brüel & Kjær Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 3 - Confidential Information - OOther Outcomes Brüel & Kjær believes that it is unlikely that any data study such as requested would persuade the FAA that they are in violation of environmental policy and precedent. Many of the data parameters and metrics requested in the City’s RFP reflect many hours of painstaking research learning about how the FAA conducts its environmental analysis. Re- calculating FAA noise metrics will not produce a greatly different answer other than the natural differences inherent in any analysis effort. Based on our experience helping communities throughout the world better understand their airspace, Brüel & Kjær does not recommend “re-doing” the airspace analysis to find a different answer. Alternative, forward-looking approaches that work in partnership with the airports, FAA and other aviation stakeholders are required to reach the objectives of the City. Based on experience with other organizations, Brüel & Kjær is confident that the City will find it much more useful to measure actual impacts than to re-run predictive models like AEDT or INM. Brüel & Kjær has the tools and expertise to support the City of Palo Alto in such forward-looking approaches. Further Information For further information or to discuss this proposal, please contact Bruel & Kjaer EMS Inc Victoria Garmy – Business Development Manager – Americas Tel: +1 (916) 833-6261 Email: Victoria.garmy@bksv.com Address: 1050 Fulton Avenue, Suite 213, Sacramento CA 95825 Summary Brüel & Kjær proposes that the City consider full transparency of flight tracking information that is delivered to your community in an intuitive, easy-to-understand, online channel. Aggregated data correlated to specific flight tracks can tells your community’s story, and provide mechanisms to measure the impact of changes. Yours faithfully, Bruel & Kjaer EMS Inc Greg Bracci Director – Americas Profile on the Proposing Firm About Brüel & Kjær Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 4 - Confidential Information - 2 Profile on the Proposing Firm This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposer’s firm size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a discussion of the Prime Proposer firm’s financial stability, capacity and resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including similar information about the firms. Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five years. 22.1 About Brüel & Kjær Brüel & Kjær serves communities throughout the world by providing airports with flight tracking information and airspace reporting they need to answer questions and meet their transparency requirements. Brüel & Kjær systems are deployed at over 250 airports internationally and at every major Bay Area Commercial airport including SFO San Francisco, OAK Oakland, and SJC San Jose. Since inception Brüel & Kjær has focused on noise management for airports and can bring this capability directly to communities as they face a changing airspace environment. Brüel & Kjær software solutions measure compliance with noise abatement procedures by routinely processing massive data sets of flight tracking data, correlating complaint information to specific flight tracks and measuring real noise on the ground. Current US clients include: San Francisco International Airport Oakland International Airport Hayward Executive Airport Mineta San José International Airport Bob Hope Airport, Burbank Long Beach Airport Los Angeles International Airport Ontario International Airport Sacramento International Airport San Diego International Airport Zamperini Field, Torrance Van Nuys Airport O'Hare International Airport, Chicago John F. Kennedy International Airport Denver International Airport Charlotte Douglas International Miami International Airport Newark Liberty International Airport LaGuardia Airport Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood Washington Dulles Midway International Airport Ronald Reagan Washington National Honolulu International Profile on the Proposing Firm Stability, Capacity and Resources Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 5 - Confidential Information - 22.2 Stability, Capacity and Resources Brüel & Kjær EMS Inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Spectris plc. Spectris develops and markets productivity-enhancing instrumentation and controls. The company had sales of £1,197.8 million in 2013 and employs around 7,400 people worldwide. Spectris is listed on the London Stock Exchange, and is a member of techMARK, the London Stock Exchange’s index for technology companies, and the FTSE4Good index of socially-responsible companies. Spectris products help customers to speed up processes, save time, cut waste, and improve accuracy. 2.3 Local Organization for the Response In order to provide high quality services, Brüel & Kjær will provide several staff-members working towards the City, including Service Delivery Manager, Account Manager, and Noise Office Manager. No other firms are involved in this response or delivery of services. Services Delivery Manager The Brüel & Kjær Services Delivery Manager is responsible for management of Brüel & Kjær services to be delivered to City of Palo Alto, within the agreed and contracted scope of work. The Services Delivery Manager is the primary contact and initial point of escalation for issues. Duties of the Services Delivery Manager include: Responsible for ensuring the delivery of services meets contracted requirements Escalation point for all service issues Responsible for providing assistance and product support of the solution Responsible for delivery of quarterly reports, including data on trouble tickets Liaison with the Account Manager Responsible for regular customer discussions for issues, enhancements and upgrades Account Manager The Brüel & Kjær Services Account Manager is responsible for engagement between Brüel & Kjær and the City of Palo Alto at the senior management level. As well as providing oversight to the Services Delivery Manager, the Account Manager looks for opportunities to grow and leverage the relationship between the organizations, so that the City can capture the maximum benefit and value from the Brüel & Kjær solution and services provided. In the event that issues cannot be resolved by the Services Delivery Manager, the Account Manager is the next point of escalation. Profile on the Proposing Firm Litigation Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 6 - Confidential Information - NNoise Office Manager The Brüel & Kjær Noise Office Manager is responsible for coordinating the Brüel & Kjær staff and resources needed to deliver the services described in section 4.1 and 4.2. The Brüel & Kjær Noise Office Manager is responsible the team that will provide data collection, review, analysis and report writing. 2.4 Litigation No litigation or lawsuit for any public project undertaken by Brüel & Kjær is still pending or has occurred within the last five years. There is no project where claims or settlements were paid by Brüel & Kjær or its insurers within the last five years. Qualifications of the Firm Litigation Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 161182 November 2015 © Brüel & Kjær Page 7 - Confidential Information - 3 Qualifications of the Firm This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposer’s and sub- Proposer’s qualifications and previous experience on similar or related projects. Provide in a table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D) descriptions of pertinent project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period over which the work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number of client’s to be contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project. This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being developed. Brüel & Kjær is the world-leader in integrated solutions for the measurement and analysis of sound and vibration. Government and industry use our core competencies to solve sound and vibration challenges, so they can concentrate on efficient delivery of core business and administration. Brüel & Kjær delivers innovative technical solutions to drive inclusive growth, sensible planning and more satisfied communities. Brüel & Kjær is well qualified to provide services to the City, with airport customers including San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward Executive and Mineta San José, across the USA and worldwide. Brüel & Kjær will be able to bring its experience and existing relationships with local airports to provide much of the value proposed in our work plan. For an example, see WebTrak at San Jose http://webtrak5.bksv.com/sjc3. No other technology provider can deliver this level of cooperation and technical integration for aircraft noise and operations monitoring in the local region. Recently, Brüel & Kjær has helped the communities in Los Angeles County with concerns regarding helicopter noise. With complaints made throughout the county to various airports, residents and businesses could not properly communicate their level of concern as there was no means to aggregate the data. Working with airport customers, Brüel & Kjær is able to consolidate complaint information to the stakeholders seeking to develop voluntary noise abatement procedures. No other technical platform or commercial solution has been able to aggregate such data across jurisdictional boundaries to better serve the affected stakeholders, and Brüel & Kjær is tremendously proud of the achievements for LA County, which are shown at http://heli-noise- la.com/webtrak/. Brüel & Kjær operates its own Noise Office, which is readily able to create reports on behalf of customers. Clear and easy-to-understand reports are one of the key capabilities for our customers to set objectives, measure performance, understand the wealth of information, and then effectively engage with authorities, communities and other stakeholders. Brüel & Kjær has significant capability in the definition, review and production of reports for aircraft, urban and industrial operations monitoring, and is able to meet the level of quality required for public scrutiny. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 9:05 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sandra Conklin <sconklin@pausd.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:09 PM To:Community.outreach@vta.org Cc:boardsecretary@vta.org; citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org; Keller, Arthur Subject:BUS 88 CHANGES HURT OUR STUDENTS Dear VTA Board Members, It is with great concern that I write to you regarding the proposed changes to the 88 Bus schedule. I am a Special Education Teacher in the Futures Program at Gunn High School. Our students ride the 88 bus during the school day to help foster independence and life skills. Community Outings are an integral part of our program, and the 88 bus is our lifeline to the greater Palo Alto Community. The Futures students travel on the 88 to the library, grocery store, park,Town and Country, Caltrain and restaurants. They plot out the bus routes, and work on social skills, money handling and transactions, ordering a meal, checking out a book, shopping from a grocery list, understanding and obeying traffic rules and traveling safely. The hope is that with this training, the students will graduate from Gunn High School with the skills to be independent, contributing and valued members of the Palo Alto Community. Please help us to help our students. We can't get out into the community without the 88 bus running during the school day. I know that the 11:58 bus on Arastradero is always crowded, so many community members would be affected by a change. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Sandy Conklin Education Specialist Henry M. Gunn High School 650.354.8200 Ext. 1560 sconklin@pausd.