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

7/9/2012 SET!

Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet. reproduction in a given week.

701-32

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Council members,

Jeff Hoel <jefthoel@yahoo.com> Friday, June 29, 2012 2:30 PM Council, City Hoel, Jeff; UAC picking UAC commissioners

COUNCIL MEETING ~·"'7-~./L

[LJ-..Pf.tced Before Meeting

1 have some comments about your 6-26-12 meeting, where you interviewed candidates for the Utilities Advisory Commission.

Some Council members said they wanted UAC to do more "outreach." 1 think that's probably a bad idea. I'm not exactly sure what "outreach" means, anyway. Does it mean soliciting opinions from the public, or answering their questions, or just telling the public what to think?

Traditionally, UAC has had the role of vetting what utilities staff do and propose to do. So Council tried to choose commissioners who weren't intimidated by financial reports and who didn't mind digging into the details. I hope you'll continue to chose commissioners who have these skills and inclinations. I think UAC should focus on making sure that Council has the facts it needs to make policy decisions, and then Council should do "outreach" -- whatever it is.

By the way, if you want to make it easier for the public to communicate effectively with UAC, then you should insist that email messages sent to uac@cityofpaloalto.org be forwarded immediately and automatically to the commissioners, just as email messages sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org are forwarded immediately and automatically to the Council members.

1 didn't like Commissioner Eglash's idea that each utilities staff report should have a section devoted to "communications approach." Staff's job is to stick to the facts, not to propose how they should be spun.

1 don't agree with candidate Ross that nuclear power can be a good technology but the problem is customer acceptance. I wouldn't want to put her in charge of "outreach" on this issue.

Commissioner Foster said that FTTP wasn't his "focus." (I think he wants to focus on energy issues.) What does Council think about the concept that individual commissioners should be able to "focus" on some issues but not others? Is a system in place whereby the commissioners declare their focus areas, to make sure that each issue for which UAC is responsible gets adequate attention from enough "focussed" commissioners? Should Council and the public be able to know which commissioners are focusing on what?

Before Richard Feynman served on the Challenger Commission, he probably wouldn't have listed O-rings as a focus area.

1

I agree with Council Member Shepherd that UAC commissioners shouldn't feel bad if Council doesn't always go along with UAC's recommendations. Council's job is to decide things, and UAC's job is to make sure that Council has the best information for making those decisions.

Thanks, Mayor Yeh, for asking some of the candidates questions about FTTP. I was disappointed that the candidates didn't seem to know much about it. Maybe that's indicative of an "outreach" problem at Council's level.

Thanks.

Jeff

Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303

2

Minor Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Marilyn Keller <marilynkeller@gmail.com> Monday, July 02, 2012 8:24 AM

Council, City Gonsalves, Ronna; Fong, Valerie change in UAC participation

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,

COUNCIL MEETING 7~L:-''Z..

l\.JA'lace.d Befure Meeting

Thank you for the opportunity to interview for a new term on the UAC. I reapplied because I have enjoyed working with the UAC and CP AU staff, and have appreciated the opportunity to contribute in areas important to Palo Alto. I also had heard that the city was strugglin~ to get a qualified candidate pool, so I wanted to offer my services. However, after listening to all the UAC interviews, I am quite confident that there are other qualified candidates who can offer a fresh perspective. In addition, since the application deadline, some family issues have come up which I need time to address. As a result, I would like to withdraw my application for the next term on the UAC.

I look forward to future opportunities to address important utility issues, especially in ways to reduce our use of fossil fuels and water. Our city is fortunate to have your leadership and outstanding CP AU staff addressing these issues.

Sincerely, Marilyn Keller

1

June <!:IS, <!:Ul<!:

TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITV OFFICIALS

NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S COMPRESSOR STATION FORECAST COSTS APPLICATION

(A.12.0S.010)

On June 18, 2012, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application A.12·06·010 with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval of a $7.5 million gas procurement forecast to assist in recovering Greenhouse Gas (GHG) compliance costs associated with California Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The projected procurement forecast equals a $3.3 million increase in 2013 gas rates, and a $4.2 million increase in 2014 gas rates.

California Assembly Bill (AB 32) requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As part of this legislation, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has adopted a Cap and Trade regulation, which will be implemented on January 1, 2013.- As a result of this state law, PG&E will be required to purchase allowances for its GHG emissions. This application requests cost recovery for six gas compressor stations operated by PG&E that emit GHG, and for which PG&E will be required to purchase compliance instruments in the form of allowance and/or offsets.

To pay for the compliance instrument purchases for our gas compressor stations, PG&E proposes an adjustment to its 2013 and 2014 gas rates. PG&E also proposes to track the difference between actual and forecast GHG compliance costs and to adjust rates for any differences in the following year.

Will rates increase as a result of this application?

Yes, approval of this application will result in a slight rate increase to gas rates of less ·than one percent for bundled core customers (those who receive gas, distribution and transmission service from PG&E), Approval of this application will increase bundled rates by less than 1 percent. Using the 2014 (the highest single year) cost of $4.2 million, the bundled average reSidential non-CARE gas rate increase will be 0.07 percent. The impact on currently adopted total illustrative annual gas revenue is an increase in 2014 of 0.12%.

if the CPUC approves this application, a typical non·CARE residential customer using 37 therms of natural gas per month will see his or her average monthly bill change from $46.13 to $46.16, an increase of three cents per month.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1·800·743-5000. For TDDmV (speech·hearing impaired), call 1·800·652-4712. Para mas detalles lIame aI1·800·660·6789 ~ '!R ~. j( ~ 1·800·893-9555

Please specify that you are inquiring about A.12·06·01 O.

You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Compressor Station Forecast P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120.

THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application.

The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. - .

The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross·examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not partiCipate in, these hearings.

After conSidering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend,or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application.

If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows:

Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San FranCisco, CA 94102 1-415-703·2074 or 1·866·849·8390 (toll free) TIY 1-415·703-5282 or TTY 1·866-836·7825 (toil free) E·mail to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov

If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the number of the application (12·06·010) to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff.

A copy of PG&E's COl)1pressor Station Forecast application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities CommiSSion, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-noon, and on the CPUC's website at http:/www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc.

..

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Emerson, Andrew C. <AEmerson@porterwright.com> Monday, July 02, 2012 3:29 PM Minor, Beth AT&T SKMBT _ 42312070217250.pdf

COUNCIL MEETING ." :J.'a.'-\~ ,,'.\,. [t¥Placed Before Meeting

Hi Beth. I am outside counsel for AT&T Mobility. Please find attached a letter from John di Bene that he would like distributed to the mayor, vice mayor, and council members in connection with this evening's meeting. Thank you. -

Andy

Andrew C. Emerson

porterwright Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 41 South High Street I Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 227-21041 Facsimile: (614) 227-2100 aemerson@porterwright.com

The infonnation contained in this communication is confidential and subject to attorney-client, work product,or other legal privilege, This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as recipient. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited.

**********Notice from Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP********** This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read, print or forward it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you,

To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this message, including attachments, is not a covered opinion as described in Treasury Department Circular 230 and therefore cannot be relied upon to avoid any tax penalties or to support the promotion or marketing of any federal tax transaction. ********************End of Notice*****************'***

1

~at&t

Vza Electronic Mail

Mayor Yiaway Yeh Vice Mayor Gregory Scharff

JOHN 01 BENE General Attomey Legal Department

July 2. 2012

Council Members Patrick Burt, Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price, Greg Schmid and Nancy Shepherd

City Council, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

E-mail: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org

AT&T Services, Inc. 2600 Camino Ramon Room2W901 San Ramon, CA 94583

925.543.1548 Phone 925.867.3869 Fax jdb@att.com

Re: Action item 5 for July 2, 2012 council meeting: Discussion and Direction Regarding City Policy for the Use of Utility Substation Sites, City Hall and Other City Property for Siting Wireless Communications Facilities (continuedfrom June 25, 20, Public Hearing Closed)

Dear Mayor Yeh, Vice Mayor Scharff and Council Members:

I write concerning staffs recommendation to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for services to develop a citywide proposal to provide for wireless communication facilities, including the potential use of city electric utility substations, City Hall and other city-owned properties by wireless communications providers, to better meet the community's need for a city-wide wireless network. AT&T applauds staff for their efforts to help improve wireless service in the city. We have been working diligently for years trying to fInd acceptable locations for wireless sites; thus, the notion that the city would make available fIve prime locations for all carriers to locate cell facilities could be signifIcant step forward, and we are optimistically looking forward to working with the Council and staff to determine whether and to what extent these sites can be used to improve wireless coverage in the city.

As noted in our December 20, 2011 letter (attached), however, there are significant limitations associated with this initiative, which Council should be aware of before directing staff action. First, both state and federal law restrict the ability of the city to require wireless carriers to use city-owned properties, or specific technologies, for

delivery of wireless services to their customers. Second, it is important for Council to understand that while the substations would be a welcome new tool in AT &T's toolbox, the proposal would not obviate the need for the pending DAS nodes and additional macro sites to address coverage and capacity needs within the city. AT&T's current network investments in the city are necessary irrespective of whether the city-owned macro sites become available in the future.

Third, as Crown Castle noted in its presentation at the June 25,2012 Study Session, the plans are aligned with its business model and do not address individual carriers' needs for complete coverage or capacity issues. Instead, the proposal is based on conceptual models that do not take into account the integration of existing carriers' networks and real coverage available in the city today.

AT&T will continue to work cooperatively with the city to deploy needed wireless services for its residents and businesses, and we fully support the city's proactive efforts to assist in this goal. But we urge the Council to recognize the limitations of the proposal in connection with its consideration of staff's recommendation to issue a RFP.

Very truly yours,

f.~ riA 8eN...-Johndi Bene

2

MACKENZIE & ALBRITI'ON LLP 220 SANSOME S'rRBET. 14111 FLOOR

VIA ELEcrRONIC MAIL

Mayor Sid Espmosa Vice Mayor Yiaway Yeh

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104

TaEPHONE 41S f2fl8.4OOO FACSlMUJ, 4JS f288-40JO

December 20, 20 t 1

Council Members Patrick Burt, Karen Holman, Larry Klein, Gail Price. Gregory Scharff, Greg Schmid and Nancy Shepherd

City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

Re: Update Regarding Wireless Connnunications Facilities Projects and Planning Ci1Y. .. 9ognciLAienda Degmnber 12. 2011

Dear Mayor Espinosa, Vice Mayor Yeh and Council Members:

We write to you on behalf of our client AT&T MOl>i1ity ("AT&T") regarding the City Council Informational Report provided by the City Manager to the City Council at .their meeting on December 12,2011 (the "Reportj. As an initial matter, AT&T applauds the City staff for their efforts to help improve wireless service in the City. N; explained during the Council workshop on May 15, 2011, AT&T has been working diligently for years to try to find acceptable locations for wireless sites. with limited success~ The premise of the report (that the City would make available five prime locations for all carriers to locate cell facilities) could be a significant step forward, and we are optimistically looklng forward to working with the Council and staff to detennine whether and to what extent these sites can be used to improve wireless coverage in Palo Alto.

At the same time, however, we want to make sure the Council is aware of a few key limitations associated with the Report's City-owned macro site proposal. N; explained in more detail below. both state and federal1aw restrict the ability of the City to require that wireless carriers use City-owned properties, or specific technologies. for delivery of wireless serVices to its customers. In addition, the Report's "gross approximations~' that the placement of 100 to 125 foot towers on City-owned substations could serve "virtually the entire City" is simply incorrect. Finally, even if the Report's City-owned macro site proposal is successful, "it will take months to implement Time

Palo Alto City Council December 20.2011

Page 2 of4

will be necessary to finalize and adopt the proposal. enter into the leases. grant any necessary land use authorizations, and fulfill similar requirements. In short, the proposed City-owned macro sites cannot be relied upon to delay AT &1's Distributed Antenna System ("DAS") application.

PraS!jeal Limitations

As suggested by the Report, drawing concentric circles around the City-owned substations and City Hall is a gross oversimplification of the radio frequency engineering

. required to provide wireless coverage and capacity to Palo Alto. Because AT&T uses four frequency bands to provide service to its customers, a single circle cannot suffice to describe coverage from a given location. As shown in AT&T coverage maps, signal strength decreases with distance, providing variable signal strength throughout a site's coverage area. That signal must overlap with a signal of equivalent strength from an adjacent site with adequate capacity in order to provide seamless network coverage. Indeed, the use of circles is inherently misleading because radio frequency propagation from a wireless facility radiates in separate lobes from each of the transmitting antennas. Signal strength is also greatly affected by clutter sucb as treeS, buildings, and topography. none of which are accounted for in the Report. Capacity .demands also affect the coverage of any particular site. In sum, network design requires complex testing and evaluation of radio signal propagation and usage patterns that AT&T accomplishes through proprietary software and the expertise of professional radio frequency engineers, a process that cannot be approximated by the simple drawing of concentric circles.

The availability of milcro tower space over 100 feet will not benefit AT&T's ability to provide wireless service to Palo Alto. 100 foot or higher towers are ineffective due to high usage and the interference they cause over a larger coverage area. The facilities will need to be lower than 100 feet to provide adequate capacity and seamless handoffs to adjacent sites. FUrther, any such facilities would need to be carefully integrated into AT&T's existing and proposed network facilities.

Cities Cannot Require That Wireless Carriers Use City Property

In promoting City-owned properties, Palo Alto should make sure it do~s not run afoul of recently enacted Government Code Section 65964( c). That Government Code section prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring the use of specific landlords by wireless providers. Specifically, Section 65964 provides that:

A city. or county shall not do any of the following: ...

(c) Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned l:Jy particular parties within the jurisdiction oftbe city or county.

Palo Alto City Council December 20,2011

Page 3 of4

While AT&T appreciates the City considering the idea of making its utility substations available for wireless facilities, and AT&T will be extremely interested in pursuing these sites if they become available under reasonable terms and conditions, the City cannot require their use under state law. Similarly, as the Report notes, the City Attorney has advised that restrictions under federal law "do not allow the City to require location at a City-designated site."

City-CanDot Select Technology

Federal law also prohibits the City from regulating the technology that AT&T uses to provide wireless service. AT&T operates using various Federal Communications Commission ("'FCC") licenses that authorize its use of specific radio frequencies to provide wireless services to its customers nationwide. The FCC also certifies the radio equipment and antennas that AT&T uses to provide its services. The pervasive federal regulation of AT&T's radio spectrum and equipment supersedes any effort to regulate AT&T technology at the localleveI. Indeed, federal courts have affirmed that federal law bars the City from dictating the technology used by wireless companies. See New York SMSA Limited Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) ("provisions setting forth a preference of'altemate technologies' are also preempted because they interfere with the federal government's regulation of technical and operational aspects of wireless telecommunications technology, a field that is occupied by federal law."). Again, AT&T appreciates the City's proactive efforts to provide wireless facility locations within City limits, and it intends to consider pursuing those opportunities, but if the City required that AT&T use those locations for "macro" sites rather than lower-power "micro" facilities or DAS, that would be preempted by federal law.

City Must ApProve Aoolications Within the FCC Shot-Qock

The Report notes two impediments to the development of macro sites at the City­owned substations under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Specifically, such facilities would require a conditional use permit and exceed applicable height limits. The report also notes that it is precisely the need and difficulty of obtaining conditional use permits that has delayed AT &1'8 deployment of macro sites in Palo Alto. Staff's suggestion that the conditional use requirement could simply be legislated away may be optimistic for Palo Alto, but even if it is correct, it would take months. It is similarly optimistic to expect that the zoning code could be amended in a timely manner to eliminate height limits for the City-owned substations. All of these delays render the substation sites too speCUlative to be considered alternatives to AT&T's pending DAS plans. Once again, while AT&T appreciates staff's proactive approach to these issues, the City cannot -consider macro facilities at City-owned substations to be a timely alternative for existing network expansion plans.

Palo Alto City Council December 20, 2011

Page 4 of4

Conclusion

AT&T win continue to work cooperatively with the City of Palo Alto to deploy needed wireless services for its residents and businesses and we applaud the City's proactive efforts to assist in this goal. We urge the Council to carefully consider staff's

. City-owned macro site proposal, and, ifit is adopted, we will work with staff to tty to use these sites to their maximum utility as.soon as commercially feasible. In the meantime, we caution that the Council cannot allow these plans to affect consideration of any current carrier proposals.

cc: Curtis Williams Donald Larkin, Esq. Grant Kolling, Esq.

Very truly yours,

~~ . Paul B. Albritton

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Honorable councilmembers;

ICOUNCIL MEETING [.2-" (L,

[~aced Before Meeting [ ] Received,.}~t",¥~e~g

Michael Goldeen <goldeen@goldeen.com> Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:48 PM

~f11Y eLE:~R'8 $:':

12 JUl-2 PH 2: 35 Council, City Ancerobic Digester, Strategic Plan & Timeline

On nest Monday's agenda (2nd July) you are being asked to approve a Strategic Plan & Timeline for an Anrerobic Digester facility at Byxbee Park when you have yet to figure out if the idea has any real feasiblity.

I think you've got the cart before the horse. Not a good idea.

Michael Goldeen 2350 Tasso Street Pal9 Alto, CA 94301

Phone 650-391-7247 E-mail michael@goldeen.com

1

. [] Placed B fc J~?¢~Jf~ETING

. [...r'R . e Ore Meet' Mayor Yeh & Members of the City Council: ecelVed at M . tng

! ~ I ~ (Le~t?~( For me, this issue has always been about impacts on our baylands and Byxbee Park, in particular. You have received my letter with maps showing exactly the sort of impacts that I have feared. Measure E undedicated 10 acres of Byxbee Park -- NOT the 43 or so remaining unopened acres. The only reason that a Refuse Area was allowed to continue on Byxbee Park without a VOTE was because Palo Alto was "shaping the park". Now these horrible dumping options are being considered just to dispose of the excavations from the 10 acre site in order to reduce the costs of the so-called Energy / Compost facility.

Keep on sending good money after bad to study this thing to death, but please don't allow this facility to destroy what remains of a reasonably decent open space on Byxbee Park. Make it clear now that if this project goes forward, it should not count on using Byxbee Park as a dumping area for its excavations. Make sure that the transition from the Park to this 10 acre site is a natural one and not a 20' cliff or slopes so steep as to be most unnatural.

By voting for the recommendation before you, you are setting yourselves up for backwards decision-making. Don't allow yourselves to become responsible for destroying decades of planning for Byxbee Park.

Please continue this matter until you have adequate information before you.

Sincerely,

L/7#~~ ~~ Renzel, Coo ·nator Baylands Conservation Committee

~

..-aI.. --,. ... Sooramento. CA

- - • - UMIT OF LANDFILL - - - UM!T OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD ,---,20·---· FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

10 Acre Option

Grading Item Excavadon Vol. levl Fill Vol. icvl Comments Volume difference betwen top of pad and mer.teI sumca of 2010 ± Indudes ovel'-exeavation for retaining waiL Does not include topography and 2009 permitted over-excavatlon of pad floor. Assume'"Z02,300 cy refuse and

cover grades _H __ )14,_600__ _ __ . 41"'.!;75"'O'-----t~f.""'!:=!=:":~'i.r.:.,=~"'·lo::::o;::r~"::"'::c.=v::;.ti:;:.o:::n""of" ... ",,,,,c.,:::.::.n:::id"i:b.::"':Wfl,,,,,O:w::;:'th=,o,,,,,-I Pad floor over-excavation ~50 40,550 to establish workfngsurrace

irotal waste excavation 242,8SQ. Total sci I ImpOrt

"-)(i'

e CJ

- -""-'/ /

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFILL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

82.300

c.-;"~~)

200 o 200

SCALE FEET

~

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN AND MAY 3, 2010 TOPOGRAPHY SURVEYED BY HJW GEOSPATIAL. INC.

FIGURE 1

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 1 O·AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL 2. ADDITIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL /IBfNE 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 242.400 r:r.

P2'1~IIo{)CJ ~)S-~~

:'-:1

a

.ll

'\ '~

'\.

\ \ \ \ \ n "\ \ \ \ I ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \\ \ \ \ \ \ I

\ \ ,\ \ \ \ \, " \ \ \ I

\ \ \~\ \ \ " \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I " ",, \ I \ '.

I '" \ " " \ , \ \ I I \ '\ " " \ I \ \ I \ \

I I \, " I \ I I \ I \ \ \ \ \\~, '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\" '. \11\\\\\\

\ \ "~I I"~, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I, "" ',- I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, I"~, '--___ ~ ) \ I \ \ \ \

" ',---------, I \ I \ \ \

""- ---' ) ) \ \ \ ----- "I I \ r

------"',/ /' I I '-------- -~~~::;;_::-:.>I

/

/

{

/

\ '\ \\

\\ \\

\, . "<~-.-

\\

,-. ",

'-"" ',. \ X", ,

-> ... ,-. ~? - ---r

---.. ---r

~

'\', ~ ,. 1\ ,"" ',\., ,

" ,.-...... ~~~

, .A v

LEGEND - - • - LIMIT OF LANDFILL - - - LIMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD ·----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

o D

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER'LANDFILL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY. 3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FiNAL GRADING PLAN.

2. ADDITIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FiNAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 245.700 CY.

200 o SCALE

200 !I

FEET

--.

FIGURE 2

ALTERNATIVE FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 10·AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE liE" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL

, _:z 1:2; ~oo ~ L, !,:) ."",11 P n . _--'. , I'.JJ.

~

\ / .•... ~--

" "

----.. --,..

~ SaClromento. CA

'\"" \'''., \ ' , ',>

'/ LEGEND - - • - LIMIT OF LANDFILL - - - LIMIT OF PROPOSED BUILOING PAD -----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

I2J CJ

7 As,.. Option

Grac:ILnaltem Excavation Vol. (fyt FiliVol.kvl Comments VotuMe dlffereneebetween top of pad and merged surface of 2010 Ineludes OveN!ICCavation fot tltaininewall. Does not include topoeraphyand 2009 permitted over-excavation of pad floor. Assume"'48.000 ey refusund

covQr' ,radl!!' 54/700 29,600 "6.700 ty soli cover --------- --.---~--- AsSuMe4·foot over-e;cavatlon~ •• nd backfill with sOil-Padfiooraver'8)Ccavstlon 20500 10,500 toestabllshworldn surface _______ ,

Total w;utaexcavation 68.500 Total soil impOrt

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFILL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

50.100

...... -

200 a 200 e ; SCALE FEET

)

-~

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY, 3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

FIGURE 3

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 7·AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL 2. ADDlnoNAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 71 C'f.

t,~~ (lj 111' ~O

~

\ , )/

1/

/ , \ "

-'III.. ---r

~ SCloromento. CA

\., ", , '~ , ~ ,_.,,/

'",--/,' /-_/ '/-.---~ -'- ._--_ .. -.- ---. ...---

LEGEND - - • - LIMIT OF LANDFlU - - - LIMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD -----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

'-----""\"

',")

~ CJ

~"----"

f::'::::;;

I I I j\ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ ~\ \ \ , \\\\ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \ \

\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ '" \ \ \ \ \"',', \\\' ",",\\ \ \ ' \ \ \ , \ \ , \ \

\'\ ... \\\\ " ....... \ \ \ \ " , __ I \ \ \ ,'....... \ \ \

" .... ...._ I \ \ '.......... ---"" , \ ... ... ... _ I I ....... ________ " 1

.... _------_____ "'1

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER lANOFIU COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING Pt.AN

'- -....

~

•. "(...._J -200 o 200

~ SCALE FEET

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY, 3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADING Pt.AN.

FIGURE 4

ALTERNATIVE FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 7·AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE liE" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FINAL GRADING IS APPROXIMATELY 70,000 tv.

(,f(LbDD ~ lrr hr~C!M-rr

~

\:

--III.. --r

~ Sacramenta. CA

'\" /: '>" / ,~ /X"'/

" LEGEND - - • - UMIT OF LANDFILL - - - UMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD ·---·20·---· FINAL COYER GRADING

NOTES

.----~

Gradin~ Item Excavation Vol. (ey) Volume dlffa-eI1ce betWeen top ofi pad and merged surfaceof2010 topography and 2009 permitted ICOVBF~~ ___ ------} _____ ~,l~

Pad floor over-excavation 10,000

SA Acre Option

Fill Vol. (ey)

22.150

10.000

Comments

Includes over'GIlcavatlon for retaining wall. Does not Indude over·e«:avatlon of pad Hoar. Assume"'12,4S0 cyrefuse and "'1.700 r;y soli cover Assume4-footover-excavatlon of reftiseandbackfiTi;ithSOii­to establish wotklns: surface

)

iTotal waste ~_ 22,450 ----I-- ---+-_. ______________ . ___ ._ ITotal soli Import - I 32,150

~---~.-~~'-.,

~ D

'--..

I I ," " I ~\\ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \", \ \ \", \\ "" \\\\ "",,"

\\\\ ',',',\ \\\\ ',\\\ \\" \\\\

\ ' " \ \ \ \

\\',,""'" \\\\ '" '" '" , __ I \ \ \

'" ",,'-----) \ \ .... __ J'

....... -~--~~~~~:--)

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OYER LANDFILL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

c:~...,

200 o SCALE

200 !!!!!!!!!!I FEET

.~ -.-~

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY. 3 201.0 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

FIGURES

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 5.4·AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL 2. ADDITIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 33.300 CY.

rl£'~c-t f{P

~ ~ ~ f! N

" ~ 5

! ~ N

~ f

i .;>

f ~ 6

1 ,.

~\

\~~/-~ \

I

l/r-./

GradinR Item Volume d-Ifference between top of

L/' / /

Excavation Vol. fev}

// 3 8 Acre Option

Fill Vol. {cvl Comments

pad and merged surface of 2010 ~ ~ . . jlnciUdes over·excavatlon for retaining wall. Does not Include topography and 2009 permitted over-excavatIon of pad floor. Assume "190 ty from cuttlngthe cOVe!' gra~_____ _ __ ~~____ _~~_~ _______ . ~~~.?npadnearNW P~~~ __________ ~.,

Assume4-footover-excavatlon of refuse and backfill with soil //,..,.-~\ Pad floor over-excavation 0 0 to establish \\(Orklngsurface

t:~-~·'~~!!~·-·----+--·---'''-·--~·------·-----i-----------.-----"-----~-,.---.. -,-.-.--.--,.-,.-,------,-----.. --.----.--,--.-----.--~ Total soli Import •• 19,500

)

I ~ ~-_ 0 I"'----------~ /

~' I /CC----- -,,' / / / --i I ///----------=::::-~ ",-./ / ... //. / /./ . -----_~------I , " // ~~ , .. // /1 /~.

__ :;:/ "\ '" ... I //// // (

(~ ,

1 / ~(. I (/ .. ,~/(.t . /~ r I I (( ~\

~'\\. " V . / \

~/-~~ ........ -~ ..•.......................... \ \ .... f\ \ \C ~~,~.,:,~>~ ~~_- j \~~- \ . ~ ~" ............ \.\ .................................................. ~. _~ ______ .. __ // . ____ ~ ____ J ~. ~.~