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:03 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Connie Cavanaugh <chcavanaugh123@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion I am writing to OPPOSE the expansion plans for Castilleja School. My family has resided in Palo Alto for about 3 decades and have watched over the years as the traffic on Palo Alto's main arteries have become increasingly worse. I have yet to meet anyone who is happy about this. These expansion plans for the school will result in even greater congestion on Embarcadero and in the neighborhoods. I do not see how this expansion enhances life for any Palo Alto residents except for a very few families whose children attend the school. As I understand it, approximately 20% of the student population is from Palo Alto. I have watched over the years as other private schools have grown and moved locations so that they could expand. I don't think that Castilleja's long history in PA should exempt them from finding a new location that has less negative impact on the majority of Palo Alto residents. I attended the recent Council meeting when Castilleja neighbors presented sound arguments OPPOSING this expansion. From what I understand Castilleja has a long history of ignoring the 415 student limit and not working effectively with their neighbors. Why should this continue? Thank you for the work you do. Connie Cavanaugh 935 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto Ca 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:02 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leslie White <leslie@lesliewhite.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion I am writing in opposition to the expansion of Castilleja School. I am a neighbor of that school, and although I do know many fine young women who were educated there, I do not think this institution needs to grow at this site. Since I have lived in my house for the past 30 years, Castilleja has morphed from a mild-mannered residential school to a major destination for aspirational parents of girls. The result is a determined mayhem at pickup and dropoff times that is only partially alleviated by the traffic wardens the school employs. Embarcadero is already heavily loaded, and backs up substantially at the beginning and ending of the school days already. And I don't doubt the city can track major increases in auto traffic to Stanford, Town and Country and Paly over the past 10 years, and adding to this mess with additional construction and students at Castilleja will just put the whole situation into super-saturation. I would encourage the Council to ask Castilleja to consider other locations for expansion. This neighborhood has enough on its plate. Leslie White 1330 Cowper St City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:30 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:04 PM To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Stump, Molly; council@redwoodcity.org Subject:From the archives of Aram James re the 1st amendment http://paloaltofreepress.com/an-open-letter-to-sid-espinosa-whos-first-amendment-is-this-anyway/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:John McNellis <John@McNellis.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 11:17 AM To:Council, City Cc:Chop Keenan; roxy@roxyrapp.com Subject:FW: Worse Than a Decade of Stagnation | Wolf Street Ladies and Gentlemen: While I do very much applaud your commitment to —and all of your great efforts on behalf of—our great city, I am concerned that your vote last Monday evening will ultimately cause us more harm than good because, as evidenced below, retail is losing ground—permanently it would seem—in virtually every category save food and autos. I do hope we can revisit this issue at some time in the not too far off future when your concerns over office conversions have abated. Thank you, John E. McNellis McNellis Partners Read my REGISTRY MAGAZINE columns 419 Waverley Street Palo Alto California 94301 650.853.3904 650.853.3910 (fax) john@mcnellis.com From: Vladimir Bosanac [mailto:vlad@theregistrysf.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 7:12 PM To: John McNellis <John@McNellis.com> Subject: Worse Than a Decade of Stagnation | Wolf Street fyi http://wolfstreet.com/2017/02/17/decade-of-stagnation-us-retail-sales-less-ecommerce-auto- sales/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 2 Worse Than a Decade of Stagnation by Wolf Richter • Feb 17, 2017 • 15 Comments by Wolf Richter • Feb 17, 2017 • 15 Comments Retail sales are held up by only two sectors. The rest are sinking. There are two components of “retail and food services sales” that have been booming over the past few years through the fourth quarter 2016. And then there’s all the rest combined – 71% of total retail sales – that has been in decline since the third quarter of 2008. That’s the tough reality of retail sales in the US. First the good news: e-commerce sales In the fourth quarter, e-commerce sales soared 14.3% from a year earlier, to $123.6 billion, not adjusted for seasonality and price changes, according to the Commerce Department today. E-commerce sales for the entire year 2016 jumped 15.1% year-over-year to $394.9 billion, accounting for 8.1% of total retail and food services sales, up from 7.3% in 2015. You see where this is going. E-commerce sales include online sales by retailers with brick-and-mortar stores, such as Walmart and Macy’s that are all trying to carve out a presence on the internet, with varying success. This chart uses seasonally adjusted e-commerce sales to eliminate the very large seasonal fluctuations, including the spike every Q4 and plunge every Q1, but it’s not adjusted for inflation: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 3 While e-commerce soared 14.3% year-over-year in Q4, total retail and food services sales, including e-commerce, rose only 3.9%. In all of 2016, total retail sales edged up only 2.9% from 2015. So what is left over once e-commerce is removed from the equation? Retail and food services sales without e-commerce Total retail and food services sales without e-commerce in Q4 2016 edged up to $364 billion, only 6.8% above the peak before the financial crisis in Q4 2007 ($340 billion): City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 4 And the second booming sector: auto sales Auto sales have been booming since the end of the Financial Crisis. The number of new vehicles sold set a new all-time record in 2015 and squeaked past it in 2016 with a record of 17.9 million vehicles. The record prior to 2015 and 2016 had been set at 17.8 million vehicles in the year 2000! So it was a recovery from the Financial Crisis, but in terms of new-vehicle unit sales it’s nothing to write home about. Then this: new vehicles in dollar terms have gotten more expensive, and prices of used vehicles have also risen over the years, so total sales in dollars at auto and parts dealers have seen a red-hot boom – due to price increases! Back in Q3 2007, sales at auto and parts dealers reached a record of $76.2 billion. By Q4 2016, this had jumped 28% to $97.4 billion. This chart shows the dollar-sales boom by dealers of new vehicles, used vehicles, and auto parts: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 5 So the increase in dollar sales since 2000 is a function of price increases, not of volume increases, which anyone who bought vehicles at regular intervals can attest to. The same type car is nicer and might have a 9-speed automatic transmission instead of the 5-speed automatic of yore, and might have more safety features, cup-holders, gadgets, and internet-connected devices. But it’s still the same brand, and same size car. You just have to pay a lot more to get it. Your reaction as you grapple with that reality is called “sticker shock.” Sales by auto and parts dealers account for about 21% of total retail and food services sales. So what happens when booming e-commerce and booming auto sales are removed? Combined they account for about 29% of total retail sales. What happens to the remaining 71%, the sales at millions of shops and big-box chain stores and grocery stores and jewelry stores, and at all the department stores, taco trucks, farmers’ markets, discount stores, fast-food joints, high-end eateries… all combined? This is what happens in the brick-and-mortar world City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 6 Retail and food services sales less e-commerce sales and less auto sales in Q4 2016 were $267 billion, about flat with Q4 2015 ($266 billion), down 2.6% from Q4 2014 ($275 billion), down 1.5% from Q4 2013…. In fact, they’re down 1.5% from Q3 2008 ($271 billion), and about flat with Q4 2007! That was a long time ago. And note the steep ascent during the prior years: Adjusted for inflation over the years (the Consumer Price Index has risen 16% since 2007, including 2.7% in 2016 alone), these sales figures in Q4 2016 would look even sadder compared to Q4 2007! So for those 71% of US retail sales, it has been worse than a decade of stagnation. And that’s why companies love consumer price inflation: enough of it can hide a very tough reality. So what happens next? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:24 AM 7 E-commerce sales will continue to boom by taking share away from brick-and- mortar retailers. This process is far from over. But can auto sales continue to boom? These auto sales were funded by debt, and this debt has ballooned to over $1.1 trillion. The risks lenders have been taking have surged. Bank regulators have been warning for months, and now it’s happening. Read… “Seriously Delinquent” Auto Loans Surge Vladimir Bosanac Publisher The Registry | Bay Area Real Estate 415-290-6959 vlad@theregistrysf.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:56 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 8:21 PM To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; kfsndesk; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; jboren; bmcewen; bretthedrick; dwalters; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mayor; beachrides; scott.mozier; robert.andersen; Council, City; terry; Dan Richard Subject:Fwd: I favor a small, temporary gas tax hike to pay for fixing streets and roads in Calif. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:51 PM Subject: I favor a small, temporary gas tax hike to pay for fixing streets and roads in Calif. To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com> Monday, Feb. 20, 2017 Mr. Dan Richard Dan- The streets in Fresno are now full of potholes. They were fine until about a year ago. Hwy 99 through Fresno is still plagued by potholes even though Caltrans has been working on it. KCBS says the same situation prevails in the Bay Area. They said the avg. driver is now spending $800/ year to repair the damage to his vehicle caused by potholes. In view of this, I suggest an immediate, emergency, temporary $.25 per gallon increase in the state gasoline tax to pay to repair the streets and highways of California. The tax receipts should be segregated by the county of origin and the money returned to those counties for use in repairing the roads. This would prevent disproportionate amounts going to one county or another. I KNOW that there would be wide-spread support for such an idea by drivers in California. As it stands now, one must hunt hard for a route in his part of town to hit the fewest number of potholes. This situation is just out of hand. I'll go to San Mateo and Palo Alto sometime in the future. For sixteen years, I have NEVER had to worry about damaging my car much due to potholes in making that trip from Fresno. Now I dread it. One can see most potholes in the daylight, but not at night. Those roads, Hwy 99, 152, 101, 85, 280 and 92 have been in quite good shape between 2000 and 2016. Now, apparently due to the rains, 99, at least, is in serous trouble. I hope the rest of them are in better shape, but KCBS reports that many potholes have developed recently in Bay Area roads. I cannot believe that there would be much opposition to a temporary gas tax to fix the roads and highways. People are damaging their vehicles driving on the roads as they exist now. A Caltrans employee said on TV here in Fresno that there is not enough money available to fix the roads as they need to be fixed. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:56 AM 2 Please forward this email to Governor Brown. If he were to ask the legislature to impose a small, immediate, temporary gas tax increase, and if that money truly went to repair our streets and highways, I am sure that the public would support it. Thank you. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:41 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Stan Hutchings <stan.hutchings@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2017 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:get rid of left-turn lanes and lights and save money, increase safety Please share this with the traffic management group. http://5newsonline.com/2017/02/19/why-ups-trucks-almost-never-turn-left/ Here is an excerpt of the article: '“Left-turning traffic typically has to turn against a flow of oncoming vehicles,” explains Tom Vanderbilt, author of the book “Traffic: Why we drive the way we do.” “This can not only be dangerous, but makes traffic build up, unless you install a dedicated left-turn ‘phase,’ which is fine but basically adds 30 or 45 seconds to everyone else’s single time,” he said.' "...turning left is one of the leading “critical pre-crash events” (an event that made a collision inevitable), occurring in 22.2 percent of crashes, as opposed to 1.2 percent for right turns. About 61 percent of crashes that occur while turning or crossing an intersection involve left turns, as opposed to just 3.1 percent involving right turns. Left turns are also three times more likely to kill pedestrians than right ones, according to data collected by New York City’s transportation planners." Regards, Stan Hutchings 285 Rinconada Ave, Palo Alto 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:03 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Martha <marthalg@sonic.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:housing Dear City Council, After reading about the problems with the proposed condo development at 4146 El Camino Real, I thought this would be a perfect location for housing for the developmentally disabled. There has been lots of interest in senior housing, but housing for the developmentally disabled is never brought up. The city of Palo Alto only has one complex for the developmentally disabled which is on Ash St. with 23 units. After attending a Housing Choices meeting the speaker said over 60 people in Palo Alto are on their list for housing. I thought this location would be perfect because it is on El Camino so residents could use the 22 bus stop on the corner. From there they could get to grocery stores, work, etc. There needs to be some parking but not as much as a regular condo or apartment complex. Please consider this for all areas that are being developed. Our son is 29 years old and would love to live independently and being on wait lists forever is very discouraging. Thank you, Martha, Paul, and Alan Gregory City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:50 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 2:42 PM To:Doug Vagim; Mark Standriff; Mayor; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; robert.andersen; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Mark Kreutzer; popoff; richard.wenzel; Tranil Thomas; Leodies Buchanan; kfsndesk; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; hennessy; bretthedrick; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; scott.mozier Subject:Fwd: KCBS: Approval of $600 mil. for CALTRAIN ELEC. delayed in Congress. SV upset ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:31 PM Subject: Fwd: KCBS: Approval of $600 mil. for CALTRAIN ELEC. delayed in Congress. SV upset To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, boardmembers <boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov>, President <President@whitehouse.gov> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:09 PM Subject: Fwd: KCBS: Approval of $600 mil. for CALTRAIN ELEC. delayed in Congress. SV upset To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:13 PM Subject: Fwd: KCBS: Approval of $600 mil. for CALTRAIN ELEC. delayed in Congress. SV upset To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM Subject: KCBS: Approval of $600 mil. for CALTRAIN ELEC. delayed in Congress. SV upset To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, February 20, 2017 Mr. Dan Richard Chairman of the Board City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:50 AM 2 California High Speed Rail Authority Dan- KCBS says that on Friday, 2-17-17 some in the Calif. Congressional delegation got a hold put on approval of money to electrify Caltrain on the SF peninsula. Until that hold is lifted, it will prevent California's High Speed Rail from going north from San Jose since it is electric. The report said most in Silicon Valley are angry about this since electrifying Caltrain will create 60,000 jobs there. "Jeff" Denham and Kevin McCarthy were no doubt deeply involved in this little act of sabotage to damage the people of the Bay Area and of California. They need to be removed from Congress in Nov. 2018, if not sooner. California's San Joaquin Valley is one of the poorest regions of the United States. Connecting it with the SF peninsula and Silicon Valley would be a huge boost into the 21st century for the region. The wealthy of Silicon Valley should target Jeff Denham and Kevin McCarthy for defeat if they seek re-election to Congress in 2018. Tom Steyer, where are you when we need you? I'll send this to President Trump. I hope he denounces Denham and McCarthy and does everything else that he can to subvert them since they are subverting the people of California and the United States. Their very presence in Congress is an outrage. A tiny clique of rich, greasy Central Valley Republicans put them in Congress, and the people are being damaged by their being there. The people will take their revenge starting in Nov. 2018. Apparently Denham and McCarthy have not heard President Trump express his interest in high speed rail for the people of the United States. The President says he wants high speed rail, and Denham and McCarthy do all they can in Congress to damage the California High Speed Rail project, under construction now. The environmental studies for it alone took years to complete. Supporting high speed rail in California would win the President many supporters here. Again, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Japan and S. Korea all have wonderful high speed rail systems, and those countries were able to build them because the United States, for some mysterious reason, supplies their military defense, free of charge. They also use their defense money to provide universal health care and free universities for their people, neither of which we have. The citizens of those countries must think that the American people are the biggest bunch of suckers in history. That is not healthy for us. The Germans and the Japanese thought we were a bunch of suckers in 1940 too. Let's change their minds by telling them to start paying for their own defense, and fighting their own wars, and then building high speed rail in the United States. Damaging Medicare and Social Security will cost the President much of whatever support he has now in California and in the rest of the United States. The voucher system for Medicare being pushed by Paul Ryan should cost Ryan any support he has in the White House, and in the country. The solution to Medicare and Social Security funding is to have people earning more than ~$107,000 per year start paying Medicare and Social Security taxes on incomes above that level. Denham, McCarthy, Ryan: three people in Congress who are working hard to ruin the 99%. Let's ruin them instead. They have it coming, plenty. We need to get Denham and McCarthy back to digging potatoes in California since that is, no doubt, where they came from. Paul Ryan probably has a similar background. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 10:53 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:45 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; mike.sandor@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Kudos To Council and City Manager (welcome back): Too often you receive critiques so I felt I should send you a compliment. Living in Professorville as I do, for many years I have experienced the outdated storm sewer system overflow and send water running down my sideways and into my yard. One year on the advice of my attorney, I wrote a letter to the City stating that if my basement flooded, I would hold the City liable due to the poor storm sewer system. Sandbags keep the waters at bay that year. Once again the recent storms have tested the street drainage and viola, no overflowing. That I have to assume is due to the new storm sewer infrastructure put in place these last many months. Congratulations to all and to the previous Councils for supporting the renewal of our antique system here. I can personally say that the City "works" for me. Richard Brand Professorville City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:46 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 12:20 PM To:Public Works Redwood City; Council, City; cbeth@redwoodcity.org Subject:More dumping on Linden Street across from Linden Park behind University Art -Feb 20, 2017 Hi Tina, Here's a photo of the latest dumping on Linden Street, across from Linden Park. Best regards, Aram James City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:46 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:05 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Paul Mielke <paul.t.mielke@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:26 PM To:Ranu Aggarwal; Council, City Cc:Jane Meier; Paul Mielke; Michael; Lydia Pugliese (lydia.pugliese@gmail.com); sdremann@paweekly.com; Gerhardt, Jodie; barc@novelthink.com; Karen Ambrose Hickey; Betty Jo Chang; Lynted; Rita Tetzlaff; Sanjeev Kumar; marie-jo fremont; Edward T Hogan; alexandra.olsen@oracle.com; Robert Henderson (rob@hendersonsfis.com); Debbie Gravitz; Lawrence You; strathclan1955@gmail.com; Gregory Turnbull; drfuchs@yahoo.com; Giordano Bruno Beretta; JoanneDCarey; Shirley Gruber; wendykleckner@aol.com; Mjbertin@gmail.com; andzphillips@bellsouth.net; lauren_segal@yahoo.com; Anne Clark; Esther Nigenda; Keith Bennett Subject:Objections to Revised Project Plans for 1710 Newell Road (16PLN-00222) To: Ranu Aggarwal, Palo Alto Planning Department Cc: City Council of Palo Alto Re: Objections to the Revised Project Proposal for 1710 Newell Road, Palo Alto - Revisions dated February 6, 2017 (Record 16PLN-00222) Dear Ranu and members of the City Council, This letter comes to you from 45 residents of the immediate neighborhood of 1710 Newell. Most of us live in the 1700 and 1800 blocks of Newell and Guinda Streets and a fair number of us have lived here for more than a decade. We have collectively gone over the Revised Project Proposal for 1710 Newell (submitted February 6, 2017) in great detail and write to express our opposition to the proposal as currently constituted. We include a detailed list of our concerns about the project below for your consideration, but the summary of our position can be stated as follows: We oppose the revised plan because it will negatively impact the character of our neighborhood and community, endanger the lives of Palo Alto bikers (which includes many