"" "'~ ~~<::=:~ ~

-----.. --.,.

~~~

.<.

, ~V,·, ----- ~ ~ •..... A.;/; . -.- ----, ~r,:::i!;#~-~-..i- --=- .;---~~-==:: -= ~=--=:=.~=-=~~ ) ~-~ ''',>-

" ~~~ /_/_~- _ __ _ ;-0;;;;;=::::;;;::;;::-; ~------------~----- -------- ~, ~ '/ ~~~ ---.~-- ~~--~=, :;;:=~-.-.~~ ~ -~ ---.::;" LEGEN ------------ --~;----'-'~...:-==---~:- ~~ o .~~ .-- ~ - ~ -~ -~ -.-- ------==--- :'

o 200 200

LIMIT OF LANDFILL

D MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXlMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFILL

SCAlE FEET ·f !

i~ Vi Socr'am."to, CA

-----20'---'

NOTES

L1MlT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD FINAL COVER GRADlNG

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY, 3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADlNG PLAN.

FIGURE 6

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 3.8-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL ~ PROJECT No. 08391260 FILE No. WS-AlRP~ CAOD..IDR Do\TE 01/06/12 2. ADDITlONAL REFUSE DlSPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 0 CY.

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:06 PM Council, City; Antil,Pamela composting facility

12 JUl -2 PM 2: 35

I'm confused about agenda items for July 2. I believe that the Council hasn't yet voted on the anaerobic composting facility, is that correct?

Some of the agenda items sound to me like consultants are being considered for designing such a facility. Perhaps someone can clarify the agenda items for me.

t

Natalie Fisher

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Greetings,

Ken Novak <krnovak@gmail.com> Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:32 PM

Council, City Proceed with Energy/Compost plan

12 JUl-2 PH 2! 35

On July 2, you will consider approving an Action Plan and Timeline outlining the necessary steps for proceeding with the Energy/Compost Facility. I supported Measure E because it is the best way for our community to handle its own waste while reducing our exposure to future energy cost and while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It allows us to improve the environment and save money in the long run as well.

Please approve the staff recommendations. I hope Palo Alto can move forward expeditiously with the Action Plan, a Request for Proposals, and ultimate completion of this project.

Thanks,

Ken Novak 1644 Channing Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 krnovak@gmail.com 650-400-7975

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

breht < breht@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:57 PM 12 JUl -, PM ,. . .. Council, City; Peter Drekmeier; George Thompson; Michal "Sadoff; 'ScJWAhlf Energy/Compost

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:

I fully support Measure E and implore The Council to approve the staff recommendations and move forward expeditiously with the Action Plan and Timeline and issuance of a Request for Proposals for the Energy/Compost Facility.

Time = Money, and the sooner the plan is put into action, the sooner the residents of Palo Alto will arrest the spiraling cost of transporting energy-laden by-products to distant locations, while mitigating the cost of electrical energy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

E Breht Napoli 431 Adobe Place Palo Alto

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent:

Carolyn L. Curtis <ccurtis@ix.netcom.com>

Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:44 PM 12 JUL -2 PM 2= 35 To: Council, City Subject: please approve staff recommendations Monday

Honored City Council, As one ofthe organizers ofthe Yes on Measure E (Palo Alto Green Energy Initiative), I urge youto approve the staff's Action Plan & Timeline for an Energy/Compost Facility at this coming Monday's meeting, and move forward issuing a Request for Proposals for this project.

Our nearly 100 PAGEl volunteers held thousands of conversations with our fellow Palo Alto voters 2010-2011 as we got signatures and then rang doorbells for Measure E, resulting in a nearly 2:1 victory, as you may remember, in a record turnout for an off-year election. We found overwhelming support for dealing with our 3 waste streams locally as opposed to shipping it all"away."

I'm sure that you all appreciate the intelligence & good judgment of Palo Alto voters, who have stood behind so many farsighted measures that have made this city an environmental leader. Please keep in mind the decisive vote for Measure E-eight months ago now-and let's have some action to move this project forward.

Carolyn Curtis 531 Alger Drive, Palo Alto 94306 Palo Alto Green Energy Initiative Volunteer coordinator, signature gathering and precincting campaign

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Louise Lyman <louiselyman@sbcglobal.net>.12JUL_2PH2:35 Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:21 PM

. Council, City Compost facility

To Palo Alto City Council members

Please approve the staff recommendations so that the organization can proceed for the planning of the ultimate functioning energy center. Palo Alto needs to maintain their reputation for environmental progress. I feel this is a very important city service.

Louise Lyman, Louis Rd. Palo Alto

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Council Friends,

Robert Frost <bobfrost34@yahoo.com> Friday, June 29, 2012 10:18 AM Council, City Energy Compost Facility Action Plan

12 JUL -2 PH 2: 35

I supported measure E because I feel that processing our own food scraps, yard trimmings and sewage locally (thereby avoiding trucking polution and costs) will result in long term economies. and environmental sense. So, I urge you to approve staff recommendations/ Action Plan and Timeline that gives the necessary steps and schedule to obain and analyze vendor proposals for an Energy/Compost Facility. Regards to Counci" Robert D. Frost

·94306

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com> Monday, July 02, 2012 9:04 AM Council, City Support for Energy and Compost Action Now

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

COUNCIL MEETING -I'L

Meeting

Please act tonight to approve the Action Plan, Timeline and Request for Proposals to move forward NOW with implementation steps for the voter-approved Measure E. Thank you.

Trish Mulvey mulvey@ix.netcom.com or 650-326-0252 527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303

1

I N

N .. en o

'".;" '''! ..

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear City Council Members,

Alex DiGiorgio <adigiorgio@gmail.com>

Monday, July 02, 2012 1:26 PM Council, City Please Approve the Action Plan for the Organics Resource Recovery Strategy

In the interest of our community's environmental health and financial sustainability, I encourage you to approve the recommendations articulated in the Staff Report for the Energy/Compost Facility Action Plan. In doing so, you will not only advance the wishes of Palo Alto voters--who overwhelming approved MeasU!e E last November--but will validate our City's status as model of innovation and creative problem solving.

Please do not be swayed by the hyperbolic myopia of Measure E's opponents. The public is on your side; Measure E was endorsed by the Green, Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as a host of other community groups, such as Acterra and the Clean Coalition.

Moreover, the importance of tonight's decision goes beyond our City's borders. Countless local governments throughout California, and the nation, are looking to Palo Alto for leadership on the issue of resource recovery. This is a tremendous opportunity to help catalyze sustainable development policies, and demonstrate to future generations the value oflocal self-reliance.

Lastly, as an energy policy specialist with a degree in environmental law, I encourage you to trust the astute legal analysis of our City Attorney. Please do not be swayed by Mr. Jordan's frivolous legal posturing. His lawsuit is a baseless attempt to intimidate you. And his invocation the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is part of a transparent effort to delay progress on an issue of vital importance. This is evidenced by the fact that the author of CEQA, former Assemblyman John T. Knox, personally endorsed Measure E. Like the City's voters, the law is on your side.

Thank you in advance for your leadership and courageousness.

Alex DiGiorgio, J.D.

1

N '­c:: r-I

N

-0 :x

en o

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To:

Tucker, Sheila Monday, July 02, 2012 1:55 PM Council Agenda Email; Council, City

ICOUNCIL MEETING " ,. I'L.

. _: laced Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting

Cc: Keene, James; Antil, Pamela; Emslie, Steve; Grider, Donna; Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly; Sartor, Mike; Bobel, Phil

Subject: Item 7. Acceptance of Long Range Plan for the RWQCP

Mayor and Council Members:

On behalf of City Manager Keene, please find the staff response below to questions that have been raised by Councilmember Shepherd regarding tonight's Council Agenda, Item 7. Acceptance of Long Range Plan for the RWQCP.

Sheila

Sheila Tucker I Assistant to City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301

en'y.of' PALO ALTO

D: 650.329.2452 I M: 408.313.6219 E: sheila.tucker@cityofpaloalto.org

Please think of the environment before printing this email- Thank you!

From: Bobell Phil Sent: MondaYI July 021 2012 9:42 AM To: Sartori Mike; Keenel James; caminol Lorie; Tuckerl Sheila Cc: Alieni James; MacwaYI Sharon; Mitchelll Karen Subject: response to Shepherd lItem RWQCP plan

Council Member Shepherd;

You have asked about how Palo Alto should address sea level in considering Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant ( RWQCP ) and similar facilities.

The Long Range Facilities Plan ( Plan) for the RWQCP ( which is on Council's agenda tonight) does not include a specific plan to protect the RWCCP from sea level rise. Instead, it relies on regional planning and implementation efforts. Those regional efforts are twofold. First, The US Army Corps of Engineers is conducting the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study to plan for sea level rise along the Palo Alto coast and neighboring areas. Our area will not be the first area to be addressed in this study, however, and the timeline for consideration of our are is very uncertain. Therefore, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is seeking grant funds to prepare plans for the Palo Alto coastline. The District has not yet heard back on their grant request, and Council will be kept advised of this effort. For the immediate future, we will continue to rely On these regional efforts to protect the RWQCP and similarly located City and other facilities.

-----Original Message-----From: Shepherd, Nancy (internal) Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 8:30 AM To: Keene, James; Bobel, Phil; Sartor, Mike Subject: Item RWQCP plan

1

Phil and Mike,

I notice that there is no discussion regarding tidal rise concerns in this report. Does Palo Alto have a policy regarding bay water rise when considering long term capital improvements for the RWQCP and other things? If not, should a policy position be considered due to current new reports which indictate continued bay rise? Or, does the period of 50 years for the long range plan leave this question to future councils?

Also, I. The report, section 2.2 page 2-5: why does Mt View get/need 50 MGDs during peek wet weather flow periods?

Take care,

Nancy Shepherd Palo Alto City Council

Palo Alto's Greatest Asset: Our Youth!

2

, "

! ,

....... _ .... o.ny..... T~. Aug. 23. 2005 13

A renlliiiring20 percent or Peninsula cu.ortomers WiIJ get t~r waternuoricbted by mid to .ate September, when a new

San Franc:iseo Public Utilities Commission , plant hi Sunol thro""!1 the switch and ~ns

lreatintt Wiltet. " , "1be evidence is ctear. Fluoride helps to , 'pevent moth decay,- said Dr. Howard ~I­

lic1c. a dentist and fadllty member at U1ri­'IetSity or California at San Franci~'s School of Dentistry.

IJe -spoke III 1 utilities commillsion-spon­sOred ft-. con, feteftCe.

sPEIbt .,.. ~-'*" control tooth ,decay with f11Io. rldatfon or drfnldttS .... , that is more than

one dentist can do in hi~ "rdime." Pollick said. State Sen. Jackie Speiet, "'r ",Sf frY: ! '; !

~;;,:::~~= 'If ~' ... :eaHtto' ~n t?"S' ~u.mntt thechem- totttJt~ WIth leal s addrtJon to waler fIoc'itI'l ..... Of when the industry could , ',,' ,,"' ,,',' afford tn do so. , dl'fnldng watet; that

Some 2.4 mit!;on CM-'Is mote than 0_ tomm get water vta the San , ' , ",.,,' Francisco Public Utilities dentist can dO In his Commission throut!ftout the lifetime ' Bay Area. , •

The remaining areas Dr. Howard Pollick whereabout 400.000 cus- ============ tomm will pin fluoride in September include rarts of 'Redwood City, Menlo Park, San Carlos. Belmont, Sunnyvale. Mnpitas. East Palo Alto, San Jose and Santa Clara.

It will CO$t CtI5t~ an estimated 5 ccnt5 more per pen;on. on a monthly watet bill.

~Ilto Despite ~ hy MJ111e. Pollicle. said the medical commu­

nity agrees nuoride is !lafe in appmprlate amount5 and cited il~ endnt'llement by the: American Medical A~~ation. Amcrlc:an Dental AlI'Iociation. the American Cancer SOOctv anll numc:t-ou~o~ •

"If~ rmmoting I"uhlic health through the water supply.­Pollick said'Ye5tcrday.

There have hc:efl "Tero- confirmed allergies involving fluo-ride. he said. ,

··.~lf water ha.~ ~mall amounts or numide in it, - PoRick !laid. , The treated water to etm1I: out of the new Sunol plant will

,contain one part fluoride per minion parts water. Fluoride It .... th"3~tC. fOT cxaml"lle. contain!l 1.000 time!' more nuorille than the water. .

!ltotableh Re~jdcnb who rake fluoride supplement tablets ~hould ~top

.• ,-- .&. ..... .., .... " the Sunol plant!ltam up. - .... • , .•• , .. !-- I"'''m",i~

/

)

th~r ,.. .... ;! .. __ . __ .•

San Frimc:isco PIlOtte: UUlIm ... __ •••••. _

. plant in Sunol throws the switch and bettins treating watet. _ '1be evidenCe is clear. Fluoride helps to

. 'pevent tooth decay,- said Dr. Howard PoI­liet. a den1ist and fatUity member at Uni­~ or CaJifomia at San Franci~'s School of Dentistry.

He·spoke at a utilities c:ommi!l!lion-spon­sOred ~. eonferetN:e.

SPEIbt '1f ~ CUI c:oritroI toodt decay with fIuo. ridatfon f)f drirtIdn! water. that is more than

one dentist can do in hi!! lifetime, .. PoUiet 111ft!. State Sen. Jacicie Speiet, .' 'I tw' #;"r;'7 !

D-San Mateo. introduc:ed 'If we· eiftCGHttoI ~a:~~~:=~=c: todtl . ..,Wfth Ical 5 addItion to water tluotl'ifIBbft Of when the indu!!fry could .',..... ... . afford tn do so. drfnJdng water, that

Some 2.4 nril!ion C1I!I-'19 mote thin one tamers get water VIa the San . . _ . . .... _. . .. Francisco Public Utilities dentist can dO In his Commission thmu~out the ·1IfetI-me' ,

. Bay Area. • The remaining areas Dr. Howard Pollick

whereabout 400,000 cu.~ ==::::======= tamers will gain nunride in September include rart-~ of Redwood City, Menlo Park. San CarI()S. Belmont. Sunnyvale. Milpitas. .East Palo Alto. San Jose and Santa Clara.

ft will cost cu!lt~ an estimated S cent." more per per5011.

nn a monthly water bill.

!~ Dcsftite WOITi~ hy ~ Pollick said the medical commu­

nity a~ nuoride is ~fe in appropriate anmunts and cited ilo; end~ent by the American Medidll A!I~ation, American Dental A!I~atiOl1. tht American Cancer SClCietv and numer-ous others. •

"It'll promoting ruhlic health through the water supply:' Pollick said· Ve5tcrd:IV.

There have heen ';7.em- con finned allergies involving f1u~ ride. he ~id.

",-\ 11 water ha.( lImal1 amounts of fluoride in it.," PtlRick ~id. The treated water to cM1C out of the new Sunol plant will

contain one part nuonde per minion pam water. Fluoride I(lC,th!,,:l.(tc. for cxamr1c. rontain!'l 1.000 tim~ more nuoride than the water.

Notableh Re:<oidents who takc fluoride 5iJpplemcnttablets :;hould stop

taking them when the Sunol p'antlltm1l\ up. There are two other San Fr:lncillCo Public Utilitiell Commi~

!lion water treatment rlant"-Palo Alto ha." had nunride in itl! drinking water since 1954.

when some 80 percent elf ~ident5 voted in favor or it Half Moon Bay. drinking water will not be considered nuo­

ridated. Since 1t mbt!l with we,,· water and is diluted, it would not meet nuoridatioo standards. ac:cord1n~ to local, public health officials.

Fluoridation of water.i5ranfted one of tI:!c top 10 public ht-alth achievement" in hi!'tory. according to the Centm for Di~mre Control and Prevention.

qOOjle: ~!Je/1t1(frJ./ fr/OjJt1 /a/tOJ1 f&Jr; JZ-

r

, Govemment-EndorsedFluoride [s the Leading Cause of Death Page 10f5

. '

"

Merc~i~~~om"'., TalI.c~e:a:.,~HHIUt .. /

Call TolI,Free: 877·985·2695

,COUNCILf.fEETING ;YZ/(Z' . [ 1 Placid Before M . , r 1....... eeting '-<f"'"UlAelVed atM .

/" eetinkQ Hardens Your Arteries - Odds Are 6 in 10 You're Consuming This Poison Ingredient Daily May 21 2012 I 215,697vlaWsI + Add to Fayor\t!!

By. Dr. Marcola

Irs no secret that cardiovascular disease Is the leading cause of death worldwide. But how many people realize that fluoride-which is still added to many municipal water supplies in the U.S.-is linked to heart disease?

In a new study published in the journal Nuclea, Medicine, CommunicBtion$, researchers found that fluoride may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk as it causes hardening of your arteries. " , '

Reviewing the imaging data and cardiovascular history of patients who received whole-body sodium fluoride PET scans, the researchers found a significant correlation between a history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary ~rteries.

While there are certainly many factors contributing to the rise in heart disease--poor diet likely being the most imp.ortant-it certainly doesn't help to add a chemi~1 to water supplies that will be consumed by everyo~ in the area regardless of health status, from, toddlerS to seniors, thllt might contribute to the pro~Ieri1. '

The primary issue here is that there's a lack o,f evidence supporting the use of fluoride, and an awful lot of evidence stacked against the indiSCriminate use of it, including these latest findings. '

The practice of adding fluoride to tap water bega,; in 1945. With more than 70 percent , of U,S. public water supplies currently fluoridated, chances are you're one of the 170

million Americans who drink and bathe in fluoride on a daily baSiS.!

Most IIkely,your dentist-along with countless govemment and public health offlcials-has praised and promoted the use of fluoride, both in toothpaste and drinking water, as one of your must-do regimens to promote strong and healthy teeth.

, But lers niake .this point clear right from the start: fluoride is not an essential nutrient needed for your health-dental or otherwise. There is not one single process in your body that requires fluoride.

Fluoride Is a Cumulative Poison

Ifs important to realize that fluoride is a cumulative poison. Approximately 98 percent of the fluoride you ingest in water is absorbed into your blood through your gastrointestinal tra,ct. From there, it enters your body's cellular tissues. On average, about 50 percent of the fluoride you ingest each day gets excreted through your kidneys.

Whether this happens or not is highly dependent on the presence of calcium, magnesium, Vitamin C, and selenium in your bloodstream, to which the fluoride Will bind so that it no longer is seeking calcium-riCh tissues that make up so much of your body; The remainder accumulates in your teetl1 and bones,!! pineal gland,iII and, other tissues, including your blood vessels.

According to the featured study.:

"Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta. Fluoride

1)11 ~ ~ ~~. Arucle retxt Artic.

,Story at-a-glance Recent research shows that lIuaride may be associated with an increased ri~ of heal1 dise_ aa ~ causes hardening of your artarlell

, Fluoride is a curnulalive poiaan-approximately , 98 peroant of the fluoride you ingest in water Is abaarbed into your blood through your gaatrointestinal tract, from where k then enters and accumulates in your body's cellular tissues, Including your kidneyS; teeth and banas. pineal gland, and the walls of your blood vessels

Cammon health hazards of IIuaride include redllCad la, incraasacllead absorption. dementia, bane fractures. dental and skeletal fluorosis. Immune iystem disruptions, and many other health prabterns '

) It's important to understend that th."1IuorIda" added to your drinking -water is nat the natural mineral, nor a phannaceutlcai grade fluoride. Instead, the fluoride c:ampound mast c:ammonly used is the toxic waste product from phosphate fertHlzer plants .

Most Popular

1 Tule Force Tel" Women to Stop pOinq Thl. INo, Not Mammoljl'Jllll lbl, Tlmtl

2 Ignore Thl. Elun!!" HII!It 1m! YoUr Health Will Eyentvllly Decl!nl

3 This EIIICI" Can CIYU .7·Fold SUrge of HurtProbt"",

4 Sew.,.; Most Gre ... Cleaning Produc!! Contain Thl.

S Eating This Could Tum Your Gut Into a , Llylng pesticide Factory

Related LinkS:

Thl. Dally Habit Can Damage V9ur Brain. . Disrupt Your Bon •• , and SlaIn and PIt Your !!!lIl

The T9XlC Import from China Hidden In Thi. Everyday Bmrage: ..

http://articles.mercola.comlsites/articles/archive/20 12/05/211fluoride-health-hazards.aspx?e _." 6/4/2012

c

Government-Endorsed Fluoride Is the Leading Cause of Death Page 2 of 5

uptake in coronary arteries was demonstrated in 28 (46%) patients and coronary calcifications were observed in 34 (56%) patients. " .

The amount deposited into your bones and teeth varies depending on your age. In children, more than 50 percent of an ingested dose of fluoride is deposited in bone,but in adults only about 10 percent is stored there. As the number of research studies into the toxic effects of ftuoridehas increased, there is now support for a rather long list of potential health problems related to fluoride accumulation in your body.

Here's a list of 20 of the most commonly mentioned health hazards and diseases associated with fluoride exposure:"~

Lowers IQ

Brain ; damage

Bone fractures!!

Increases , tumor and , cancer rate

Hyperactivity and/or lethargy'iil

Dementia

Bonecaneer (osteosarcoma)

Dental fluorosis (staining and pitting of teeth)

Fluoride-the Toxic Drug in Your Water Supply

. Disrupts . synthesis of

collagen

Lowers '. thyroid

function

Prior to 1945 when communal water fluoridation took effect, fluoride was a known toxin. For example, a 1936 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stated that fluoride at the 1 ppm (part per million) concentration is as toxic as arsenic and lead. The Journal of the American Medical Association stated in their September 18, 1943 issue, that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes.1iI And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:

"Drinking water containing as littfe as 1.2 pprn fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good. "

How community water fluoridation ended up being so widely implemented, and eventually even became heralded as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, is explained in-depth in Christopher Bryson's book The Fluoride Deception.'" In it, he describes the intertwined interests that existed in the 1940's and 50's between'the aluminum industry, the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and the dental industry, which resulted in fluoride being declared not only safe, but beneficial to human health. Once you understand the historical context, it becomes easier to grasp why anyone would ever promote water fluoridation as "a good idea."

Due to the massive amounts of fluoride required to produce bomb-grade uranium and plutoniUm for n\jclear weapons, the Manhattan Project conducted various experiments to determine its toxic effects in 1946.

There were already several instances on record of fluoride being toxic to crops, livestock and people living downwind from the polluters, so the public concern over fluoride emissions needed to be quelled in order to avoid potentially crippling lawsuits.

Within the now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission, Christopher Bryson found that the toxicology department at the University of Rochester, under the direction of Harold Hodge,was asked to produce medical information about fluoride that could help defend the government against lawsuits where they were charged with fluoride pollution. Back in 1957, Harold Hodge was the nation's leading, most trusted scientist, and when he declared that fluoride was "absolutely safe" at 1 ppm, everyone believed him. .

So, the endorsement of fluoride as a nutrient that will grace you with brilliant pearly whites, rather than the poison it really is, was born from the need to address increasingly debilitating pOlitical and industrial problems relating to fluoride pollution. The rest, as they say, is history. .

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 12/05/21/fluoride-health"hazards.aspx?e _." 614/2012

' . ..,;1. . Government-Endorsed Fluoride Is the Leading Cause of Death Page 3 of 5

What's Really Added to Your Water Supply?

. It's important to understand that the "fluoride"added to your drinking water is NOT the natural mineral, nor a pharmaceutical grade fluoride. Instead, the product most commonly used is another chemical fluoride compound-a toxic waste product from phosphate fertilizer plants.

There are three basic compounds ~hat can be used for fluoridating water supplies:!t

1. Sodium fluoride (NaF)

2. Sodium silicofluoride

3. Hydrofluorosilicic acid

The first one of these, sodium fluoride, was the first of the fluoride waste materials to be used for fluoridation, but now is rarely used. It's the most well known, as this is the compound used as pharmaceutical grade in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of.fluoride. The other two, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds actually used for water fluoridation, with hydrofluorosilicic acid being the most commonly uSed additive, according to the CDC.~ Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the wet scrubberlng systems of the fertilizer Industry, and are classified as hazardous wastes. Contamination with 'various impurities such as arsenic is also common In these products.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemicals known to man. Its toxicity is well known in chemical circles. It will eat through metal and plastic pipes, and corrode stainless steel and other materials. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concreteM. This is what is added to your water-all in the name of saving children from cavities! But even the less reactive sodium fluoride is a deadly poison, even In small quantities, and in the form used for fluoridation also contains additional impurities. Other common uses for sodium fluoride inclu~e:

• Rat and cockroach poisons

• Anesthetics

• HypnotiCS and psychiatric drugs

The Way Forward: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Still despite all the evidence, getting fluoride out of American water supplies has been exceedingly difficult. And it's no wonder, really, when you factor in the considerable liability the U.S. government could face were they to suddenly admit that water fluoridation was a way to hide toxic pollution, and there are detrimental health effects associated with drinking these pollutants ...

Fortunately, there is a way forward.

ACcording to Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, a repeated theme in some of the recent cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is the shifting of the /Jurden of proof. Rather than citizens taking on the burden of'proving that fluoride is harmful and shouldn't be added, a more successful strategy has been to hold those making claims and the elected officials who rely on them, accountable for delivering proof that the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water.

For example, a couple of years ago, a Tennessee town stopped adding the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoride product they had been using, while still keeping its resolution to fluoridate its water supplies intact (meaning they didn't make a decision on whether it might be harmful). They just haven't been able to find a replacement product that is compliant with existing laws, regulations and safe-water requirements, and they will not add any fluoride product that is not in compliance. To learn more, please see this previous article, which discusses these strategies more in-depth.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

In summary it would seem like most rational people would conclude you should avoid using fluoride for its "preventive" benefits. You can easily choose not to take fluoride supplements or buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. You can also dramatically reduce your fluoride exposure by opting for organic foods, on which fluoride-based pesticides are not permitted to be used. However, you're still going to be stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and as discussed, it's very difficult to filter out of your water once it's added. Many do not have tbe resources or the knowledge to do so ..

It's really time to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation.

Earlier this year I joined forces with Dr. Paul Connett to help put an END to water fluoridation in the U.S and Canada. The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to do just that. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. I urge you to join the anti-fluoride movement inCanada and the United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Commu/lltles:

• If you live in Ontario, Canada; please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at diane.sorules@cogeco.ca.

http://ariicles.merco\a.com/sites/articles/archive/20 12/05/211t1uoride-health~hazards.aspx?e ... 6/41201.2

Government-Endorsed Fluoride Is the Leading Cause of Death

I

• .The point-of-contactfor Toronto, Canada ist-liss Terpstra. You may email herataliss@nutrimom.ca.

• The pOint-of-contact for the Peel region In' Ontario, Canada is Rob Brewer. You may email him at FluorideFreepeel@ymail.com. Also see Fluoride Free Peel's Facebook pagei.

. Contact Information for American Communities:

, We're also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

Page 4 of 5 '

• New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply."

A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S. If you live in the New York area I beg youto participate. in this effort as your contriQution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at NYSCOF@aol.com. Please contact her if you're interested in helping with this effort.

• Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or fluoride.info@yahoo.com, or by regular mail or telephone:

POB7486 Austin, Texas 78713 Phone: (512) 371-3786

• San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at obrooks936@aol.com.

References:

i Nuclear Medicine Communications January 2012

• CDC. Fluoridation Statistics 2002: Status of Water Fluoridation in the United States. December 31, 2002

I' Journal of Public Health Dentistry 52 (5), 288=291, September 1992, Dennis M. Eble BS. Thomas G. Deaton BS. Frank C. Wilson Jr. MD. James W. Bawden DDS. PhD. Fluoride Concentrations in Human and Rat Bone, (Accessed October 30, 2007)

;, Caries Research 2001 :35:125-128. J. Luke. Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland, (Accessed October 30, 2007)

'Fluoride Action Network, Paul Connett PhD, 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation, (Accessed October 26,2007)

"Chemical and Engineering News, August 1.1988. pp 26-42, Hileman B., Fluoridation of water: Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years., (Accessed October 30, 2007)

4THE IMPACT OF WATER-BORNE FLUORIDE ON BONE DENSITY, WCzarnowski,a J Krechniak,a B Urbanska,a K Stolarska,a M Taraszewska-Czarnowska,b A Muraszko-Klaudelb Gdansk-Wrzeszcz, Poland, (Accessed October 30, 2007)

yO Fluoride Journal. Vol.35 Number 3 (2002) 204-211, Bhatnagar M. et al .. Neurotoxicitv of fluoride: neurodeaeneration in hippocampys of female mice, (Accessed October 30, 2007)

Ix Neurotoxicology 2000 Dec:21 (6):1 091-1 00, Masters et.al.. Association ofsilicofluoride treated water with eleyated blood lead, (Accessed October 30, 2007) .

'Archives ofToxicology. Volume 74. Numbers 4-5, July 2000. Fluoride induces apoptosis by caspase-3 activation in human leukemia HL-60 cells, (Accessed October 30, 2007)

"The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland, Luke J .. Ph.D Dissertation, School of Biological SCiences. University of Surrey. UK. 1997, (Accessed October 30, 2007)

"Waldbott GL, et. AI., 1978, Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc.

"'LewRockwell.com. Donald W. Miller Jr., MD, Fluoride Follies. July 15. 2005,(Accessed October 27,2007)

'N Fluoride Action Network. The Fluoride Deception - an interview with Christopher Bryson. April, 2006, (Accessed October 27,2007)

. "Fluoride Action Network, Paul Connett PhD. 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation, (Accessed October 26,2007)

,. CDC fact sheet. Community Water Fluoridation, (Accessed October 29, 2007)

""Mercola.com, Dr. Ted Spence. The fluoride controversy. (Accessed October 26,2007)

Sources:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 l'2/05/21Itluoride-health-hazards.aspx?e ,.. 6/4/2012

New Fluonde WarningCorriing Soon to Your Water Bills Page 1 of4

r--~~~:·c_.'~"'~"'~"~'~ .... '.;.~~~ I -Mercola~com" T ..... C ...... ,,,, 01 Y ... , H .. 'i~~, P I Call Toll Free: 877·985-2695

'r-XhiS Daily Habit Can Damage Your Brain, Disrupt Your Bones, and Stain and Pit Your Teeth i . . .

I !

April 24 2012 I 94,809vlews I 42 comments I 1!t,h!!!l

By Or. Mercola

The largest state legislafure in the U.S. recently passed a bill mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. On March 15, Ihe New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of the bill.

Thanks to a 13·2 recommendation from the House Resources, Recreation, and Development committee, there was no debate over the bill on the House floor. The bill will now go to the Senate. According to the text of the bUiL, the warning would read:

"Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water,· there may be an increased chance. of dental fluorosis. ConsuH your child's health care provider for more information. H

Why Infants Should Not Drink Fluoridated Water

Two years ago, a study published in the Joumal of the American Dental Association found that fluoride Intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorOSis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formulal ..

Dental fluorosis· a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled· is one of the first signs of over-exPQsure to fluoride. Eventually, It can result in badly damaged teeth, and worse ... It's important to realize that dental fluorosis is NOT "just cosmetic."

It can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bOnes and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. In other words, if fluoride is having a visually detrimental effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it's also damaging other parts of your body, such as your bones. After all, bone is living tissue that is constantly being replaced through cellular turnover.

Bone building is a finely balanced, complicated proceSs and fluoride has been known to disrupt this process ever since the 19305.

While generally supportive of water fluoridation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does admit that usfng fluoridated water to mix infant formula may not be in the best intereslof your baby's developing teeth. According to their websiteii:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regu./ar basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis. "

The CDC also states:

"In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources - water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products· contributes to enamel fluorosis. H

The lack offormal and easy·to·findwarnlngs about the hazard of using fluoridated water to make infant formula has, and continues to be, a major source of contention. New Hampshire will set a rharvelous example for other states if their bill mandating infant fluoride wamings on water bills in fluoridated communities is enacted.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

PmI9111 Adjclt Nut Ar!IsIt .

Story at-alllance > On MaR:h 15, the New Hampehire HoUse of

Representalivel voted 253-23 in favor of nlaldellng inlall fluoride wamlngs 01\ all water bills in lluoridated cammuniIies. The bill win now oo101he8 __

.' Accord~ 10 the ttixt of the bill, lhe warning would reed. in part .~ 10 Ihe Canlenllor Disease ContraIIind PreventIon, W your child IMIder the age of 6 monilia is 8ICcluaively conaum~ infant formula ~wlth· fluoridated water. Ihent may be al incnIaHd chance of denial ftUO(oijI.· But derUl fluorosis is

. not 'jusl cormetlc.· k can also be an lndlc:alion thai other ~" such as yOir bones and inl8ma1 organs, 1ncIud~ ~braln, haa been overupoaed lO·ftuoride aa well

>, A rapeaI8d theme In ~ caaei where communities succeufuIIy removed IIuor1de from their water supptv is the lIhiftlng of the burden of proof. Rather !han citlzer\l taking 01\ the burclen of prOving that fluoride II harmful and IIhOiJId be removed, champions In posilions of some . authority have managed 10 end water ftuortdalion in their communities by demanding thai 8l'I'/ ftucride product.uHCI must be able 10 prove its compliance with Ihe regulations, laws, and risk· . _ants already required for safe drinking water .

: Most Popular

, 1 The Bmragt !hat la Em WORSE Ihu! High . · FruclDl' Com SyDlP So'"

: 2 !hi. D!!I!y Hlblt CM Bum Hem Meg!. II!!!! · T!!l!!s Chtml_ Out !II Your Body

, 3 Tht TragIc NJtIIkt lbIt Now Jb!'Ml!n! 1 Oyt

: of Ey!ry S I!!!!t you Eat •

• 4 OD! Early Nomina N"'!IId 7 O!hft) you . , Don't Want tPM"" :

· 5 put ThIs Fooc! on 'four Hllr fou New l!y!I of . , bIIII!!:

3/20/12 Toxin In FoOd Linked To Breast Cancer - CBS .42 Birmingham, AL News Weather Sports

Toxin In Food Linked To Breast Cancer

BIRMINGHM1, ·Ala. (WIAT)-

Reported by: CBS 42 News

Email: web@cbs42.com

Published: 3119 9:20 am

Updated: 3119 9:23 am

Related Stories:

• Frankenfoods in Your Fridge I '0 Video • Dept. of Health Lands Joyful Donation· .• The Year of AlabalTB Food

: . \. Tastiest Tow n Voting . I !. King Cake for the BCS National Olarrpionship I '0 Video I .1. 10,000 BoWls of Gurrbol 1'0 Video . U. Breast Cancer SurviVor- Mary McGlothin I '0 Video

• Breast Cancer Survlvor- Shirley Parker I '0 Video

Our known healthy foods may be doing more harm than good! An extremely toxic metal commonly distributed in the en'.4ronmerit and found in many farm fertilizers has been found to increase the risk of breast cancer.

Dietary Cadmium, usually occurring at a low concentration naturally, has scientists concerned that the increasing contamination of farmland due to use of fertilizers and atmospheric deposition will lead to higher uptake in plants.

"Because of a high accumulation in agricultural crops, the main sources of dietary cadmium are bread and other cereals, potatoes, root crops and vegetabl~. In general, these foods are also considered healthy,'; Agneta Akesson, Ph.D., associate professor at Karolinska Institute in Sweden, said. .

A current study used a food frequency questionnaire to measure the dietary cadmium exposure in 55,987 women for over 12 years. During follow-up, 2,112 incidences of breast cancer were recorded, 1,626 of them estrogen receptor positive am 290 were estrogen receptor negative cases. .

Cadmium consumption was dhAded into three groups; the highest level was compared to the lowest level of exposure. A higher exposure to cadmium through diet was linked with a 21 percent increase in breast cancer. Even more shocking, the increased risk among normal weight and lean women was 27 percentl Both estrogen receptor positive and negative tumors had the same risk increase of about 23 percent. .

We Recommend

New Drug Shows Promise in Treating Ovarian Cancer (CBS 42)

Birmingham Homicide Investigation (CBS 42)

Stress Affecting Your. Memory? (CBS 42) .

Stopping The Spread of Blatter Cancer (CBS 42)

Man accused of pouring drain cleaner down woman's throat (CBS 42)

cbs42.com/contentllocalnews/story/ .. .IUORi5iL_cEKFeFVx46rITA.cspx

More From The Web

FDA Warning: Dangers of\t1codin and Percocet. (HealthCentral.com)

Twice-Yearly Wellnes s Checks a Good Investm ent in a Pers Future Health (Vetstreet)

Dog Friends hips that Defy Nature (The Dog Daily)

5 Nicotine Withdrawal Symptoms You Probably Didn't Know Existed (HealthCommunities.com)

10 Essential Fashion Tips. for Grown-Ups (Styie Goes Strong)

[?]

(51 unread) - waterJady - Yahoo! Mail

m ViewyOW' o 2012 Credll Score

Inbox 5t (

ConversallOns

Drafts 13

Senl

Spam 10 tJ

Trash 4 :4

SmlrtFolders

Email from Conlacts

Fold ... +

AppliclUons 0

All My Purchases

Attach Large Files

Aulomalic Organizer

Calendar

EdilPholos

Evils

Flickr

My Cool Fonls

Notepad

Stalionery

Unsubscriber

Get Your

fREE 2012 Credit SCore

.. __ ._-----

See Your Alert Online

~M Join. RENEW. Give. Contrtbula ,VI.;;l< 'fj S35 and receive a FREE gift!" ,'_ ..

'('-

,niiWfWWm11t.rrr.,r"1wrJ):,um,rtrt"rwetmrr, California Is Getting Fracked

Sign the Petition to Ban Fracking Nowl

March 20, 2012

Dear Wynn ,

Fracklng wells as far as the eye can see· stretching from Sacramento to San Diego, with zero regulation.

That's the oil and gas industry's dream for California, and it's dangerously dose to becoming a reality. Fracking is already happening in our state, and it's getting worse with every passing day. Will you help us p~ a stop to It by signing the' petition to ban fracklng In California?

1--_ .. __ ··_--_ .. ··_--.. · __ · __ ·_ .. -· .. _·

I F'x .... ',W'" True'

!

Sign the Petition to Ban Fracklng Nowl

L ......... . As you may know, tracking involves injecting a cocktail of water, sand and poisonous chemicals that are linked to cancer and other health issues into the ground where they may contaminate our drinking water supplies. It has also been shown to cause'earthquakes, significantly decrease property values and result in significant noise and air pollution! And, if that wasn't enough, the department responsible for regulating Califomia drilling has stated it has no intentions of regulating this practice. We must take action to ban fracklng now, befora it can further damage our communltlesl The 011 and gas industry has launched a miilion-dollar PR campaign to convince the public that natlJral gas is the green wave of the future. In reality, however, we know that this process actually produces a dirtier fuel than coall Fracking results in large releases of methane. a greenhouse gas that worsens global warming, while polluting our precious water resources with chemicals. We need a ban on fracklng in California nowl Sign the petition to ban fracking: htlp:llactlon.foodandwaierwatch.orglpldlalactlon/publlc/?actlon_KEY=9760

Thanks for taking action,

Adam Scow California Campaigns Director Food & Water Watch ascow{at)fwwatch{dot)org

Page 2 of2