school children), as well as damage our fragile natural environment (water and trees). The proposed construction will create parking issues, jeopardize our City's investment in bike safety, hurt our environment, and transform the character of our residential neighborhood. Please consider our objections during your review of this proposal. We would also like to request an in-person meeting with the Planning Department to discuss these matters further. We look forward to your response. Respectfully submitted by Jane Meier and Paul Mielke Lynda and Ted Brown Pauline and Mike Baukol City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:05 AM 2 Marsha Ashworth Lydia and Tony Pugliese Liz and Terry Hogan Sushma Bhope and Sanjeev Kumar Marie-Jo Fremont and Brian Tucker Rita Tetzlaff Barclay Tullis Betty Jo and Sherwood Chang Karen and Michael Hickey Robert Henderson Shirley Melen Alexandra Olsen Debbie Gravitz Lawrence You Teresa and Richard Strathearn Gregory Turnbull Joanne D. Carey David Fuchs Giordano Berretta Wendy and Howard Kleckner Michel Bertin Adam and Dana Phillips Glen and Lauren Segal Anne and Terry Clark Mildred Nelson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:05 AM 3 Esther Nigenda Michelle Zhang and Richard Gu ======> List of Concerns <====== 1) Parking and Safety Issues The 1710 Newell house stands at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newell and Embarcadero. This puts it right on the very heavily used Designated Class II Bike Route on Newell. That bike route has a lot of traffic from students of Jordan Middle School, Walter Hays Elementary School, Castilleja School and Palo Alto High School, as well as users of Rinconada Park, the Palo Alto Rinconada Library and the Palo Alto Art Center. The sidewalk on the south side of Embarcadero also has a lot of bike traffic from students going to and from Palo Alto High School and Castilleja School. Note that in the current house at 1710 Newell, the driveway faces Embarcadero. In the proposed design for the new house, the driveway is on the Newell side, meaning that it directly conflicts with the Class II bike route on Newell. The proposed new structure at 1710 Newell has 7 bedrooms and another 2 rooms that could easily be converted to bedrooms. If we assume 2 residents in the master bedroom and one each in the other bedrooms, that gives a minimum occupancy of 10 and a maximum of 18 (9 bedrooms with two occupants each). The proposed site plan includes a one stall garage and driveway parking for at most 3 cars. Note that the drawings specify an automatic gate that restricts the use of the driveway space for parked cars. This is clearly inadequate parking for the proposed size of the house. Also note that the west side of Newell in the 1700 and 1800 block allows no parking from 7am to 7pm for the safety of the users of the bike lane. Because of this restriction, the east side of Newell is generally completely parked up, so the overflow parking from the proposed structure at 1710 Newell will have to be accommodated on other nearby streets, e.g. Guinda or Seale or Mark Twain. In the case of the 1700 and 1800 blocks of Guinda, that will be a serious problem, since it is a narrow street. When cars are parked on both sides, it effectively becomes a one lane street. The current existing house at 1710 Newell is a 3 bedroom house and there are typically 3 cars parked in the driveway every night and sometimes as many as 4. Assuming the same ratio of cars to bedrooms would require at least 9 parking spaces for the new proposed structure. 2) Safety Issues During Construction There are very serious concerns about the safety of the bike lane and sidewalk users during the construction of the proposed 1710 Newell project. Obviously there will be significant truck and construction traffic in and out of 1710 Newell for the duration of the construction, posing serious hazards to the bicycle traffic in the busy bike lanes on Newell and the bikes and pedestrians on the busy sidewalks on Newell and Embarcadero. 3) Potential Business Usage Issues The revised design for 1710 Newell is only scaled down slightly from the previous plan of July 2016. In the new plan there are effectively 9 bedrooms, although not all of them are honestly labelled as such on the architectural drawings. There is a “study” on the first floor which has a closet and shared direct access to the adjacent hall bath, which makes it a bedroom by another name. There are two additional rooms (the second "study" on the first floor and the "game room" in the basement), which could easily be converted to additional bedrooms. There are 8 full baths and 4 powder rooms in the new design. There are 2 internal staircases, an elevator and an external staircase. There is a large common room in the basement that could easily be converted City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:05 AM 4 to a second kitchen and dining area. It seems clear that a 9 bedroom house with more than 7300 square feet of living space and 12 bathrooms is not intended as a "single family home" within the definition of R-1 zoning. There is serious concern that there may be some covert or unstated business purpose for the new project: an Airbnb hotel offering rooms for short term rentals, a “hacker hostel”, a conference center, an assisted living facility or perhaps long term rentals allowing more families to gain access to the Palo Alto School System. Any of these purposes would be an obvious subversion of the intent of the R-1 zoning, as it applies to this site. Does the City or do we as neighbors have any recourse if the occupants later convert the property to one of the above mentioned commercial purposes or some other similar usage? 4) Tree Issues The proposed plan requires the removal of a healthy Coast Live Oak that is adjacent to the garage in the current house. That tree should be protected as a Heritage Tree according to the relevant Palo Alto regulations. There are also significant concerns about the potential effect of the construction of the proposed below grade basement (roughly 2800 square feet) on the integrity of the root systems of the other heritage trees that are on the 1710 Newell property (two heritage oaks) and on adjacent properties at 1721 Guinda (heritage Valley Oak) and at 1735 Guinda (heritage redwood). Please confirm that the construction proposal does not compromise the health of those other heritage trees. Do the owners of those adjacent trees have any recourse if the proposed construction at 1710 Newell causes damage to the health of those heritage trees? Should it turn out that a project of the proposed scale is approved, we demand that the construction at 1710 Newell be required to use “cut-off walls" during construction to protect the heritage trees mentioned above from potential damage as a result of the loss of groundwater from the necessary dewatering involved in the construction of the very large proposed basement at 1710 Newell. 5) Neighborhood Character Issues It's clear that the proposed 9 bedroom, 12 bathroom house at 1710 Newell would be much larger than any other house in the immediate area and would be completely out of character with the neighborhood. 6) Privacy Issues The proposed plan for 1710 Newell involves significant loss of privacy for the homes at 1722 Newell, 1711 Guinda, 1721 Guinda and 1735 Guinda. The proposed design would have significant new second story window area facing those other existing homes. 7) Comparison to Previous Design Proposal The new proposal submitted on February 6, 2017 is only slightly reduced as compared to the previous design submitted in July 2016. Some of the reduction is achieved by the transparent subterfuge of relabelling the two first floor bedrooms as "studies". There are several other respects in which the new plans are simply less honest than the original ones: e.g. in the original July 2016 plan, they listed the square footage of the basement (2862 square feet), but that number is nowhere to be found on the new February 2017 plans. Comparing the dimensions of the two basements, it is clear that the new design incorporates about the same square footage. Adding the approximately 2800 square feet of the new basement to the carefully calibrated 4529.66 square feet of above ground living space yields a home with a total of more than 7300 square feet of living space. Compare that and the 9 potential bedrooms and 12 baths to the previous design proposal with 7400 square feet, 11 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:05 AM 5 bedrooms and 14 baths. The reduction from 11 bedrooms and 14 baths to 9 bedrooms and 12 baths does not really make the new design look any more like a plausible single family home. 8) Errata On the Title Sheet (Sheet TS), the adjacent homes are incorrectly labelled as 1722 Guinda and 1711 Newell. The correct addresses are 1722 Newell and 1711 Guinda. ======> End of Issues List <====== City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:05 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ron Katz <ronkatz0501@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to proposed Castilleja expansion Dear Members: If Castilleja wants to expand, it should do so in a less congested city. If Castilleja re‐located, it would, in my opinion, be no loss to Palo Alto. In my many conversations with people all over the country and the globe about the virtues of Palo Alto, literally no mention has ever been made of Castilleja. On the other hand, expansion of Castilleja by definition will increase congestion. Such expansion would primarily benefit families not living here, which makes no political or economic sense. Very truly yours, Ronald S. Katz 2085 Cowper St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:30 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 6:58 PM To:abjpd1@gmail.com; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Council, City; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Stump, Molly; Reichental, Jonathan; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Keene, James Subject:City of #PaloAlto has a vile history of suppressing 1st amend rights Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/18/17, 6:54 PM @cityofpaloalto @PaloAltoPolice @SantaClaraDA City of #PaloAlto has a vile history of suppressing 1st amend rights bit.ly/1aolJWQ pic.twitter.com/elsYqdxx5m Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:57 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 8:27 AM To:jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Dave Price Cc:swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; jnowell@padailypost.com; Stump, Molly; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Tony Ciampi; c27.pierce@gmail.com; James Aram; Watson, Ron; Council, City; Keith, Claudia; Reichental, Jonathan; Minor, Beth; bjohnson@paweekly.com; jmadden@scscourt.org Subject:City to set priorities and limits on free speech this is a TEST of the emergency city broadcast system aka 911 1st Amendment censorship - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter We understand your working with the DA's office in trying to take our site down? Mr. Rosen....we will promptly file a state bar complaint if these rumors are with merit you mother fucker pardon my French I've been possessed by the ghost of former Chief Justice Louis Brandeis... New York v. Sullivan But then again, Mr. Rosen, you have no concept, no concept of the US Constitution just the Police Officers Bill of Rights and special privileges Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/21/17, 8:09 AM Set your priorities @DavePrice94301 & go after these guys first bit.ly/2m8p34o @CopyrightOffice @GoDaddy Dave u look like an idiot pic.twitter.com/nQf6WLV9tz Do I even need to sign off on this...email? Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:16 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 7:17 AM To:jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Scharff, Greg; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; Bonilla, Robert; Lum, Patty; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Dave Price; abjpd1 @gmail.com; Council, City; Keith, Claudia; csumida@da.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; jnowell@padailypost.com; jmadden@scscourt.org; Keene, James; Philip, Brian; bajadrew911@aol.com; Ryan, Dan Subject:DA Jeff Rosen's prosecuting agent Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/18/17, 7:05 AM Don't find yourself in interrogation room with @PaloAltoPolice officer April Chan aka Wagner she will pluck the truth out of you #PaloAlto pic.twitter.com/4gNqxwuifA This woman is the epitome of "unethical" its not me telling you its the authors of the outstanding reference which I have poured over the passed tens years along with thousands of court case.... This is one bad mother fucker... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:16 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:16 AM 3 Mark Petersen- Perez Editor Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:31 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:07 PM To:abjpd1@gmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Dave Price; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; Tony Ciampi; timothygray@sbcglobal.net; Council, City; HRC; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; sbrown@fairandimpartialpolicing.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org Subject:Former @PaloAltoPolice Chief to return cost of RET party in light of atrocities Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Note the George Shultz connection on Burns.... Atrocities Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/18/17, 9:02 PM @laprensa Former @PaloAltoPolice Chief to return cost of RET party in light of atrocities bit.ly/2jQxMux #PaloAlto @hoynoticias pic.twitter.com/xl1PnQg33U Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:56 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:38 AM To:James Aram; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Scheff, Lisa; Lum, Patty; Keene, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; jnowell@padailypost.com; Dave Price; Council, City; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Tony Ciampi; swebby@da.sccgov.org Subject:I feel good......Like you know that I should dooo dooo do..I feel good Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Molly, how you doing on my CPRA follow up request? Or do we need to 'take it to the streets" James Brown Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/21/17, 7:25 AM Having presented before Calif Supreme Court happy to address your concerns Mr. @DavePrice94301 @CopyrightOffice #PaloAlto @GoDaddy @EPN pic.twitter.com/CJ0OV3YmGX You know the constitution has been sidelined way to long....well I'm stepping up to the plate... Tase me bro!!!! Bobble Head of Palo Alto Free Press Mark Petersen-Perez Ticuantepe Nicaragua Central America 650 646 5737 Intl. 505 87843381 Ps. Dave dude...chill out dude and run around the block if you can,,,,, Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:32 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2017 3:20 AM To:jrosen@da.sccgov.org; HRC Cc:abjpd1@gmail.com; Jay Boyarsky; jnowell@padailypost.com; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Dave Price; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Stump, Molly; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; CSumida@da.sccgov.org; Council, City; Tony Ciampi; timothygray@sbcglobal.net; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; jeramygordon@me.com; ggoodman@pdo.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; Lum, Patty; Perez, Lalo; Scheff, Lisa; Wagner, April; Ryan, Dan; Carnahan, David; mickwz@sbcglobal.net Subject:Re: Palo Alto's own holocaust Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter The organization contracted to forensically clean it up / sanitize it OIR Office Independent Review - headed up by a highly skilled convincing former federal prosecutor Michael Gennaco http://www.oirgroup.com/ And the fake news media who also under a lucrative contract effectively glossed it over. Namely The Weekly or PaloAltoonline.com whom engaged in censoring out critical public comments to protect the PAPD's smokestacks of stench bellowing, emanating from the city. Mark Petersen Perez Editor or Bobble Head of Palo Alto Free Press Tecuantepe, Nicaragua Central America local 650 646 5737 Intl 8784 3381 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:50 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/19/17, 2:30 AM #PaloAlto own "killing field" it would rather have buried in the past. A true oxymoron into former chief Burns past bit.ly/2jQxMux pic.twitter.com/MLXhIrZXh5 Fully supported by DA Rosen. You had nothing but praises to heap upon the victims of Palo Alto's very own holocaust in your support of Former Police Chief Dennis Burns. Please ad to the growing memorial list of PAPD victims by sending me an email. Mark Petersen Perez Editor or Bobble Head of Palo Alto Free Press City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 9:05 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 4:53 AM To:Lum, Patty; Wagner, April; Wagner, April; Bonilla, Robert; Ryan, Dan Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Council, City; Keith, Claudia; Keene, James; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; Scharff, Greg; swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Tony Ciampi; James Aram; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; HRC Subject:permanently pinned This will remain permanently in place until such time as Patty Lum turns in her weapon and badge for elder abuse.... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 9:05 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:43 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 7:19 AM To:Scheff, Lisa; Watson, Ron; Stump, Molly; Council, City Subject:Re: CPRA Response Dennis Burns retirement invite list Molly and don't give me any of your Bullshit answers..... if you don't give a real non legal fake non rubber stamp response, then I may withhold, may without this actionable non compliance matter if that's the rubber stamp outcome to the California state bar and you better know damm well I'll do it!!! And don't threaten with Scott Pensky although he's good I'm better got it! 😊 Saludo, Mark Sent from my iPad On Feb 19, 2017, at 9:34 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: Ms. Stump: If the city refuses to produce the requested documents promptly, Palo Alto Free Press will be compelled to seek production via court action. As you know, and probably don't know, the structure of CPRA is such that records are presumptively available to the public "unless one exceptions stated in the act applies." Comm'n on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 278,288 (2007) (Citing Cal. Gov't code 6253). " The Burden of proof is on the proponents of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate a 'clear overbalance' on the side confidentially." California State Univ. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 810,831 (2001) (citation omitted). "Statutory exemption from compelled discloser are narrowly construed." I'd. (Citation omitted). Mark Petersen‐Perez Sent from my iPad On Feb 19, 2017, at 8:55 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Lisa: Greeting supplemental CPRA request Re: CPRA response Dennis Burns retirement invite list Upon a closer review of the invite lists it becomes obvious the lists have been tampered with liquide whiteout without disclosing the reasons why as require by law. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:43 AM 2 And your CPRA acknowledgement letter dated to me on January 24, 2017, to Mark Petersen‐Perez acting as Palo Alto Free Press a news reporting entity, suggests altering for "applicable privileges and exemption" Please identify how many of those records were; "applicable privileges and exemption" Section: 6255: In order to withhold a record under section 6255, a agency must demonstrate that the public's interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public's interest in disclosure.... New York Times Co. vs Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal. App.4th 97. Please provide all records which were not previously provide. Must be received by: March 2, 2017 §6255 of the Government code. The agency the recipient, must provide assistance ...by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access. (§ 6253.1) see: Government Code & §6253 re time limits for said disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. See: Writings as defined in California Public Records Section §6252(f) and Evidence Code & 250. If you believe I am not entitled to the requested records I am requesting that you justify your refusal within (ten) days in writing under §6255 of the Government code. You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me. In the case of California State University of Fresno Assn, Inc. V Superior Court McClatchy Co. (2001) 90 Cal App.4th 810, the court held that "The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate "clear overbalance" on the side of confidentiality." Please provide any additional legal authority you would like me to be aware of re this request . Please feel free to contact me to discuss this request if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Mark Petersen‐Perez Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 Central America Local: 650 646‐5737 or 650‐395‐8210 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:43 AM 3 Intl: 505 8784 3381 On Jan 30, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Scheff, Lisa <Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Mr. Petersen Perez, Please see attached CPRA Response. Thank you, Lisa Scheff Public Safety Program Manager/Records Palo Alto Police Department 650.329.2553 <CPRA Response Letter2 - MPP_Chiefs Retirement.pdf> <Retirement Invite List 1.pdf> <Retirement Invite List 2.pdf> <Retirement Invite-Mulit Members.pdf> <Retirement Inviie_Former Employees 1.pdf> <Retirement Invite_Former Employees2.pdf> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:22 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:18 AM To:Reichental, Jonathan Cc:Scheff, Lisa; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; abjpd1@gmail.com; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; abjpd1@icloud.com; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Perez, Lalo Subject:Re: Page Temporarily Unavailable Thanks....But I used the link which was imbedded in the request / review feature....Once I got in to this wonderful consuming application from a users point of view... I will try again That's the problem application design vs end user..... Before and after any new design which I developed it beta tested.... Don't know if you do that??? Thanks, Jonathan, Mark Sent from my iPad > On Feb 18, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Reichental, Jonathan <Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: > > The City of Palo Alto public records request system is functioning without any issue. Please be sure to use the correct link provided here: > > http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/public_records_request.asp > > Thank you. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D. :: Chief Information Officer :: City of Palo Alto :: @PaloAltoCIO > Assistant: jeanny.weatherford@cityofpaloalto.org :: 650‐329‐2182 > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Palo Alto Free Press [mailto:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 5:02 PM > To: Reichental, Jonathan <Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org> > Cc: Scheff, Lisa <Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Watson, Ron <Ron.Watson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Perron, Zachary <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; abjpd1@gmail.com; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; abjpd1@icloud.com; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Scharff, Greg <gregscharff@aol.com>; Perez, Lalo <Lalo.Perez@CityofPaloAlto.org> > Subject: Re: Page Temporarily Unavailable > > The CPRA does not allow, does not allow for system glitches resulting in delay. Its indefensible period! CPRA is unforgiving in its mandated statutes. > City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:22 AM 2 > Molly, order that this system gets fixed now or ill ad it the growing list of disbarment issues... Got it bitch! > > Mark > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 17, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How much did you spend on system up grades? Ill bet your personal office has all the bells and whistles. Right? >> >> You're fired.... Not able to access CPRA Jonathan...I believe this is 3 strikes offense and you should now report directly to maximum Prison at Pelican Bay >> >> https://mycusthelp.com/PALOALTOCA/_rs/(S(1i0iyrx5a0ooftd3iv1sjd3o))/DownloadFile.aspx?sSessionID=994342198NO RMEHDJPSIJUWGWTLTRJMHIUIPDXMB&aid=683&fid=14 >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad > City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:42 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 4:49 AM To:Council, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg; abjpd1@gmail.com; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Lum, Patty; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Dave Price; Ryan, Dan; Carnahan, David; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Keene, James; jnowell@padailypost.com; Reichental, Jonathan; Scheff, Lisa; Perez, Lalo; Keith, Claudia; CSumida@da.sccgov.org; Tony Ciampi; timothygray@sbcglobal.net Subject:Rosen and Jay are the principal promoters behind these atrocities Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/19/17, 8:05 AM Theirs no cause to celebrate the vile history of @PaloAltoPolice atrocities under the nose of former Chief Burns #PaloAlto @SantaClaraDA pic.twitter.com/zqFX20OzGV The citizens deserve their money back on Burns retirement party paid for on the taxpayers dime. And why no press coverage from the armchair warrior Dave Price? Or the PaloAltoonline.com chief censor. The photos must have blacked out. Only because sunlight can only reveal and distinguish the truth behind fake news (gsheyner) code for asshole. will be publishing the actual costs of this event well, check back in 10 days or so only because i'll be traveling to North Korea to meet up with the real commies....not the fake-ones what did former chief justice Brandise say, "robust and wide open" 1st amendment champion....and up your ass with the truth,,, censor that was you government SOB's your truly Bobble head of the Palo Alto Free Press and one maniacal Nicaraguan Mark Petersen-Perez Es no mi culpa.... es mi mama y papa putas Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:08 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 17, 2017 5:37 AM To:Lum, Patty Cc:jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; Dave Price; Ryan, Dan; Wagner, April; Bonilla, Robert; abjpd1@gmail.com Subject:This video will remain in place until you resign The video data is signifícate considering the enormity of social media impact globally #ElderAbuse City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:08 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:34 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:21 AM To:Stump, Molly; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; abjpd1 @gmail.com; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; mickwz@sbcglobal.net; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; Bonilla, Robert; Ryan, Dan; Lum, Patty; Perez, Lalo; bajadrew911@aol.com; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; csumida@da.sccgov.org Subject:Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter All I ever wanted was a certificate of exoneration to a crime I did not commit and of course 5k in stolen property in which Dan Ryan aiding and abetting in transporting my property to Central America which BTW is a Federal Crime ROSEN! Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/19/17, 9:10 AM @FuerzaEcuador @Cubanoselmundo @cubadebate @Total_Mex Historia de las atrocidades de la policía de #PaloAlto @EPN #immigration @laprensa pic.twitter.com/mZtd3ioyKj Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:32 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2017 7:32 AM To:Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org Cc:Keene, James; Scharff, Greg; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; mickwz@sbcglobal.net; Council, City; Keith, Claudia; csumida@da.sccgov.org; Tony Ciampi; abjpd1@gmail.com; Reichental, Jonathan; jnowell@padailypost.com; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; jaythor@well.com; sdremann@paweekly.com; sbrown@fairandimpartialpolicing.com Subject:vile history of Palo Alto Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter All the sited cases in this article you supported 2 suppress both of you and our 1st amendment rights there's no denying it and you cant cover it over the vile history of Palo Alto we will make sure of this.... Even the paloaltoonline.com through censorship http://bit.ly/QlibhE Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/19/17, 7:19 AM 1st Amend cast 2 the wind guide 4 community members during HRC meetings bit.ly/1aolJWQ #PaloAlto Theirs no denying vile history pic.twitter.com/Hx1zoZrHeE City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:32 AM 3 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:32 AM 4 Mark Petersen-Perez Editor and bobble head of Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua Central America Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:52 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 3:18 PM To:Lee, Elena; Moitra, Chitra; Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Council, City; jdong@paweekly.com; dprice@padailypost.com Subject:PAN Letter to CC re Comp Plan Attachments:PAN Letter to CAC.docx Please ensure the following letter is forwarded to the Comp Plan CAC for the Feb 21 meeting. Thank you, Sheri Furman February 20, 2017 Dear CAC Members, On behalf of the Palo Alto Neighborhoods Steering Committee, I am writing with concerns about the recent Council decision to remove programs from the Land Use and Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. We support the issues raised by the recent letters you received from several CAC members. We agree that decoupling programs from their related policies and placing them outside the body of the element weakens the policies these programs are supposed to support. Had a "program-less" Comp Plan been the goal from the outset, then surely Policies would have been crafted in a different manner in absence of the underlying programs that define and enact the policies. In the Palo Alto Weekly January 30 article, Mayor Greg Scharff said (referring to the Programs), "It's not being deleted. It's being put aside and we're saying (that) as these implementations become feasible with staff time, we'll move forward on them, assuming the council wants to." So who makes the decision as to if and when programs are considered for implementation? According to Mayor Scharff during the January 30 meeting, “if staff thinks we should move forward or a council member thinks we should move forward at that point we will move forward” and that staff wouldn’t have to spend the time if there was no push from either a council member or staff itself. As former Mayor Burt noted, “It was clearly stated that these Programs may or may not be taken up over the 13 year or longer duration of the Comp Plan. Absent a future Council action outside of the Comp Plan, these programs would not proceed.” Should every Council get to change or stop programs they don’t favor? Programs need to be multi-year efforts supporting goals and policies, not items to be implemented or discarded at whim. The biggest problem—one you all should be offended by—is the process by which this was decided. This action should have been brought up months ago and certainly could have been proposed at the beginning of the January 30 discussion rather than blind-siding the public and half the Council by proposing it half an hour before the end of the meeting, thus allowing no thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons of the proposal by either the CAC or the public. According to Council member Wolbach, “the goal of the Comp Plan is to lay out our values , our vision, our high level polices … and specific programs, and the implementation, etc., that is not the job of the Comp Plan.” We disagree. Programs define how those policies are to be implemented; they provide the specifics to the ideals. As Council memmber DuBois noted, “We agreed at the very beginning that the council wasn’t going to write the Comp Plan and I think this is an attempt to micro manage the Comp Plan and approve programs one by one.” PAN’s Steering Committee urges you to at least discuss the pros and cons of the decision to remove programs from the Land Use and Transportation Elements and whether to place them in an appendix or separate document. Perhaps you will decide that such an action makes sense; perhaps not. But you should at a minimum have the discussion and report your findings—both majority and minority—to Council. You and the public deserve as much. Thank you, PAN Steering Committee: Sheri Furman Becky Sanders Peter Taskovitch Norm Beamer Jeff Levinsky Annette Glanckopf City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 9:02 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:wsrfr418@yahoo.com Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pensions This is what is going to happen to Palo Alto if its not careful..... Will San Jose's pension costs consume revenue from new taxes? Right-click here tpictures. To helpprivacy, Outlookautomatic downlopicture from the Will San Jose's pension costs consume revenue from new taxes? SAN JOSE — When city leaders last year persuaded voters to approve new taxes, they said the money would pay for ... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:35 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lee Pfab (Palo Alto) <Lee.Pfab@YMCASV.ORG> Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2017 12:28 PM To:board.secretary@vta.org; Council, City Subject:Please consider the impacts of those served through the Y program and services when evaluating bus and shuttle routes VTA and City of Palo Alto, For more than one hundred years, the Palo Alto Family YMCA has been serving our community to address the needs of youth, seniors, low income families and those with different abilities. Within the last year, the Y has served over 12,000 individuals and partnered with organization like Avenidas and Abilities United. Without effective public transportation, individuals will not be able to receive the services they need to live a healthier and more engaged life in Palo Alto. When the Palo Alto Family YMCA established it current use permit in the later 1990’s, the Y required to establish an alternative transportation program. Still today the Y’s alternative transportation program incentivizes individual to use public transportation, carpools, walking, and riding bikes to the Y. This program has been a success and will continue to reduce traffic within Palo Alto if we can continue to focus on public transportation and safe biking routes. As you evaluate the transportation services within Palo Alto, we hope that you consider the impacts of those served through the Y program and services. Thank You, Lee Pfab Executive Director Palo Alto Family YMCA (650) 856-9622 lpfab@ymcasv.org www.paloaltofamilyymca.org The Y:For Youth Development, Healthy Living and Social Responsibility City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:08 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:33 PM To:Watson, Ron; RJonsen@menlopark.