JOin, Renew. Give Sent by Food & Water Watch to Water_Lady@yahoo.com ,. .. :H-'

Contact

Unsubscribe

Visit us online

Food & Water WatCh is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure

clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our

food and waler res""rc •• by empowering people to lake aclion and by

transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.

Join, Renew, Give I Contact I Unsubscribe Food & Water Watch, 1616 P Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, OC 20036 • (202) 683·2500

. , ...... :",.r .. ~

~ 5 /a I1d IAe /he/V Ie.. ~ CCJJ11

(itN; /CiIJc!' CrI1 'tN/ /;j;)rYrJ(JY' tlni1 J/y . . lv@fcr cJ/l ?r-e? .

http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=f87cmterp')a 1 Q ., ,"'" ',,\1\ 1 ""'"

Chlorine, Cancer, And Heart Disease

GLOBAL HEAtiNG CENTER Natural Health & Organic Uving

Chlorine, Cancer, And Heart Disease

Leamina Conl!!!' • He"lh Hazards To Know About • Chi ........ can_, And Heart DI_

"We are quite convinced, based on this study, that there Is an association between cancer and chlorinated water."· Medical CoIItige Of WIscOnsin research team .

The addition of chlorine to our drinking water began .in the late 1800s and by 1904 was the standard in water treatment, and for the most part remains so today. We don't use chlorine because it's the safest or even the most effecIive means of disinfection, we use it because it is the cheapest. In spite of all our technological advances, we essenilally stin pour bleach in our water before we drink it. The long term effects of chlorinated drinking water have just recenUy being recognized. Aocordi!19.19 the U.S. COLJnc;i1 Of Envil'9lltnental Quality, '~r risk amol)Q people drinking chlorl..,ated ~ is 93% higher than among those whose water does not oontain chlorine."

Dr. Joseph Price wrote a highly controversial book in the late sixties Wed Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine and concluded that nothing can negate the incontrovertible fad, the basic cause of atherosclerosis and resulting entities such as heart attacks and stroke, is chlorine.' Dr. Price later headed up a study using chickens as test.subjects, where two groups of severa/ hundred birds were observed throughout their span to maturity. One group was given water with chlorine and the other without. The group raised with chlorine, when autopsied, showed some level of haart or clrculaiory disease In every specimen, the group without had no. incidence of disease. The group with chlorine under winter conditions, showed outward signs of poor circulation, shivering, droop8d feathers and a reduced level of activity. The group without chlorine grew faster, larger and dlspli!yed vigorous health. This study was well recepted In the poultry Industry and Is still used as a reference today. As. a result. most large poultry producers use d8chlorinated water. It would be a common sense conclusion that If regular chlorinated tap water Is not good enough for the chickens, then· It probably is not good enough for us humansl

There is a lot of well founded concem about chlorine. When chlorine Is added to our water, It combines with other natural compounds to iorm Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproduds trigger the produdion ofJree radicals in the body, causing cell damage~ and are highly carcinogenic. 'Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, It is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States". The Environmental Defense Fund

Simply stated chlOrine is a pesticide, as defined by the U.S. EPA, who's sole purpose Is to kill living organiSms. When we consume water containing chlorine. ii kills some part of us, destroying cells and tissue Inside our body. Dr. Robert Carison, a highly respected University of Minnesota researcher who's work is sponsored by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, sums It up by claiming , "the chlorine problem is similar to that of air pollution", and adds that 'chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modem timesl"

Breast cancer, which now effects one in every eight women in North America, has recently been linked to the accumulation of chlorine compounds in the breast tissue. A study carried out in Hartford Connecticut, the first of it's kind In North Americe, found that. 'women with breast cancer have 50% to 60% higher levels of organochlorines (chlorination byproducts) in their . breast tissue than women without breaat cancer."

One of the most shocking components to all of these studies is that up to 213s of our harmful exposure to chlorine is due to Inhalation of steam and skin absorption while showering. A warm shower opens up the pores of the skin and allows for excelerated absorption of chlorine and other chemicals In water. The steam we inhale while showering can contain up to 50 times the level of chemicals than tap water due to the fad that chlorine and most other contaminants vaporize much faster and at a lower temperature than water. Inhalallon is a much more harmful means of exposure since the chlorine gas (chloroform) we inhale goes dlredIy into our blood stream. When we drink contaminated water the toxins are partially filtered' out by our kidneys and digestive system. Chlorine vapors are known to be a strong irrltalit to the sensitive tissue and bronchial passages inside our lungs. it was used as a chemical weapon in World war II. The inhalation of chlorine Is a suspected cause of asthma and bronchitis, especially In children ... which has increased 300% In the last two decades. 'Showering Is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform In nearly every home because of chlorine in the water." Dr Lance wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Chlorine in shower water also has a very negative cosmetic effect. robbing our skin and hair of moisture and elasticity. resulting in a less vibrant and youthful appearance. Anyone who has ever swam in a chlorinated pool can relate to the harsh effects that chlorine has on the skin and hair. What's surprising is that we commonly find higher levels of chlorine in our tap water than is recommended safe for swimming pools.

Aside from all the health risks related to chlorine in our water, It is the primary cause of bad taste and odor in drioking water. The objectionable taste causes many people to tum to other less healthful beverages like soft drinks, tea or other sweetened drinks. A decreased intake of water, for any reason, can only result in a lower degree of health.

The good news is that chlorine is one of the easiest substances to remove from our water. For that reason it logically should serve it's purpose of keeping our water free from harmful bacteria and water borne diseases right up to the time. of consumption. where it should then be removed by quality home water filtration.

No one will argue that chlorine serves an important purpose, and that the hazards of doing away with chlorine are greall!" than or equal to the related h~I!hJisllll.TI:1e. simP(,.!rYItt il!.lIlalchlorirnljlllike~ here,to stay •. !heJdea!bat we. could. do,.... ._. away with chlorine any time in the near future Is just not realistic. It is also clear that chlorine represents a very real and

Page 1 of2

http://www.globalhealingcenter.comlhealth-hazards-to-know-aboutlchlorine-:-Cailcer-and-hea ... . 6/812012

30ard of Directors

'at D. Gacoscos, Chair !epresenting Union City

'Om Handley !epresenting Fremont

.. Patricia Kite, Vice Chair lepresenting Newark

\njali lathi lepreseilting Fremont

lennifer Toy ~epresenting Fremont

:3eneral Manager

~ichard Currie

010101010 JSD' works with doctors, :lentists and medical facilities n the Tri-City area to reduce nercury in wastewater. V\ercury cannot be completely 'emoved by treatment )rocesses. Keeping mercury lnd other toxic metals out )f Son Francisco Bay is In important component )f our stewardship of the ~nvironment.

f you have questions, please :all us at: (510) 477-7500.

USO's labor-ManagEment Partnership-Lockouts and walkouts - .that's what the public

often hears about when unions and utilities

negotiate. At USD, the old model oHabor

and management clashing until one side wins

and the other loses doesn't apply. "We have

a positive and cooperative relationship,"

says General Manager Richard' C~rrie. "We

collaborate to take

actions that are for

the betterment of the

District as a whole."

This partnership

recently resulted in

the ratification of a

new5~ year contract.

A non-traditional,

non-confrontational

process called

"Interest-based ',' .

bargaining" was used to reach agreements.

"Some great strategies have come out of

working jointly to solve problems," says Rich

Czapkay, SEIU Local 1021 Chapter President.

"One very successful example is our exchange

of ideas to improve our safety record, which

contributed to all award-winning program that , we've been asked to share with other agencies. II

A joint task force also tackled the issue of

planning for the'retire~ents of key employees.

"We created a program to bring replacements

in well before retirees left the District," Currie

explains. "Many ideas about how to transfer

their years of knowledge to their successor

come from the union, and our selection panels

are always a mix of union and management

employees."

USD plans to continue

using joint task forces

to improve operations

and efficiency. "These

collaborative groups

are constantly coming

up with new, cost­

sa~ngideasthatare

implemented by the

District," continues

Currie.

"The difference is that we don't have the thought

proc.ess of "us" and "them," says Czapkay.

"We have good communication and resped

for each other, and these things allow us to

discuss concerns and come up with solutions

that work for both sides. Knowing that labor and

management can sit down, talk about issues and

resolve them together makes USD a better place

to work."

We'VE Got What It Takes To Treat 30 MilUo·n Gallons Per Day It takes a lot of things to treat the '30 million gallons of wastewater USD receives every day! Here are some highlights

of what we use at our freatment plant during our 24170peralions:

1,100,000 gallons of water - 97% of which is recycled.

53,000 kilowatt hours of electricity - about,2, '20 times what is used in a Iypical home. We

produce 30% of our electricilyourselves, decreasing our daily bill from 14,745 to 13,650.;

1,200 gallons of chlorine bleach solution to disinfect the treated wastewater. Our bleach is

about 25 times stronger than Clorox.

764 miles of pipeline to get the wastewater from 0/1 the homes and businesses to USD.

450 gallons of polymer chemicals to improve treatment efficiency.

1,500 gallons of Ferrous Chloride - a purplish-brown liquid containing lots of iron - to

Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302

June 27, 2012

Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

ATTN: RAIL COMMITTEE

J 2 JUN 27 AM If: 0'

JUNE 28, 2012, RAIL COMMITTEE MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4

LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL REQUESTING A PUBLIC OPINION ON THE LEGALITY OF A BLENDED SYSTEM RELATIVE TO PROPOSITION 1A

Dear City Council:

The City Council does not have the authority to request an Opinion of the Attorney General. The individuals and agencies that can request an Opinion are set forth in Government Code Section 12519:

12519. The Attorney General shall give his or her opinion in writing to any Member of the Legislature, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, State Lands Commission, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, any state agency, and any county counsel, district attorney, or sheriff when requested, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.

The Attorney General shall give his or her opinion in writing to a city prosecuting attorney when requested, upon any question of law relating to criminal matters.

The City Council can inquire about the status of the requests made for an Opinion by Roelof van Ark when he was the Chief Executive Officer of the California High Speed Rail Authority.

Mr. Van Ark's requests for an Opinion were sent to Amy Winn of the Attorney General's office on May 5, 2011, and September 9, 2011. Copies of those letters ~re attached to this letter.

The Opinion request letters also appear as Attachments 7 and 8 to the California High Speed Rail Authority's October 13 1 2011 1

Report required by AB 115 on PDF Pages 69-78 at http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/lO/Response-to-ESG-statement­RvA-FINAL-OCR.pdf

Amy Winn is not a member of the Attorney General's Opinion Unit.

Instead l she is the Senior Assistant Attorney General in the Business and Tax Section of the Civil Law Division.

The Attorney Generalis office has an online Legal Opinions Monthly Opinion Report that "makes available newly published opinions and lists the questions submitted in opinion requests assigned to deputy attorneys general in the current month. The monthly opinion report also lists previous opinion requests that are pending or terminated. 1I The online report is at http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/monthly report.php

The Opinion requests from Mr. Van Ark have never appeared in the online Monthly Opinion Report.

The Monthly Opinion Report solicits views on assigned Opinion requests: "The Attorney General welcomes and solicits the views of interested persons concerning the legal issues raised in any question submitted for an opinion. 1I

I believe the Opinion requests from Van Ark are not subject to attorney-client privilege.

Van Ark/s Opinion requests have not been processed in the same way as other Opinion requests I perhaps because they were not sent to the Attorney General I s Opi,nion Unit.

I suggest that you send a letter to Attorney General Kamala D. Harris to request her assistance in having Van Ark/s Opinion requests processed in the same way that other Opinion requests are processed l including posting the requests online I assigning the requests to a Deputy Attorney General in the Opinion Unit l

and providing any interested persons the usual minimum amount of time to provide their views concerning the legal questions submitted.

In addition l since the requested Opinions do not involve attorney-client privilege l I suggest that you make a Public Records Act request to the Attorney General seeking all

documents related to Van Ark's requests to Amy Winn of May 5, 2011, and September 9, 2011.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely, ~. Herb Borock

Attachments:

1. May 5, 2011, letter from Roelof van Ark to Amy Winn (one page), plus attached April 18, 2011, statement on California High Speed Rail by Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo, Senator S. Joseph Simitian, and Assemblyman Richard S. Gordon (two pages) .

2. September 9, 2011, letter from Roelof van Ark to Amy Winn (three pages) .

May 5,2011

Ms. Amy Winn, Deputy Attorney General AG's Office

Dear Ms. Winn,

As you know, Senator Simitian in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Budget Sub-Committee 2, has

requested that the Authority consider a proposal for a "blended system" along the Peninsula as

described in an April 18, 2011 press release. (Copy attached.) Based on this request, as well as

subsequent hearings, we have the following request for analysis or legal guidance from your office:

1. In order to address the viability of this blended system, i.e., whether such a system could be

built compliant with Proposition 1A design requirements, I am specifically asking for a legal

interpretation of Streets and Highways Code section 2704.09, subdivision (e) (transition

intermediate station requirement), because I have concerns about how the blended system

can meet this requirement.

2; We have been requested to clarify whether there are any time limitations on achieving full

compliance to the conditions of Proposition 1A.

The legal interpretation of Proposition 1A is of great legislative and public interest. I am mindful of the

need for your office to provide a careful, reasoned analysis. Thank you for your assistance in this

important matter.

Very truly yours,

Roelofvan Ark

Chief Executive Officer California High-Speed Rail Authority rvanark@hsr.ca.gov (916) 384-1488, direct

Statement on California High-Speed Rail by:

Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo

Senator S. Joseph Simitian

Assemblyman Richard S. Gordon

April 18, 2011

Since the passage of Proposition lA in 2008, each of us has expressed our support for "high-speed rail

done right," by which we mean a genuinely statewide system that makes prudent use of limited public

funds and which is responsive to legitimate concerns about the impact of high-speed rail on our cities,

towns, neighborhoods and homes.

To date, however, the California High Speed Rail Authority has failed to develop and describe such a

system for the Peninsula and South Bay. For that reason, we have taken it upon ourselves today to set

forth some basic parameters for what "high-speed rail done right" looks like in our region.

We start with the premise that for the Authority to succeed in its statewide mission it must be sensitive

and responsive to local concerns about local impacts. Moreover, it is undeniable that funding will be

severely limited at both the state and national levels for the foreseeable future.

Much of the projected cost for the San Jose to San Francisco leg of the project is driven by the fact that

the Authority has, to date, proposed what is essentially a second rail system for the Peninsula and South

Bay, unnecessarily duplicating existing usable infrastructure. Even if such a duplicative system could be

constructed without adverse impact along the CalTrain corridor, and we do not believe it can, the cost of

such duplication simply cannot be justified.

If we can barely find the funds to do high speed rail right, we most certainly cannot find the funds to do

high speed rail wrong.

Accordingly, we call upon the High-Speed Rail Authority and our local CalTrain Joint Powers Board to

develop plans for a blended system that integrates high-speed rail with a 21st Century CalTrain.

To that end:

• We explicitly reject the notion of high-speed rail running from San Jose to San Francisco on an

elevated structure or "viaduct"; and we call on the High-Speed Rail Authority to eliminate further

consideration of an aerial option;

• We fully expect that high-speed rail running from San Jose to San Francisco can and should

remain within the existing CalTrain right of way; and,

• Third and finally, consistent with a project ofthis more limited scope, the Authority should

abandon its preparation of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for a phased project of larger

dimensions over a 25 year timeframe. Continuing to plan for a project of this scope in the face of limited

funding and growing community resistance is a fool's errand; and is particularly ill-advised when

predicated on ridership projections that are less than credible.

Within the existing right-of-way, at or below grade, a single blended system could allow high-speed rail

arriving in San Jose to continue north in a seamless fashion as part of a 21st Century CalTrain (using

some combination of electrification, positive train control, new rolling stock and/or other appropriate

upgrades) while maintaining the currently projected speeds and travel time for high-speed rail.

The net result of such a system would be a substantially upgraded commuter service for Peninsula and

South Bay residents capable of accommodating high-speed rail from San Jose to San Francisco.

All of this is possible, but only if the High-Speed Rail Authority takes this opportunity to rethink its

direction.

Over the course of the past 18 months the Authority has come under considerable criticism from the

California Legislative Analyst's Office, the Bureau of State Audits, the California Office ofthe Inspector

General, the Authority's own Peer Review Group and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the

University of California at Berkeley. The Authority would do well to take these critiques to heart, and to

make them the basis for a renewed and improved effort.

Frankly, a great many of our constituents are convinced that the High-Speed Rail Authority has already

wandered so far afield that it is too late for a successful course correction. We hope the Authority can

prove otherwise.

An essential first step is a rethinking ofthe Authority's plans for the Peninsula and South Bay. A

commitment to a project which eschews an aerial Viaduct, stays within the existing right-of-way, sets

aside any notion of a phased project expansion at a later date, and incorporates the necessary upgrades

for CalTrain - which would produce a truly blended system along the CalTrain corridor - is the essential

next step.

CALIFORNIA HIGH~SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

September 9, 2011

Ms. Amy Winn, Deputy Attorney General AG's Office

Dear Ms. Winn,

This correspondence supplements my letter to you of May 5, 2011, which was prompted by Senator Siniitian in his capacity as Chairman of the State Senate Budget Subcommittee No.2.

That letter requested a legal analysis from your office regarding whether the "blended system" for the San Jose to San Francisco high-speed segment proposed by Congresswoman Eshoo, State Senator Simitian, and State Assembly Member Gordon meets the requirements specified in section 2704.09 of the California Streets and Highways code. The blended system offers many advantages. It would, however, be prudent to consider its legal viability under Proposition 1 A and the environmental laws before proceeding apace. An outline of the proposed blended system concept is set out below.