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Perron, Zachary; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City Subject:Ray Samuels: A Police Chief and Leader Who Championed Rights For All | Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project FYI: Feb 17, 2017‐‐5th anniversary of Ray Samuels' death: https://acjusticeproject.org/2012/03/06/ray‐samuels‐a‐police‐chief‐and‐leader‐who‐championed‐rights‐for‐all/ Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:48 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Paul Mielke <paul.t.mielke@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 12:52 PM To:Ranu Aggarwal; Council, City Cc:Jane Meier; Paul Mielke; Michael; Lydia Pugliese (lydia.pugliese@gmail.com); sdremann@paweekly.com; Gerhardt, Jodie; barc@novelthink.com; Karen Ambrose Hickey; Betty Jo Chang; Lynted; Rita Tetzlaff; Sanjeev Kumar; marie-jo fremont; Edward T Hogan; alexandra.olsen@oracle.com; Robert Henderson (rob@hendersonsfis.com); Debbie Gravitz; Lawrence You; strathclan1955@gmail.com; Gregory Turnbull; drfuchs@yahoo.com; Giordano Bruno Beretta; JoanneDCarey; Shirley Gruber; wendykleckner@aol.com; Mjbertin@gmail.com; andzphillips@bellsouth.net; lauren_segal@yahoo.com; Anne Clark; Esther Nigenda; Keith Bennett; hsiumaa@gmail.com; bonniestreet@sbcglobal.net; garylhammer@gmail.com; nwmerch@gmail.com; brcreate@sbcglobal.net; william_lean@yahoo.com; xhammer@gmail.com Subject:Re: Objections to Revised Project Plans for 1710 Newell Road (16PLN-00222) Dear Ranu and City Council members, Since I sent my original message last week, we have continued to get more signatures from concerned neighbors who want to join in voicing the objections that we have listed to the 1710 Newell Road Project Proposal. With the addition of the following names, it brings the total of signatories to 55. Here is the list of additional names: Deborah Sobel Keith Bennett Jo Ann Mandinach Daniel and Janis Tuerk Terri Maa Bonnie Street Gary Hammer Bill Rose William Lean We look forward to your response and the opportunity to meet with you in person to discuss this matter further. Respectfully, Paul Mielke on behalf of the listed neighbors On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Paul Mielke <paul.t.mielke@gmail.com> wrote: To: Ranu Aggarwal, Palo Alto Planning Department Cc: City Council of Palo Alto Re: Objections to the Revised Project Proposal for 1710 Newell Road, Palo Alto - Revisions dated February 6, 2017 (Record 16PLN-00222) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:48 AM 2 Dear Ranu and members of the City Council, This letter comes to you from 45 residents of the immediate neighborhood of 1710 Newell. Most of us live in the 1700 and 1800 blocks of Newell and Guinda Streets and a fair number of us have lived here for more than a decade. We have collectively gone over the Revised Project Proposal for 1710 Newell (submitted February 6, 2017) in great detail and write to express our opposition to the proposal as currently constituted. We include a detailed list of our concerns about the project below for your consideration, but the summary of our position can be stated as follows: We oppose the revised plan because it will negatively impact the character of our neighborhood and community, endanger the lives of Palo Alto bikers (which includes many school children), as well as damage our fragile natural environment (water and trees). The proposed construction will create parking issues, jeopardize our City's investment in bike safety, hurt our environment, and transform the character of our residential neighborhood. Please consider our objections during your review of this proposal. We would also like to request an in-person meeting with the Planning Department to discuss these matters further. We look forward to your response. Respectfully submitted by Jane Meier and Paul Mielke Lynda and Ted Brown Pauline and Mike Baukol Marsha Ashworth Lydia and Tony Pugliese Liz and Terry Hogan Sushma Bhope and Sanjeev Kumar Marie-Jo Fremont and Brian Tucker Rita Tetzlaff Barclay Tullis Betty Jo and Sherwood Chang Karen and Michael Hickey Robert Henderson Shirley Melen Alexandra Olsen City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:48 AM 3 Debbie Gravitz Lawrence You Teresa and Richard Strathearn Gregory Turnbull Joanne D. Carey David Fuchs Giordano Berretta Wendy and Howard Kleckner Michel Bertin Adam and Dana Phillips Glen and Lauren Segal Anne and Terry Clark Mildred Nelson Esther Nigenda Michelle Zhang and Richard Gu ======> List of Concerns <====== 1) Parking and Safety Issues The 1710 Newell house stands at the southwest corner of the intersection of Newell and Embarcadero. This puts it right on the very heavily used Designated Class II Bike Route on Newell. That bike route has a lot of traffic from students of Jordan Middle School, Walter Hays Elementary School, Castilleja School and Palo Alto High School, as well as users of Rinconada Park, the Palo Alto Rinconada Library and the Palo Alto Art Center. The sidewalk on the south side of Embarcadero also has a lot of bike traffic from students going to and from Palo Alto High School and Castilleja School. Note that in the current house at 1710 Newell, the driveway faces Embarcadero. In the proposed design for the new house, the driveway is on the Newell side, meaning that it directly conflicts with the Class II bike route on Newell. The proposed new structure at 1710 Newell has 7 bedrooms and another 2 rooms that could easily be converted to bedrooms. If we assume 2 residents in the master bedroom and one each in the other bedrooms, that gives a minimum occupancy of 10 and a maximum of 18 (9 bedrooms with two occupants each). The proposed site plan includes a one stall garage and driveway parking for at most 3 cars. Note that the drawings specify an automatic gate that restricts the use of the driveway space for parked cars. This is clearly inadequate parking for the proposed size of the house. Also note that the west side of Newell in the 1700 and 1800 block allows no parking from 7am to 7pm for the safety of the users of the bike lane. Because of this restriction, the east side of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:48 AM 4 Newell is generally completely parked up, so the overflow parking from the proposed structure at 1710 Newell will have to be accommodated on other nearby streets, e.g. Guinda or Seale or Mark Twain. In the case of the 1700 and 1800 blocks of Guinda, that will be a serious problem, since it is a narrow street. When cars are parked on both sides, it effectively becomes a one lane street. The current existing house at 1710 Newell is a 3 bedroom house and there are typically 3 cars parked in the driveway every night and sometimes as many as 4. Assuming the same ratio of cars to bedrooms would require at least 9 parking spaces for the new proposed structure. 2) Safety Issues During Construction There are very serious concerns about the safety of the bike lane and sidewalk users during the construction of the proposed 1710 Newell project. Obviously there will be significant truck and construction traffic in and out of 1710 Newell for the duration of the construction, posing serious hazards to the bicycle traffic in the busy bike lanes on Newell and the bikes and pedestrians on the busy sidewalks on Newell and Embarcadero. 3) Potential Business Usage Issues The revised design for 1710 Newell is only scaled down slightly from the previous plan of July 2016. In the new plan there are effectively 9 bedrooms, although not all of them are honestly labelled as such on the architectural drawings. There is a “study” on the first floor which has a closet and shared direct access to the adjacent hall bath, which makes it a bedroom by another name. There are two additional rooms (the second "study" on the first floor and the "game room" in the basement), which could easily be converted to additional bedrooms. There are 8 full baths and 4 powder rooms in the new design. There are 2 internal staircases, an elevator and an external staircase. There is a large common room in the basement that could easily be converted to a second kitchen and dining area. It seems clear that a 9 bedroom house with more than 7300 square feet of living space and 12 bathrooms is not intended as a "single family home" within the definition of R-1 zoning. There is serious concern that there may be some covert or unstated business purpose for the new project: an Airbnb hotel offering rooms for short term rentals, a “hacker hostel”, a conference center, an assisted living facility or perhaps long term rentals allowing more families to gain access to the Palo Alto School System. Any of these purposes would be an obvious subversion of the intent of the R-1 zoning, as it applies to this site. Does the City or do we as neighbors have any recourse if the occupants later convert the property to one of the above mentioned commercial purposes or some other similar usage? 4) Tree Issues The proposed plan requires the removal of a healthy Coast Live Oak that is adjacent to the garage in the current house. That tree should be protected as a Heritage Tree according to the relevant Palo Alto regulations. There are also significant concerns about the potential effect of the construction of the proposed below grade basement (roughly 2800 square feet) on the integrity of the root systems of the other heritage trees that are on the 1710 Newell property (two heritage oaks) and on adjacent properties at 1721 Guinda (heritage Valley Oak) and at 1735 Guinda (heritage redwood). Please confirm that the construction proposal does not compromise the health of those other heritage trees. Do the owners of those adjacent trees have any recourse if the proposed construction at 1710 Newell causes damage to the health of those heritage trees? Should it turn out that a project of the proposed scale is approved, we demand that the construction at 1710 Newell be required to use “cut-off walls" during construction to protect the heritage trees mentioned above from City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:48 AM 5 potential damage as a result of the loss of groundwater from the necessary dewatering involved in the construction of the very large proposed basement at 1710 Newell. 5) Neighborhood Character Issues It's clear that the proposed 9 bedroom, 12 bathroom house at 1710 Newell would be much larger than any other house in the immediate area and would be completely out of character with the neighborhood. 6) Privacy Issues The proposed plan for 1710 Newell involves significant loss of privacy for the homes at 1722 Newell, 1711 Guinda, 1721 Guinda and 1735 Guinda. The proposed design would have significant new second story window area facing those other existing homes. 