Since my May 5 letter, several developments have occurred. They are significant and are the subjects of this letter to assist with the legal analysis requested.

First, Congresswoman Eshoo, Senator Simitian and Assembly Member Gordon have added qualifiers to the original blended system definition outlined in their press release (attachment to the May 5th letter) as follows:

• That aerial design options are not outright rejected but acceptable with local support;

• That high speed rail should remain substantially, but not necessarily completely, within the existing Caltrain right of way; and

• That the right of way constraint is relevant to Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, not San Francisco.

Second, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the owner of the peninsula rail corridor and administrator of the Caltrain commuter rail system, has commissioned an independent capacity analysis for the Caltrain corridor to determine the level of combined high-speed and Caltrain commuter rail service that can be accommodated respecting the parameters articulated in the proposal by the aforementioned group of Peninsula legislators.

The study, using a simulation model, is an initial screen to determine whether the blended system concept has merit from an operational perspective. A virtual blended system was created that focused on the existing Caltrain system from Diridon Station in San Jose to the existing 4th and King Station (the future Transbay Terminal satellite platforms for overflow) in San Francisco.

Additional infrastructure was added to the model to depict a new elevated structure from Diridon to Lawrence and an eight mile four track section from Redwood City to Hayward Park in the mid-peninsula. Additionally, Millbrae Station and 4th and King Street stations were completely re-modified, in line with future high-speed rail (HSR) needs. It should be noted that further deliberations with local stakeholders are needed for ultimate decisions about the location and design of additional tracks.

The actual operation of a blended system would include HSR service to the Transbay Terminal as required by state law, although the timing of this construction may be after HSR operation begins on the Peninsula.

Assuming an electrified rail system for both HSR and Caltrain trains with an upgraded smart signaling system that includes federally mandated positive train control functionality and provides enhanced operational efficiencies for both systems, the model shows the following:

• Initial modeling indicates that the blended system would be able to support Caltrain and HSR trains. Further work will be done to define schedules and stopping patterns for both systems.

HSR trains capable of operating at speeds over 200 mph in other parts of the statewide system have been simulated at speeds up to 110 mph in the San Jose to San Francisco corridor.

• The model supports non-stop travel speeds (up to 11 Omph) for HSR trains from the Diridon Station to the 4th and King Station resulting in a 32 minute travel time. Further work can be done to validate how additional design upgrades can decrease the non-stop travel time to 30 minutes.

• The upgraded signaling system allows for headways of less than 5 minutes.

• The model segment between Diridon Station and 4th and King Station allows high-speed trains to pass through high-speed rail intermediate stations at the appropriate mainline operating speeds and high-speed rail passengers to travel from any high-speed rail station on the corridor to any other high­speed rail station without changing trains.

The results of the modeling effort are preliminary and additional due diligence is being conducted by the JPB and California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) at this time. Please know that the blended system concept is being seen as a prudent way to proceed. Prominent organizations such as the Bay Area Council and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, along with an increasing number of local cities and locally elected officials, have endorsed the concept.

With the foregoing by way of further background, I now repost my request for your legal guidance as follows: Assuming the blended system project is designed to achieve the operating characteristics capable of implementation in the existing Caltrain corridor as described above, and assuming the system could meet the 30 minute travel time requirement under subsection (b)(3) of Streets and Highways Code Section 2704.09, would implementation of that system be found to comply with the criteria prescribed by Proposition 1 A ?

On a separate matter from the requested legal guidance on the blended system concept for the San Jose to San Francisco segment, as noted in my May 5th letter addressed to you, it remains important to obtain your analysis or legal guidance related to the entire statewide system,

As posed by Senator Simitian, is there a time limit to achieving full compliance to the conditions of Proposition 1 A in the construction of the statewide system?

Finally, and recognizing that you cannot give a definitive or precise answer to the question at this point in time, can you provide guidance on the likely length of time that would be required to complete environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed system which contemplates a significant increase in train traffic?

We seek your opinion at the earliest practicable date. Be assured that if further information is needed to enable you to render your opinion, both the CHSRA and JPB staff stand ready to be of assistance in that regard.

Sincerely,

Roelof van Ark

Chief Executive Officer California High-Speed Rail Authority rvanark@hsr.ca.gov (916) 384-1488, direct

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Honorable Council Members

Please pause and consider a leaf---or a twig, a blade of grass, a broccoli stalk-anything you might put out for compost collection. All consist chiefly of carbohydrates: hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. The carbon comes from the carbon dioxide which the plants extracted from the air and sequestered in the stuff you put in your compo sting cart.

What happens to the carbon then? At the city's compo sting site, bacteria and other organisms digest and metabolize some of those carbohydrates, releasing some of the carbon back into the air as carbon dioxide. Subsequent biological processes eventually return all of the remaining carbon to the atmosphere.

Anaerobic digestion is just a more efficient process for putting that carbon back into the atmosphere. The difference is that about one third of the carbon takes a detour, forming the methane which you are invited to burn to carbon dioxide and water under the guise of "garbage to energy." But two thirds of the carbon goes directly into the air as carbon dioxide.

It's even worse. Less than one third of the energy released in burning that methane carbon converts to electricity. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics; you cannot get around it. The net "garbage to energy" yield is one-third times one-third = 11 %.

You are thus being pressured to spend tens of millions of dollars and deface a major park in order to put many millions of tons of carbon dioxide right back into the atmosphere, 89% of it uselessly.

Why would any intelligent, carbon-wise being do that?

Commercial electric generators are currently investing $ billions in processes to sequester the carbon dioxide·that their boilers produce. You, by contrast, are urged to put right back into the atmosphere the carbon that our green plants obligingly removed from it.

Why not show the smart, progressive leadership that Palo Alto once was renowned for, and make a positive step to combat global warming? Seal the carbon in that leaf deep underground, perhaps in an old mine, securely out of the atmosphere.

And you don't have to deface a major park in the process.

David Bubenik, Ph.D.

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear City Council Members,

Mary Holzer <mbholzer@gmail.com> Saturday, June 30, 201212:26 PM Council, City Action Plan for Energy/Compost Facility

!.Gl~ 61:

12 JUt -2 P~1 2: 42

I have read the Staff Report for the Energy/Compost Facility Action Plan and I strongly urge you to approve the staff recommendations as laid out in the plan.

I have been to quite a few meetings where city staff laid out in great detail the many variables affecting the development of Palo Alto's organic waste management action plan. The staff is to be commended for the transparency of the process, and for it's diligence in evaluating a large number of alternative options to find the best one for Palo Alto. Although anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge and food waste, as well as garden waste composting, are being used increasingly around the world as waste management tools and sources of green energy, there is no blueprint to follow. Each installation must be developed to meet the needs ofthe community it serves.

The success of Measure E has given Palo Alto an opportunity develop a means to convert our compostable wastes to green energy and reduce our green house gas emissions. It also gives Palo Alto a way to control our own waste stream, reduces the city's exposure to dramatic increases in disposal costs and our dependence on external waste disposers as well as providing an opportunity to realize income from the composting process. We should not give away resources that the city can quite possibly use to advantage.

As you probably know, the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford - http://woods.stanford.edu/ - is working very hard to provide sustainable alternatives for individuals, organizations and cities. They share their research widely, and gave a seminar in February on Integrated Energy and Resource Recovery from Waste and Wastewater, which has direct bearing on Palo Alto's situation. The slides from the seminar are available at the following link and are eyeopening with respect to options for realizing some of Palo Alto's green energy and sustainability goals.

Energy Seminar: http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/397

Finally - there is much more at stake here than ten acres of a former garbage dump and some money. It is not acceptable to me for Palo Alto to truck our sewage waste and our green compost to Gilroy thus adding even more carbon dioxide to the overburdened atmosphere. If the projected sea level rise caused by global warming actually occurs, our Baylandsand large areas of Palo Alto will be underwater, not to mention large areas of New England and Manhattan, South East Asia, the Netherlands and many Pacific atolls. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate change/index map.shtml has a set of maps if you are curious about the extent of local inundation.

Please approve the staff report.

Thank you!

Mary Holzer

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear Council:

Walt and Kay Hays <wkhays@igc.org> Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:48 PM

Council, City Energy/Compost Facility Action Plan

J I Y eLERX '$ ffPFl1i"

, 2 JUt -2 PM 2: 41

On behalf of the supporters of Measure E, I am writing about what we understand will be the staff's recommendation on July 2, to accept its proposal for an Action Plan and Timeline for Consideration of an Energy/Compost Facility, including allocation of $290,000 to hire Alternate Resources, Inc. (ARI) to assist in the process.

The gist of the Recommendation involves having ARI develop detailed Performance Specifications for de ruing with the three waste steams-biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings-and issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP). The specifications would be quite detailed, but would not specify any technology, thereby leaving it to the Council to decide the best approach, including not only anaerobic digestion, but also export options and others. The RFP would not commit the Council to accept any proposal.

It is true that $290,000 sounds like a lot in the context of current budget issues. However, the Feasibility Study done by ARI prior to the vote on Measure E indicated that under certain scenarios an Energy/Compost Facility could save many times that figure.

If more funds are later required to complete the Action Plan, we urge the Council to consider using a portion of the money provided by Stanford Hospitals for sustainability. We understand that you discussed that issue in response to my earlier letter and that the City Manager agreed to return to you with recommendations. We hope that both he and you will recognize that the vote on Measure E represented the strongest possible public expression of the desire for sustainability, and that you will therefore turn to those funds if necessary for the Measure's implementation.

The message of Measure E, approved overwhelmingly by voters, was that 10 acres oflandfill should be undedicated so the City could seriously explore, through actual commercial proposals, the economic and environmental feasibility of organic conversion of waste to energy and compost. The staff s recommendations represent a good-faith effort to implement that mandate. We therefore strongly urge you to approve them.

Emily Renzel's letter requesting delay is a transparent attempt to kill the project. We strongly believe that Tom Jordan's lawsuit has no merit, and with voter approval of over 60%, the project should proceed unless and until proven illegal or unfeasible. And the only way to fmally resolve the conflicting claims about the merits of the proposed facility is to proceed with the Action Plan.

Please support it.

Walt

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Hello City Council Members,

Bhushans@aol.com Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:12 AM Council, City dmytels@batnet.com; thivathach@gmail.com Paid StafLCompost Facility Recomendation

12 JUL -2~ PH 2: 4 t

I am traveling in Europe due to the wedding of my youngest daughter, but I would be negligent if I did not comment on the Staff's Report for the Compost Facility. We pay our staff (their salaries are a considerable slice of the City Budget). II would be unwise to let private political agenda's stop what is a leadership plan for Energy conservation and refuse treatmenVreuse.

Here in Germany, it is obvious that the US is lagging severely in it's innovation and ecological programs/solutions to our pollution and energy lifestyles. It's embarrassing really; the Global Community is watching and they are not impressed. We need to get with the global program of conservation; we need to reassert our sense of community and leadership, please approve the Staff Compost Facility. and make Palo Alto the City that Can Again.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Cybele (nee' Judith) LoVuolo-Bhushan 3838 Mumford Place Palo Alto, CA. 94306 650-424-8110

1

Minor, Beth

From: Yogabear23 <yogabear23@aol.com> Sent: To:

Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:59 AM . , 2 JUl - 2 PM 2: :3 8 Council, City; yogabear23@aol.com; Renzel, Emily

Subject: Bixby Park -- Defer a Decision Until Questions Are Answered Attachments: 7 _2_12_city_council..Jetter.pages; Measure_E_Options_Maps.pdf

Dear City Council Members,

Bixby Park, as some of California's last remaining baylands, should be a place of recreation for city~weary taxpayers and a livable home for wildlife -- not a home for a flawed revenue-generation scheme by the City.

Add time for site and design review by the Parks Commission to address impacts on the design of the park. Do NOT dump first without considering usability by taxpayers.

Funding will ultimately come from Palo Alto utility ratepayers. I'm a senior on a fixed income and cannot afford annual rate hikes. I'm sure many others agree.

Take time to answer all the questions raised, complete an environmental and park design review, and avoid novel technologies. Farmers will not use food waste compost -- to whom will you sell it? No rent for land valued at $1 OO,OOO/acre? This sounds crazy. I want my park back!

Respectfully, Carolyn V. Garbarino 734 San Carlos Court Palo Alto 94306

-----Original Message-----From: Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> Sent: Tue, Jun 26, 2012 8:54 pm Subject: Comments re 7/2/12 agenda item

Dear Friends: Pasted in below and also attached are my comments for Monday, July 7 agenda item re Measure E follow-up. Please send a small note to Council before noon tomorrow to get it in the packet. Thanks. Emily

June 27, 2012

Dear Mayor Yeh and Members of the City Council:

The passage of Measure E has created a very complicated situation for the proper closure of the landfill and creation of Byxbee Park. The strategic plan and timellne that you are being asked to approve on July 2 shows that you will have to make a determination

1

in January 2013 about excavating all or part of the 10 acre site and dumping it on the remaining unopened 51 acres of Byxbee Park. This is long before you have the results of the Request for Proposals.

This is a travesty! Asfar as I can tell; the plans for dumping on Byxbee Park meet minimum requirements of the State for landfills, but do not address impacts on the design of the Park. No time is in the schedule for Site and Design Review by the Planning and Transportation Commission or the Parks Commission.

This is all being done to try to make the Anaerobic Digester Project more feasible. It costs about $5 million to dump the excavated garbage on the park and $10 million to haul it to another approved landfill. Not only should the 10 acre parcel excavations be taken to another landfill, but the transition from the Park to the 10 acre site should be done within the 10 acre site, NOT on the Park. A 20 foot cliff is not appropriate adjacent to the Park.

During the election, I was accused by Peter Drekmeier of using Karl Rove tactics when I said that almost 3.5 million cubic feet (122,000 cubic yards) of old garbage would have to be disposed of on the remaining Park. Well, I was wrong! It is over 6.5 million cubic feet (242,600 cubic yards) that will be dumped on the Park. Attached are the various disposal scenarios that use the 51 acre Park. You can readily see that these have massive impacts--either creating more inaccessible slopes or raising the Park elevation to 80' from its current 60' maximum height.

I do not yet have the complete Staff Report, but it is clear that you are being asked to spend another $290,224 to pursue a Request for Proposals on the 10 acre site and to make other Significant decisions related to the site before you have any true cost figures, before the lawsuit is resolved, and before you know how much land vendors actually need. The Feasibility Study used for the election assumed:

1. That 20,000 tpy of food waste would be processed here. We don't even have a residential food waste collection system at the present time.

1. That there is a $30/ton carbon offset. That is a comparison method, but it is not real dollars to pay for the project. Those dollars will have to be charged to the ratepayers .

. 1. Grants for 15% of the capital costs.

1. That nearby markets exist for food waste compost and biosolids compost. They do not. No one will buy biosolids compost without extensive and expensive heat treatment. Farmers will not use Food waste compost.

1. No rent for land previously valued at over $l00,OOO/acre rent. That is contrary to the Enterprise Fund policy of recovering fair market value rent for use of General Fund assets.

The source of the money for this budget amendment has not been identified but presumably it will ultimately come from Palo Alto ratepayers. It's not coincidental that this budget amendment is coming to you in the 2012-13 fy. Otherwise you would have had to raise refuse rates even higher this year.

By approving the Budget amendment, the strategic plan, and the timeline, you are setting yourselves up for all sorts of crazy decision­making with inadequate information, inadequate environmental review, and novel technologies.

Please defer a decision on this matter until the questions raised above have been resolved.

Sincerely,

Emily M. Renzel, Coordinator Baylands Conservation Committee

P .5. I'm sure I'll have more to say once I see the Staff Report.

2

-----20-----U~IT OF LANDALl UWIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD

FINAL COVER GRADING

-_ ... ::.:':;.. ....... --: .. -- MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFill COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

200 P""! SCALE

200

FEET

FIGURE 1

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 10-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LAN[)FILL

- - • - UMIT OF LANDFIll - - - UMIT Of PROPOSED BUILDING PAD -----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES -- MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OYER LANDFIll COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FJNAL GRADING PLAN

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY, 3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

2. AOomONAL

200 P""! SCALE

200

FEET

FIGURE 2

ALTERNATIVE FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 10-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/cOMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL

A=... Soc:romento, CA

- - • - UMIT OF LANDFILL - - - UMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD -----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

~-~~tGp:of _·qhlld_lIH'fiI(:tltf~lO

F:"''''~'''''''''''''--'----'-'t-----"'~~-.a:w-~ •. ~ ... r __ _

61Vil1ll ~r!lOiI,~

........ :;;,} .......... _ ... .. --

/'

,f .: / /

/ ./ / J

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDALL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY, J 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND. 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

2. AODmONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 71.060 tv.

2DO j!!j

SCALE

200

FEET

FIGURE 3

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 7-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/cOMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL

• .=t:_ Sacramento. CA

- - • - UI.4IT OF LANDFILL - - - UMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD -----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

I.4ERGEO TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFILL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAY, 3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

2. ADDITIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY 70,000 CY.

SCALE FEET

FIGURE 4

ALTERNATIVE FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 7-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL

RETAINING WALL (10.5-FEET HIGH)

- - • - LIMIT OF LANDFILL

- - - UMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD ~----20~---- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES

MERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPRO)(IMATE ARE,6, OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFILL COVER GRADES HIGHER THAN 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN

1. BASED ON I.4ERGED SURFACE OF MAY, .3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY ,6,ND 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

1 2. ADDITION,6,L REFUSE DISPOS,6,L ABOVE 2009 FINAL GR,6,DING PLAN IS ,6,PPRQ)(II.4,6,TELY .3.3,.300 CY.

200 M SCALE

Comments

200

FEET

FIGURE 6

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 5.4-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL

<I==-SCII;.romento. CA

... / .

···~l ............. ".

- - • - liMIT OF LANDFILL - - - UMIT OF PROPOSED BUILDING PAD -----20----- FINAL COVER GRADING

NOTES - "ERGED TOPOGRAPHY (NOTE 1) APPROXIMATE AREA OF BUILDING PAD LOCATED OVER LANDFILL

1. BASED ON MERGED SURFACE OF MAV, .3 2010 TOPOGRAPHY AND 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN.

2. ADDITIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL ABOVE 2009 FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROXIMATELY CV.

200 II""! SCALE

200

FEET

FIGURE 6

REVISED FINAL COVER GRADING PLAN 3.8-AC DEVELOPMENT AREA

MEASURE "E" ENERGY/COMPOST FACILITY OPTIONS PALO ALTO LANDFILL

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear City Council Members,

Charmaine Moyer <charmainemoyer@gmail.com> Monday, July 02, 2012 5:05 PM

Council, City

COUNCIL MEETING _ (1-

'. . ','

Energy/Compost Facility - RFP Process - Moving Forward - Please approve Staff Recommendations

I have been an active supporter of Measure E gathering signatures for the ballot, and ringing doorbells to inform fellow Palo Altans about the issues of garbage, compost, costs, energy creation, and benefits.

I have been following the broad issues involving an Energy/Composting Facility, the 10 acres of land, as well as the issues being studied at/for the wastewater treatment plant. It seems obvious to me that all of these various components, from capping the dumpsite, planning for garbage and yard waste disposal to planning for sewage disposal in an environmentally and economically beneficial way, need to be addressed under one plan or one set of policies. I support fully the plan to compost as much as ~e can here in Palo Alto, in whatever type of compo sting facility makes the most sense. If yard waste is composted as it has been, as an additional component, I think we should do so. Palo Alto's waste should be taken care of here, and not disposed of in other communities. The technologies exist for us to do so economically; they are proven having been used in Europe for a long time.

Please approve the staff recommendations for the Energy/Compost Facility Action Plan so that the city can move forward on the Action Plan & Timeline and issue timely Request for Proposals.

Sincerely, Charmaine Moyer

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ralph Wheeler <r2wheeler34@gmail.com> . Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:59 AM

Council, City Great Progress

12 JUl-3 AM 1: 24

I applaud the City Council's positive vote to begin the process of creating our Energy/Compost Facility. This is a big

green step for Palo Alto.

Ralph Wheeler 3956 Nelson Ct ..

Palo Alto, CA 94306

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

William Reller <wereller@664gilman.com> Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:06 AM Council, City Drekmeier, Peter, (pdrekmeier@earthlink.net) Action Plan for Energy/Composting Facility

12 JUl-3 AM 7: 24

Thank you much for your support of the proposed facility. This is a complicated issue and much will play out but your action was the first of many important steps.

Thank you twice.

1

Minor, Beth

From: Janice Holliday <paloaltojan@yahoo.com> Sent: To:

Tuesday, July 03,20127:10 AM '2 JUl -3 AM 1: 24 Council, City

Subject: Thank you ..... Sewage treatment with intelligence included

Hooray for an enlightened group of leaders for listening, thinking then acting. Very refreshing for those of us frustrated with some elected officials in our lives. Jan Holliday

Sent from my iPad

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

wbochert@yahoo.com Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:16 AM Council, City Thank you

'2JUl - 3 AM 10: 4 I

Thank you city ciunsil for voting in progress for a better waste solution our future doodoo digester!

Good job

Rev. William

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent:

Brian von Herzen <brian@climatefound1~~tlg~3 AM 10: '*1 Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:43 AM .

To: Council, City Cc: Rebecca Truman Subject: thank you for supporting the action plim for the Energy/Composting Facility

Thank you for voting last night to move forward with an action plan for the Energy/Composting Facility; Moving forward in this area will do much to advance state of the art processing systems such as those being researched today at Stanford University by our team and others. We look forward to collaborating with the City of Palo Alto on these topics in the months ahead.

Regards,

Brian Von Herzen, Ph.D., Executive Director, The Climate Foundation, +1 7757905000

NASA simulations have determined that carbon levels above 350 ppm are incompatible with sustaining a planet similar to that on which civilization has developed and to which life on Earth is adapted (The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, 2, 217-231.). In May, the Keeling curve hit a record 397 ppm, while sites in the Arctic exceeded 400 ppm (http://bit.1y/KLDWkG)

1

Minor, Beth '~"".: "~:.'

From: Wendy Hopfenberg <wendyh@post.harvard.edu>

Sent: To:

Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:29 AM '2 JUL - 3 Ali 10: t. , Council, City

Subject: Great work last night

Thanks for the great work on the environmental issues last night! Palo Alto will be a leader for the nation.

Wendy Hopfenberg

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:27 AM Council, City 12 JUL - 3 AM 10: t. 2 Thanks for moving forward on PA Compost Plans

Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,

Thank you for the decision made on Monday evening, July 2, regarding next steps in planning for the implementation of a compo sting facility in Palo Alto.

I'm also particularly glad to hear that the decision was made to cease operations of the sludge incinerator as soon as possible. As a worker at an East-of-Bayshore office, we often smell the acrid smoke from that facility in the late afternoon when the wind is "right" -- and it will be good when that assault on our air quality, not only in P A, but for all the South Bay, is over!

Your attention to implementing the will of the public that was demonstrated by our community's strong support for a local compo sting facility is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Debbie Mytels

Debbie Mytels 2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-7580 dmytels@batnet.com "Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Elisabeth Seaman <eseamanca@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 03,20128:30 AM

Council, City Peter Drekmeier

12 JUL - 3 MilO: 42

Subject: ENERGY RESOURCES

Dear Council Members,

I appreciate it that you voted to move the Energy/Compost Facility forward so that we can take the next steps in trying to produce energy from our compostable materials. Thanks for taking this constructive step.

Elisabeth Seaman 2240 St. Francis Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303-3133

Tel.: 650-852-0492 Fax 650-852-0493 ESeama1lCA@gmail.com

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Hi,

John Dawson <jpdawson@pacbell.net> Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:50 AM Council, City jpdawson@pacbell.net

12 JUL -3 AMIOt ~2

Thank you for supporting the Energy/Compost facility!

I'm a supporter of this project and I'm glad you voted to move it forward.

Regards, John Dawson

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear City Councilmembers,

fillY EiLEI'U\,B tJPf'r~E Brandy Faulkner <brandyfaulkner@hotmail.com> Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:05 AM 12 JUl - 3 AM 10: 4! Council, City Thank you!

Just a quick note to thank you all for voting to move the Energy & Compost Facility forward! I'm consistently proud of Palo Alto's amazing, visionary leadership. Citizens like myself are excited to see it take shape and are in full support.

Cheers, Brandy Faulkner Barron Park

1

Minor, Beth

From: Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 11:42 AM 12JUl - 3 AM 10: '* 2 To: Shepherd, Nancy (internal)

Cc: Council, City

Subject: Re: ARI proposal - July 2,2012

Attachments: Costs sent to Emily re AD.doc; Costs to date of AD.doc

Dear Nancy, I am attaching my numbers for the costs to date plus what Emily recently sent to Phil Bobel, etc. re the costs and I think you see that the costs are very high and rising. I will probably send this to the rest of the council members. \Thanks for asking. Enid

On Mon, Jul2, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Shepherd, Nancy (internal) <Nancy.Shepherd@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Enid,

Can you please break down the cost-to-date of $2M. I would like to understand what you include in this amount.

Thank you.

Take care,

Nancy Shepherd Palo Alto City Council

Palo Alto's Greatest Asset: Our Youth!

From: Enid Pearson [enidpearsonl@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26,20124:53 PM To: Council, City Subject: ARI proposal- July 2, 2012

Mayor Yeh and Members of the City Council

Attached is my letter re the anaerobic digester funding.

Enid Pearson, Chair Save the Baylands Committee and Former Palo Alto City Council Member

1

AD costs to date

Staff Time for Compost Task Force - 9 months $200,000 Staff time preparing for RFP to hire ARI the first time - about $100,000 ARI's first study $225,000 Closing of Commercial dumping and loss of tipping

fees during study time Staff time for public hearings re combining sludge

with compost to make AD feasible Staff time meeting with both proponents and

opponents re AD Staff time related to new ARI study

TOTAL COSTS

$1,700,000+

$150,000

$100,000 $100,000

$2,575,000+

And I am not including lost rent and probably other costs I can't even think of since this has been going on for almost three years!

Enid Pearson July 2, 2012

Let's see now. This compost thing, in addition to absorbing 5+ years of city govt attention. has cost:

Loss of $1.7+ million in gate fees during the Commercial Ban

Cost of Staff support for a 9 month Task Force

Cost of ARI's first study - c. $225,000 with previous amendments

Loss oflandfill rent since July 2011 - c. $5 million

Delay of landfill closure for who knows how long.

And now another ARI study -Approval of Amendment No.2 to Contract C 11136602 with Alternative Resources, Inc. in the Amount of $261,639.40 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $489,097.40 for Assistance in Energy/Compost Facility Action Plan Implementation (PW)

Not including Staff time, that is $7,189,097 so far and still counting Where is all this money being SAVED that Peter keeps talking about? Emily

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Cox <coxbr@aol.com> Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:42 AM Council, City Energy/Compost Facility

,.J".

eny GLE~K'S"~nG~:A .

12 JUl -3 AM 10= ~Z

Thank you for passing the energy/compost facility last night. It is a big step forward for being responsible and wise energy consumers and waste managers. And, it was nice to see everyone on board with the decision.

Rachel Cox

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Council Members,

Stepheny McGraw <stepheny@earthlink.net> Tuesday, July 03, 20125:48 AM Council, City Keene, James Great news!

.12 JUt ... 3 AM 10: 42

It was wonderful to learn of your vote to move forward with the next steps for the Energy/Compost Facility. I can boast to my friends and former LWV colleagues in Massachusetts about Palo Alto's progressive stance and plans forthe future.

I look forward to seeing this project take shape without too much delay. Stepheny McGraw

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: \.

To: Subject:

Many thanks fordoing the right thing by voting to move the Energy?Compost facility forward. mary ann furda 2251 high street palo alto,ca 94301

1

'. Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dear council members, .

Catherine Bock <tinkLbock@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 03,201212:07 AM Council, City compost facility

"tel E~K;s'(j'Ftn~'

12 JUL -3 M1 to: t.2

Thank you very much for voting to continue work on the energy/compost facility for Palo Alto. I really appreciate your votes towards a more sustainable Palo Alto.

Cheers Catherine Bock 964 Hamilton Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Tel: 650-521-6959

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Alexi Miller <miller.alexi@gmail.com> Monday, July 02, 2012 5:55 PM Council, City Support for a local Energy/Compost facility

Dear Mayor Yeh and Council Members,

12 JUL -3 AM 10: .. 2

I am unable to attend tonight's council meeting, and want to voice my support for a local Energy/Compost facility here in Palo Alto. I supported Measure E because it makes sense, both environmentally and economically, to manage our own waste in a sustainable way.

I urge you to approve the staff recommendations for an action plan now.

Thank you,

Alexi Miller

963 VanAuken Circle, Palo Alto, CA 94303

1

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Council Members:

y'''eu::rtR;$ er\F:\~t Pat Marriott < patmarriott@sbcglob . et>

Saturd~y, !une 30, 2012 11:56 AM 12 JUL - 2 PM 2: t. , Council, City Keene, James; Reichental, Jonathan; kskelly@pausd.org; dtom@pausd.org; bmitchell@pausd.org; mcauwet@aol.com; bklausner@pausd.org; ctownsend@pausd.org FW: PAUSD Public Records Requests

I read Wayne Martin's letter (below) in the Daily Post regarding the cost of printingpublic records.

In November 2009, I wanted to see the resumes of the art commissioners. I naturally assumed that applicants erriailed their resumes, which would then be available online if the applicant was selected for the commission. I was wrong. I received this information in an email from Ronna Gonsalves: Applicants do not email their applications to us. They

are available for the public to review here in the City Clerks office.

I did go to City Hall, where I found the resumes in a 3-ring binder. It was disorganized and messy with several duplicates of various resumes.

As I wrote in an email to Donna Grider on November 5,2009: This information should be available to the public on the c!ty website. Residents.should have easy access to the qualifications of people on all city commissions.

I realize that Jonathan Reichental has been in his position only a short time, but it is shameful that a city in the heart of Silicon Valley is so far behind on using technology to benefit residents and employees-and to save money! For all the talk, there has been very little action.

Pat Marriott

Editor:

The article about Public Records. Requests at the PAUSD (June, 28) claiming the District has spent $15,000 in response to requests for records reminds me of the claim that my requests for Public Records during one of the Parcel Tax campaigns had cost the District $250,000. This is a tactic to reduce the transparency of the PAUSD~which has a tendency to "spend every penny it can get", as Board Chair Camille Townsend has claimed in the past.

We live in the Silicon Valley, and the School District that does not have any sense of what technology is, or how to use it. There is no reason that requests for email should not be fulfilled with a computer program that reads the email server's logs, searching for emails that match the requestor's subject. The idea that an educational organization claiming to be one of the best in the world would be this medieval in its IT capability demonstrates one of the many problems that need reviews from the public-with the Public Records Act being our only weapon against fraud, malfeasance, and the often displayed distaste for democracy that characterizes government bureaucrats.

One has to ask: "just how competent can a District Superintendent, or its Business Department Managers, be when they can not see how to use technology to perform the obligations of the District in a cost effective manner?

Palo Alto should be very embarrassed at the District's actions, and management, where Public Records requests are concerned.

Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Friday, June 29, 2012 6:11 PM 'Wayne Martin'; Keene, James Council, City

~ll

\2 JUl-2 PM 2: 4 \

Subject: RE: No Easy Way To Report Problems Requiring Calls-For-Service

Wayne, Did you send this - and your l TE - to the IT guy? You should.

Thanks for keeping on this. One more BS promise by Keene. pat

From: Wayne Martin [mailto:wmartin46@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:22 PM To: James Keane Cc: City Council Subject: No Easy Way To Report Problems Requiring Calls-For-Service

City Manager Keene: City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: City Council

Subject: No Easy Way To Report Problems Requiring Calls-For-Service

City Manager Keene:

There is currently no simple way to report problems that occur around town, that require a service call by one of the City's many departments. For instance, the video attached is made this moming--showing a sign that has become unbolted at the interesection of Colorado and Middlefield,· in Midtown, Palo Alto. In this day and age, one would think that there would be an App available that would allow a person to snap a picture of this problem, select a menu item such as "Report Problem->Street Signs", and then hit the send button. The App would direct the back-end server to create a problem report/work request, send an email to the appropriate department head, and a copy to the appropriate work crew.· If the unit manager wants to redirect the work crew, then he could contact that crew via cell phone, or email. .

In this case, the video was taken with a digital camera, so there would need to be either a well-defined interface to the City's web-site provided, or perhaps an App written for each of the popular browsers.

Mr. Keene--you keep talking about Palo Alto's becoming a "digital city", yet there seems to be little in your actions to suggest that that sort of transformation will ever happen. When will you begin to provide hard evidence, such as a five-year technology plan, to buttress your talk with a clear vision of the near-term future? It's long past time for you to produce something of substance.

Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent:

Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>pM 2: L O. Friday, June 29, 2012 5:46 PM 12 JUL - 2 n 't

To: Keene, James Cc: Council, City Subject: goals and objectives

Dear Jim, In the past years I have written several times about goals and objectives being vague. I was looking for something in the 2013 proposed operating budget and randomly came across the list below on page 183.

NONE of them are measureable.

It's too easy to say, "I will work with ... I will improve ... I will increase ... I will promote ... " But what exactly do any of those words mean without some SPECIFIC numbers?

At the end of each quarter and review cycle, how will you determine if any of these goals/objectives have been met? How do you measure customer satisfaction, staff response time or any of the other items mentioned? How great an improvement, increase, decrease, whatever is sufficient to meet the goal/objective?

If I handed my boss a list like this, or if any of my employees handed me such a list, it would go into the circular file and there would be just one more chance to present something CONCRETE.

I truly despair that your managers are getting away with these vague promises, while neither you nor the council are demanding goals and objectives that specify clear and measurable targets for completion.