7) Comparison to Previous Design Proposal The new proposal submitted on February 6, 2017 is only slightly reduced as compared to the previous design submitted in July 2016. Some of the reduction is achieved by the transparent subterfuge of relabelling the two first floor bedrooms as "studies". There are several other respects in which the new plans are simply less honest than the original ones: e.g. in the original July 2016 plan, they listed the square footage of the basement (2862 square feet), but that number is nowhere to be found on the new February 2017 plans. Comparing the dimensions of the two basements, it is clear that the new design incorporates about the same square footage. Adding the approximately 2800 square feet of the new basement to the carefully calibrated 4529.66 square feet of above ground living space yields a home with a total of more than 7300 square feet of living space. Compare that and the 9 potential bedrooms and 12 baths to the previous design proposal with 7400 square feet, 11 bedrooms and 14 baths. The reduction from 11 bedrooms and 14 baths to 9 bedrooms and 12 baths does not really make the new design look any more like a plausible single family home. 8) Errata On the Title Sheet (Sheet TS), the adjacent homes are incorrectly labelled as 1722 Guinda and 1711 Newell. The correct addresses are 1722 Newell and 1711 Guinda. ======> End of Issues List <====== City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 9:08 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:53 AM To:John Aaronson Cc:Council, City; City Attorney; Scheff, Lisa; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; jnowell@padailypost.com; David Angel; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Dave Price; James Aram; HRC; Watson, Ron; robert.miller@oirgroup.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Keith, Claudia; Tony Ciampi; Timothy Gray; Tim; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg; michael wasylyshyn Subject:Re: Resolution regarding harassment of undocumented immigrants and others Mr. Aaronson, Your points are very moving and timely. Unfortunately, city councils eloquent words of commitment on the this resolution are hollowed and meaningless. Historically, they have proven to unequivocally be supportive of all police actions without consequences. Based on my personal experience as a minority (bona fide citizen of Nicaragua) the entire body of council members past and present are in fact racists. Fair competition and equal media access denied http://paloaltofreepress.com/fair-competition-and-equal-media-access-denied/ The evidence is way, way, way beyond all responsible doubt Again thank you for your astute observations and impact of this CPRA request. Sincerely, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua Central America Sent from my iPad On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:38 PM, John Aaronson <jar1cda@hotmail.com> wrote: You recently enacted a resolution ‐‐ "Reaffirm Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive, and Protective Community," Among other things it states ‐‐ C. Each person is naturally and legally entitled to live a life unmolested by harassment, discrimination, persecution, or assault, whether perpetrated by individuals, groups, businesses, or government; City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 9:08 AM 2 The City of Palo Alto does not tolerate discrimination, hate crimes, harassment, or assault; and The City of Palo Alto will oppose any attempts to undermine the safety, security, and rights of members of our community; and The City of Palo Alto recognizes, values, and will proactively work to ensure the rights and privileges of everyone in Palo Alto, regardless of religion, ancestry, country of birth, immigration status, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity; and The City of Palo Alto will promote actual safety, a sense of security, and equal protection of constitutional and human rights, leading by example through equitable treatment of all by City officials and departments." Full Res ‐‐ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55179 The City of Palo Alto refuses to aid the federal government when it comes to undocumented immigrants citing Constitutional and Human Rights justifications yet summarily violates the Constitutional rights of those very same immigrants, the poor and other minorities on a daily basis. Should any of my acquaintance in the community prove that any one of your officers are violating this resolution what action would you take to hold the officer accountable ensuring that such behavior ceases? John Aaronson <minority harassment.pdf> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:55 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:dan Logan <danlog100@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 20, 2017 5:49 PM To:board.secretary@vta.org; Council, City; pellson@pacbell.net; Keller, Arthur Subject:Response to the VTA NextNetwork from Dan Logan Feb. 20, 2017 VTA Board Members 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 Email: board.secretary@vta.org I write to comment on proposed changes with VTA routes and to ask questions as to how these changes might have impacts on me and on others similarly situated. I am a 72 year-old retired YMCA director. I have been using paratransit (formerly Outreach) since 2002 when I incurred a spinal cord injury; I use a manual wheelchair and use VTA approximately ten trips per week for medical appointments, for strength training at the YMCA, for connecting at Caltrain enabling me and my family to travel to social and recreational activities on the Peninsula from San Jose to San Francisco, for continuing studies classes at Stanford and to perform volunteer work at various locations. Before retiring I relied on paratransit to go to work each day or to attend meetings at a variety of locations. I hope this summary conveys the importance of VTA paratransit service to maintaining a productive and healthful life. Having read the VTA proposed changes, I have several questions: I understand that current paratransit users will be able to continue to use these services. What changes, if any, will be made to destinations, or times of service? Will changes to bus schedules have any effects on paratransit/access operations? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:55 AM 2 I am happy to pay the fees being charged for paratransit trips. My Palo Alto neighbors and I pay substantial taxes to support the many VTA projects. Being “at the end of the line,” I realize that there may not be as many and varied transit services in my neighborhood as those who live where there is a grid of bus lines, light rail and soon BART in places like San Jose. But if the VTA planners attempt to curtail services, using the same number of boardings in Palo Alto as in San Jose, they already know what the result would be: a downward spiral of transit use where services are reduced. It seems like when communities go the extra mile to provide more to get around such as Stanford’s Marguerite or Palo Alto’s shuttle, there ought to be a way to give credit so these creative methods show the importance of these alternative modes. Finally I have a question on an item that doesn’t seem to be in such a large plan. Last week a driver mentioned to me that a manager told the driver that he had ordered 30 -THIRTY- of the Cutaway busses. If anyone had asked me about such a large acquisition, my reply would have been the following: 1. Is VTA getting into the business of hauling five or more people traveling together to a common destination? 2. How much of the purchase price is coming from VTA’s own funds. Would the transaction look different if 50% or more had to come from VTA funds? 3. Most wheelchair users are placed in the rear part of the vehicle, resulting in a rough, noisy ride. 4. I have been in dozens of rides in these “Cutaways;” Usually I am the only passenger; it takes longer to raise and lower the ramp so both driver and passenger experience a longer trip and presumably fuel costs are more. 5. It does require some effort by the driver to get passengers up the ramp in vehicles with manual ramps. Have there been incidents with drivers using manual ramps? If it’s not too late to give this acquisition the review it needs, I strongly urge a thorough review with input from both drivers and passengers. Thank you for your consideration of issues that could lead to better transportation for persons with disabilities. Sincerely, Daniel A. Logan City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:03 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Albert Brent Franklin <efto1980@mail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Retail Protection Law 15 February 2017 City of Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 City Hall: While this city has made a valid attempt at addressing a very pressing current matter, I am a bit surprised when I discovered that the City of Palo Alto seems to have not even touched upon what may be an even more important issue: a viable non taxpayer funded program, that may be able to more fully support its retail community. With the right working program in place, even local gas stations, movie theaters and of course restaurants might be able to show a far stronger profit margin citywide, but instead, no means have at present been presented in order to set this community's retail sector on a much stronger economic footing. This, to me, is key to the continued support, for brick and mortar businesses, which in otherwise unprotected communities, such as they may be today where they have been unrepresented, and where the retail sector is basically left to fend for themselves unchecked. With the New Economy about to introduce even greater devastation within this city, you may want to at least consider the possibility of even more viable means by which to address potentially a few of City of Palo Alto's economic shortfalls. While this destructive trend chips away at the telltale fabric which Palo Alto is internationally recognised, it's a shame that nothing of late has been presented in order to reverse those outcomes! Albert B. Franklin 2555 Hazelwood Way East Palo Alto, California 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:06 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bruce Anderson <bruce.g.anderson@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool This morning the solo lifeguard did not have access to the pool office; so we could not scan our cards. It feels like management is deliberately trying to make the pool not work; then they can justify turning the pool over to Team Sheeper. It seems that our lifeguards get paid less than other area lifeguards, have restricted hours, and have fewer benefits. Why is this? Bruce Anderson 2921 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650)327-0762 home (650)815-6914 cell ... Alan Grundmann 850 Webster Street, Apt 918 Palo Alto CA 94301 650/324-7475 alanpaloalto@gmail.com Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, 2/15/17 Channing House is a retirement community that was constructed long before there was any parking problem in the neighborhood. Channing House cannot operate without a large staff. Many of those staff people till low-wage jobs. For financial reasons, many of those employees hold down two jobs, and regularly leave their Channing House shift to go directly to a second job. Employee homes and second jobs are scattered all over the South Bay. It is utterly unrealistic to imagine commuting to many of those places by public transport. Most Channing House employees, second jobs or not, must have available parking; they have no option if they are to continue working here. Currently Channing House buys ca. 80 [I think] employee parking permits. That is viable. However, should you reduce the availability of employee parking permits to the point where it is no longer viable you will have attacked one of the stanchions supporting Channing House as an institution. That would be an extremely serious issue. You must allow an adequate number of Channing House employee parking permits to remain available. Perhaps, as a subset of whatever residential parking program is developed for this neighborhood, you could structure a specific parking agreement with Channing House to assure its continued viability as a Continuing Care Retirement Community. After all Channing House was a fact on the ground when prior City Councils allowed apartment conversions and constructions leading current parking pressures. Thank you for your consideration Alan Grundmann S ti :a WV 9 1 83.:I LI 3Jl;f30.S',>l~J 1J A1'11l v~ ·o ll ~ 01\'Jd ~g ,1., u:i