Pat Marriott

Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Work with customers (property owners and developers) and the public to efficiently process planning, land use and zoning applications for quality design Objectives: • Improve customer satisfaction and staff response time • Increase the number of affordable housing units • Promote increased levels of greenbuilding and sustainability practices with development

Goal 2: Enhance the safety and mobility of the transportation system while protecting environmental resources and preserving the community's quality of life

Objectives: • Increase walkability and bicycle travel • Decrease traffic congestion on roads and intersections • Promote use of regional transportation systems

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Jeff Hoel <jefthoel@yahoo.com> Friday, June 29, 2012 4:59 PM Council, City Hoel, Jeff; UAC

12 JUL -2 PM 2= 40

Subject: planning for the RFP for encouraging wireless -- Item 5, 7-2-12

Council members,

I'd like to comment on Item 5 of your 6-25-12 meeting http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31804 which was (mostly) about how to encourage carriers to deploy wireless facilities in Palo Alto. Council will finish deciding this item at your7-2-12 meeting.

http://www .cityofpaloalto.org/civica/fileba nk/blobd load .asp ?Blobl D=31871

Crown Castle's Dave Tanczos gave a presentation that said Crown Castle would like to put up towers, for wireless macrocells, at various electric substations, at its expense, assuming enough carriers signed long-term leases to use the towers. and that it would like to put up something else (not described, but let's call them "towerlets"), for smaller wireless cells, again at its expense; again assuming enough carriers signed long-term leases to use the towerlets. This

"hybrid" approach would be best, according to Tanczos, because macrocells are the least expensive way per square foot to get some minimal coverage and smaller cells are a way to get more bandwidth in areas where that's needed.

Several Council members seemed attracted to the macrocells because of their wide coverage, without acknowledging that the wide coverage comes at the cost of low bandwidth per customer (both because transmissions over a longer

distance have to go slower and because the larger cell contains more people demanding service, so each gets a smaller share ofthe available bandwidth).

Planning Director Curtis Williams said during his presentation that demands for wireless bandwidth were going up "exponentially." If so, then macrocell towers will rapidly become obsolete, superseded by the smaller cells. I wouldn't invest personal funds in macrocell towers, and I wouldn't want the City to make such an investment.

Council Member Shepherd said she wanted Palo Alto to be a city that had no dropped cell phone calls. Macrocells might help to assure that no calls were dropped because of inadequate signal strength, but calls can also be dropped when the

bandwidth in a cell is insufficient to serve all the calls being attempted within the cell.

Council Member Shepherd wondered whether a citywide wireless network would be appropriate for connecting a

computer in her house. If the computer in her house isn't moving, I'd recommend a wired connection instead. It could

be faster, more reliable, more secure, and probably also less expensive. That would certainly be the case if the City had a citywide municipal FTfP network.

Several Council members seemed to fear using smaller cells, apparently because of the City's experience with approving AT&T's DAS sites. I acknowledge that many members of the public spoke in opposition to approving AT&T's DAS sites;

but Council approved them anyhow. Some members of the public opposed the DAS sites because the antennas were ugly. Crown Castle's presentation showed a streetlight with an antenna on it that didn't look ugly to me. Perhaps the public would approve of how it looked.

1

Some members of the public didn't like the DAS antennas because of radiation levels, although the City was required not to consider this in its decision. As small cells go, AT&T's DAS is larger than some. The smaller the cell, the lower the radiation can. be. The worst radiation problem, from the point of view of the cellphone user, is with macrocells, because the cell phone has to use a higher power level to get to the macrocell.

I think Council was wise not to craft language at midnight about what staff should do next. But I'm not sure staff's 7-2-12 report has the right language either. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31864

I think the RFP should make clear that the City won't be making a financial investment.

Should the RFP ask bidders to say where they'll actually build towers (and towerlets)? Crown Castle has said it wouldn't want to commit to building a tower unless it had commitments from several carriers for long-term leases first. So, should each bidder either get these commitments first or else take the risk of not getting them?

Crown Castle has said that, these days, wireless carriers nearly always want to have fiber backhaul for their cells. But apparently Crown Castle doesn't want to provide it. The City could provide dark fiber to each carrier separately. I hope that the City intends to charge the same rates it charges other dark fiber customers. In the case of macrocells, dark fiber is already available at each electric substation site. For each smaller cell, how to get dark fiber to the site would become its own engineering exercise.

If the City already had a citywide municipal FTIP network, and small cell sites could become customers (as if they were "premises"),then the City could offer "switched backhaul" at FTIP rates, which would be much less than dark fiber rates. But when I talked with Tanczos after the meeting, he said that carriers might be reluctant to use FTIP rather than dark fiber, because they'd have less control.

If the City wanted to build out a citywide municipal FTIP network so that the same fiber cables that passed premises for FTIP purposes also contained dark fibers for other purposes, including wireless backhaul, that could certainly be done.

Thanks.

Jeff

Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303

2

Minor. Beth

From:

Sent: To:

Subject~

loran.harding@alumni.stanford.edu on behalf of Loran Harding

<loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>12 JUL -2 PH 2: ~O Friday, June 29, 2012 1:59 PM danrichard@mac.com;joewlevy@aoLcom;jimsplace1@gmaiLcom; ralphhatland@yahoo.com; bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com;johnhutson580@msn.com; Joel Stiner; parsons@brandman.edu; wesandbridget@sbcglobaLnet; craig.scharton@fresno.gov; robert.andersen@fresno.gov; scott.mozier@fresno.gov; Council, City; Patrick Wiemiller; bruce.rudd@fresno.gov; Tom Lang; drcole1974 @yahoo.com; mcsandscs@comcast.net; kenneth.hamm@fresno.gov; gdeniz@netzero.com; steve.hogg@fresno.gov; npyovino@gmailocom; Alfredo Gutierrez; afterglow_ 42@hotmaiLcom; Leodies Buchanan; mike@electriclaboratories.com; simbafarms@comcast.net; mariaro@csufresno.edu; Dennis Manning; Melissa_Taito@yahoo.com; Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us; mustangVEJ@yahoo.com; rsassoon@stanford.edu; Raj & Kala Banka; Kristopher Moreno; ian.lemay@mail.house.gov; russ.widmar@fresno.gov; clinton.olivier@fresno.gov; oliver.baines@fresno.gov; saLquintero@fresno.gov; tsheehan@fresnobee.com;

bob.rucker@maiLhouse.gov; CityManager; Mayor; bmcewen@fresnobee.com; lee.brand@fresno.gov; Andreas Borgeas; JBarlow@co.fresno.ca.us; blumbye@fresnobee.com; jboren@fresnobee.com; blong.xiong@fresno.gov; ghostetter@fresnobee.com; Doug Vagim; newsdesk@ksee.com; kfsndesk@abc.com; newsdesk@cbs47.tv; fpoavp@pacbeILnet; martin.querin@fresno.gov; senator@boxer.senate.gov Fwd:

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1 :38 PM Subject: Fwd: To: annalip 02@yahoo.com

Friday, June 29,2012

Anna- Here's the Tesla site.

A convincing item is the walk-through by Tesla's VP of Engineering, Peter Rawlinson. Three parts. When you get to Tesla homepage, click on "Enthusiasts" at top of page.

Then click on "blog".

Then at lower right click on "Tesla Vehicle Engineering".

, There, scroll down to the three parts labeled "Model S Innovations". See them in order. Made Jan. 6, 2011,

so probably there have been improvements since. To me, this is very interesting.

1

I'd start with the video of the Model S Introduction at the lower left on the Tesla Motors homepage. Really good. Done last Friday, June 22, 2012 at the Tesla plant in Fremont, Calif.

BTW, base model Tesla Model S goes 160 miles on a charge, not 140 miles. You can buy 140 or 160 or 185 KWIH of battery capacity. These go 160 or 230 or 300 miles on a charge, respectively.

Re the need to plug these cars in, please Google Siemens electromobility. Click on'that banner, and then at the right on the Siemens page, click on the video that says "Inductive Charging". Great video. I pointed it out last night on a Tesla blog.

Also go to www.pluglesspower.com. Company in Virginia, Evatran, is selling chargers for the Chevy Volt and Niessan Leaf. $2,800 for a home unit. Wireless, contactless charging. Just drive into your garage and over the charger on the floor and car,starts charging. No need to plug the car in. Sears will install the unit on garage wall and unit on floor. Chevy dealer has to install the small unit in the car's undercarriage that receives the electricity. On Evatran site try to see the video of the black Chevy Volt doing all this. Comes sweeping up street in beautiful neighborhood in Virginia, comes up driveway, into garage and stops over floor unit. Then she just gets out and goes in the house.

I told GM that they should offer these with the Chevy Volt. No need to plug in would help sell the Volt. When enough Volt owners, and owners of other electric cars, have these contactless chargers at home, shopping malls etc. would have an incentive to put them in their parking lots. The Siemens chargers go under . the pavement, as you see. THEN when malls, office parks, factories, medical centers, universities started putting these in their parking facilities, sales of electric cars able to charge from them would really take off. I have the same advice for Tesla- offer these home, contactless chargers with the car. F,old the cost into the contract.

Hedricks Chevrolet in Clovis, Calif. told me you'd want to keep the ability to plug in. True. Go where no unit on floor, and you'd need to plug in.

BTW, Google Cadillac ELR. Same set up, essentially, as the Chevy Volt, but as a Cadillac. GM has greenlighted production. Will appear in early 2014. Dramatic styling, yes?

GM will produce LOTS of electric vehicles. Chevy Volt and Cadillac ELR just the beginning. Tesla Motors is there first with a pure electric sedan, however, and it looks very convincing.

Loran W. Harding

--------..... Forwarded message ----------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1 :59 PM Subject: To: joewleyy@aol.com, johnhutson580@msn.com, CityManager <citymanager(a{fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, craig.scharton@fresno.gov, robert.andersen@fresno.gov, scott.mozier@fresno.gov, bruce.rudd@fresno.gov, kenneth.hamm@fresno.gov, gdeniz@netzero.com, steve.hogg@fresno.gov, npyovino@gmail.com, mustangVEJ@yahoo.com, rsassoon@stanford.edu, danrichard@mac.com, mariaro@csufresno.edu, mike@electriclaboratories.com, afterglow 42@hotmail.com, Alfredo Gutierrez <alfredog4522@att.net>, martin.querin@fresno.gov, Patrick Wiemiller <patrick. wiemiller@fresno.gov>, senator@boxer.senate.gov, blumbye@fresnobee.com, jboren@fresnobee.com, blong.xiong@fresno.gov, ghostetter@fresnobee.com, Doug Vagim <dvagim@sbcglobal.net>, newsdesk@ksee.com, kfsndesk@abc.com,

2

newsdesk@cbs47.tv. bmcewen@fresnobee.com, Andreas Borgeas <andreas.borgeas@fresno.gov>, lee.brand@fresno.gov, JBarlow@co.fresno.ca.us, clinton.olivier@fresno.gov, oliver.baines(a),fresno.gov, sal.guintero@fresno.gov, bob.rucker@mail.house.gov, Kristopher Moreno <krismoreno14@gmail.com>, ian.lemay@mail.house.gov, russ.widmar@fresno.gov,Raj & Kala Banka <banka59@yahoo.com>, fpoayp@pacbell.net

Thursday, June 28, 2012

To all- A new day has dawned for the automobile! Last Friday, June 22, 2012, Tesla Motors handed over the keys to the first buyers of the Model S, the four- door Tesla sedan at the former GM plant in Fremont, Calif. Prices start at- $49,900, with rebates. -140 miles of range for that model. The more you pay, the more batteries you get and so the more range. Top is -320 miles range on one charge. No engine, no transmission, no fuel tank, no cat. converter, no fuel pump, etc. Pure battery.

The model S out-accelerates a Porsch 911. I urge you all to go to www.teslamotors.com. You can read and read. Lots of videos. I urge you especially to see "Model S Customer deliveries", video of that event of last Friday,June 22, 2012. Impressive VIP political representation there.

Click on "Enthusiasts" at the top of their website. Then "Event Gallery". See the "Model X Reveal" video. You will not believe it. Coming in 2013.

Other good vids to see on their website: Tesla Vehicle Engineering- Part 1 and Part 2. This is especially good! !! VP of engineering tells you lots.

Model S Innovations, Parts 1, 2 and 3.

The First Model S test drives

" My First Model S ride, Oct. 1 and 2, 2011 ".

Tesla CEO is Elon Musk. Founded PayPal and sold it for $1.5 billion. Now also doing Space X- recently sent supply capsule to Space Station and got it back.

Musk says Teslas not "almost as good at gasoline powered cars- BETTER!. The more you read and watch on the Tesla website, the more you believe that.

Says somewhere that Tesla is setting up charging stations allover. They should work with Siemens. Google Siemens electromobility. Click on inductive charging video. GM Volt and the Teslas would all benefit greatly from that.

The more you watch of this the more you realize that THIS is a new day for the automobile! I almost weap for OPEC.

Mr. Loran W. Harding Fresno, Ca.

loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org

3

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

City Manager Keene: City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: City Council

Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Friday, June 29, 2012 1:22 PM Keene, James Council, City

12 JUL -2 PM 2:"0

No Easy Way To Report Problems Requiring Calls-For-Service SL274306.AVI

Subject: No Easy Way To Report Problems Requiring Calls-For-Service

City Manager Keene:

There is currently no simple way to report problems that occur around town, that require a service call by one of the City's many departments. For instance, the video attached is made this moming--showing a sign that has become unbolted at the interesection of Colorado and Middlefield, in Midtown, Palo Alto. In this day and age, one would think that there would be an App available that would allow a person to snap a picture of this problem, select a menu item such as "Report Problem->Street Signs", and then hit the send button. The App would direct the back-end server to create a problem report/work request, send an email to the appropriate department head, and a copy to the appropriate work crew. If the unit manager wants to redirect the work crew, then he could contact that crew via cell phone, or email.

In this case, the video was taken with a digital camera, so there would need to be either a well-defined interface to the City's web-site provided, or perhaps an App written for each of the popular browsers.

Mr. Keene--you keep talking about Palo Alto's becoming a "digital city", yet there seems to be little in your actions to suggest that that sort of transformation will ever happen. When will you begin to provide hard evidence, such as a five-year technology plan, to buttress your talk with a clear vision of the near-term future? It's long past time for you to produce something of substance.

Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Commissioners,

Jeff Hoel <jefthoel@yahoo.com> Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:52 PM Library Commission Hoel, Jeff; Council, City problems and opportunities with Library computers

A few weeks ago, the browsers of computer workstations at Palo Alto libraries were upgraded from Internet Explorer7 to Internet Explorer 8. That's good. Internet Explorer 7 was so old that my Yahoo mailtool was reminding me at every new session that I had better upgrade the browser. (I was told that the reason for staying with Internet Explorer 7 so long was that the computers had to run various pieces of software having to do with security, and that these pieces of software were incompatible with Internet Explorer 8. Apparently that issue has now been resolved.)

However, switching to Internet Explorer 8 introduced some misfeatures. Now, when I log in and ask for an Internet window, the window that is created has a yellow band near the top that says, "Your current security settings put your computer at risk. Click here to change your security settings." I assume that I am restricted from actually changing the security settings. Still, it's annoying. Also, the page displayed is not the Library's home page but rather· "about:SecurityRisk." This page has more information about fixing the security settings -- which, again, I assume I can't fix. The computers at Los Altos Library don't have this problem.

Perhaps some of the commissioners can drop by a library before the next LAC meeting and experience this problem first­hand.

I think that the City's website, on the library's home page, should have a one-click link to a page that tells users of library computers various things they might like to know about using computers at the library. Such as:

* Browser name and version -- I might need to know this if I'm trying to report a bug in Yahoo's mailtool to Yahoo, for instance.

* Operating system name and version -- I might need to know this if I'm trying to report a bug in Yahoo's mailtool to Yahoo, for instance.

* A "Be Patient" area, where City staff posts messages acknowledging problems and saying when they'll be fixed. Such as the "Your current security settings put your computer at risk" message problem described above.

* An email address that patrons can use to report problems (especially problems not already acknowledged in the "Be Patient" area}.and/or to ask questions.

Sometimes, library computers are not available for use, for one reason or another. Is the City keeping track of * when each such outage occurred, * what computers were affected, * what caused the outage, * when staff capable of fixing the problem first learned of it,

1

* what fixed the problem, and * how long the outage was? If not, why not? If so, can the public look at it? And does the data suggest any improvements that can be made to increase reliability?

How often is the problem that the database of patron library card numbers and pin numbers is not online? Ifthat's often a problem, is redundancy a potential solution?

Thanks.

Jefff

Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303

2

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Council Members:

Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:32 PM Council, City Keene, James; Williams, Curtis dense housing

I just read in today's Daily Post that the city is looking at sites for dense housing to meet ABAG requirements. One of the sites on the list is 587 Maybell, which used to be a quiet residential street.

I guess now that all the overflow traffic from Arastradero is cutting through Maybell (giving the lie to the "success" of the Arastradero traffic plan), Maybell will be considered a major artery, thus appropriate for dense "transit-oriented" housing.

Please stop destroying peaceful Palo Alto neighborhoods!

Thank you, Pat Marriott

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

You're welcome Eric!

Warrior, Bill Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:33 PM Erick Grandburg Stadler, Sandra; Urbanski, Connie; Council, City RE: Thank You

Thanks for the book reference and for your help with yesterday's rescue. Our pleasure to serve! Regards, Bill

From: Erick Grandburg [egoprod54@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:16 AM To: Warrior, Bill Subject: Thank You

#iii',' .. .t;I. .", !:ii' Y CtERfrs

12 JUt -2 PM 2: 40

Just wanted to thank you again for saving the mother duck and her 7 ducklings that were trapped in my pool. Most people may not consider it too much. But 7 more ducklings that have a chance in the world is a big thing to me. BTW, my little white dog you saw as we headed out, I saved him from the PA animal shelter, who saved him from a abusive situation. Despite his history he doesn't have a mean bone in his body. He's come to be a great alarm warning dog but he'd never hurt anyone. He sounds the alarm, but runs away from strangers. I love him. He's a good kind hearted little doggie. I have a book that I'd like to recommend to you that I think you'd like very much. It's titled "The Lady and Her Tiger" by Pat Derby .. This book is only the beginning of Pat's story. Pat has been rescuing exotic animals for 30 years. She has established a private preserve in central CA that provides habitat for elephants, cougars, wildcats, etc. You can order her book from: http://www.pawsweb.org/paws gift shop home page.html. I have known Pat and her partner Ed for a long time. I hope you get and read her book. Thanks again for rescuing the ducklings! Erick Grandburg

1