Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210426plCC701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/26/2021 Document dates: 04/07/2021 – 04/014/2021 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 5:48 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:April 12, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #4: Roth Building Resolution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock   P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    April 12, 2021    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    APRIL 12, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4  ROTH BUILDING RESOLUTION      Dear City Council:    The Palo Alto Charter at Article VIII requires that any land used for park purposes must be dedicated by ordinance for that purpose.    You are prohibited from approving the proposed resolution until after you adopt a park dedication ordinance as required by the Palo Alto Charter:    All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance. No land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1,1965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote. No substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development upon or with respect to any lands so dedicated shall be made except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum. You also are prohibited from setting a termination date for the park use, because that would be tantamount to removing the property from park dedication which is a power reserved to the voters by the Charter. 2 When the City controls a property through a leasehold with a term of years, the City is able to include an ending date in the park dedication due to the fact that when the lease ends the City neither owns nor controls the land. An example of a park dedication for leased land with an ending date is the park dedication for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. After you dedicate the Roth Building for park purposes, if a future Council (or the public through the initiative process) wants to remove the property from park dedication in 20 years, then you (or they) can ask the voters to do that, just as the voters have done for additions to the airport and the sewage treatment plant, and for a proposed waste to energy facility. For example, the Williams House property was dedicated for park purposes when the Council adopted Ordinance No. 4423 in 1997. The first clause of that ordinance reads: "WHEREAS, Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.004 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that if any site, parcel or area of land owned by the City of Palo Alto intended to be used for park purposes shall be reserved for park, playground, recreation or conservation, the Council shall first cause to be prepared an ordinance dedicating such site, parcel or area of land for such purposes;" The Roth Building property needs to be dedicated for park purposes, just as the Williams House property was dedicated for park purposes, before you can approve the proposed resolution with Santa Clara County to receive grant funds for the Roth Building. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 2:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:PHZ Zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We urge you to clarify that this designation applies only to commercial,  industrial, and multi‐family housing zones.  We have lived in the R‐1  portion of College Terrace for 50 years and fear that the character of the  neighborhood is threatened by the possibility of effectively extending the  long‐standing limit on R‐3 zoning.  Applying the PHZ process to R‐1 zones  might create a domino‐effect in which small, relatively affordable houses,  occupied by long‐term middle‐income homeowners, are squeezed out by  large rental properties.  Such application would also increase the burden  on the Council of having to deal with issues of how to draw the line  between allowing multiple‐unit buildings in poorer neighborhoods and  disallowing them in richer ‐‐ or, to be honest, between richer and less‐ rich ‐‐ neighborhoods.  Richard and Jane Such    2 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 1:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council, From what I have read, we are renaming PCs to PHZs without ascertaining why the PCs did not work. They created traffic, more density and parking issues. We should plan to put multifamily homeffor a family of four.s in commercial areas, they can't be just studios or one bedroom apartments. Doesn't work for a family of four. We need housing that supports below 50% of AMI, which is what is really missing. More market rate, makes developers money but does not fit our goals for truly affordable housing, that serve families. Our R l zoning already supports adding 2 ADUs. We should create more parkland, not less, if we truly care about climate change and environmental sustainability. Developers will not comply with what is needed to make us truly a diverse town. Protect home owners by ruling out any up zoning of R 1, Perserve all 35 ft. height limits for new projects near residential neighborhoods. Incentivizing developers to build and to include a small percentage of BMR untits, does not work for the families we profess to want in our community. Please ask the staff to work out 100% affordable housing. We need to break out of the 'box' , realize what does not work and get creative. Check out a book entitled Sick Cities, author Condon. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 94306 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Patricia L Devaney <devaney@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Letter from the CTRA re: Wellesley Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members,     I think that most of us can agree that the Cato proposal for redevelopment of two single‐home lots in College Terrace is  a truly terrible idea for all the reasons outlined in the attached March 10th letter to you.      I'd just like to add that this seems like a great opportunity for the City Council to take a leadership role that will help  developers in the future not waste their time and money proposing such outrageous projects.    I strongly endorse the recommendation contained in the final paragraph of the attached letter:    In closing, the CTRA requests that the City provide guidance to landowners and  developers about where and what to build, rather than cede this responsibility to  developers. Without clear guidelines, we end up with misguided projects like this one,  not to mention other projects like this throughout our City and neighboring areas, as  detailed in communications unearthed through the freedom of information request.    Thanks for taking these views into account as you deliberate on this matter at tonight’s Council meeting.      And thanks for serving our City so well.    Cordially,  Patricia Devaney  680 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA      Begin forwarded message:  From: Andrew Fetter <andrewfetter@hotmail.com>  Date: March 10, 2021 at 12:33:42 PM PST  Subject: Fw: Letter from the CTRA re: Wellesley Project     FYI.  This is a letter from our neighborhood association to the City Council....    From: College Terrace Residents Association <web@collegeterrace.org>  Date: March 10, 2021 at 11:54:21 AM PST  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Letter from the CTRA re: Wellesley Project  5 March 10, 2021    Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,    The College Terrace Residents’ Association (CTRA) writes to you today to express our  opposition to Cato Investments’ proposed development at the corner of Wellesley  Street and College Avenue.    We oppose the plan by developer Cato Investments because it is the wrong project in  the wrong location. The plan proposes to replace two single family lots with a 24‐ apartment, 3‐story building surrounded by R‐1 zoned homes. The proposed complex  does not fit with the proportionally smaller neighboring homes, violates many planning  regulations, and ignores the reality that there are no 3‐story buildings of any sort in the  College Terrace neighborhood off of El Camino Real. Finally, the project lacks adequate  parking and poses a potential traffic‐safety liability due to its close proximity to an active  childcare center and a public library.     As one of Palo Alto’s oldest neighborhoods, College Terrace is home to a warm, eclectic  collection of residents and an even wider variety of charming architectural styles–from  high‐end modern to modest and humble. The atmosphere is that of a small community  where residents closely identify with their environment and each other. College Terrace  boasts a welcoming community filled with a wide variety and healthy mix of multi‐unit,  multi‐family home structures, single family homes and pre‐war cottages on  substandard‐sized lots.    The purpose of the CTRA is to enable residents to work together to maintain and  enhance the quality of life in College Terrace.     The CTRA’s objection starts with posture of the developer, Cato Investments, towards  the neighborhood, followed by the adverse characteristics of the project, and finally  their stated goal of making this their chosen “flagship” project that they would repeat in  our neighborhood and others, if successful.  It should be noted Cato currently owns at  least 9 lots in the neighborhood, as well as more in other parts of Palo Alto.    The developer deliberately avoided the CTRA and city by first contacting the press to  debut the project. They continue to demonstrate avoidance behavior by neglecting to  answer calls or respond to email inquiries by neighbors and have yet to even schedule  their promised “community meeting” nearly two months after the project was first  announced.    Thus, the developer has clearly demonstrated their modus operandi, which is not only  blatantly disrespectful, but should also serve as a warning to the City of what to expect  if this project moves forward. Since they have decided to not engage with the  community, College Terrace residents used public information requests and research to  understand Cato Investments.  We learned their mission is to create wealth for ultra‐ high net worth individuals and not, as they seem to imply, seek a path for affordable  housing for many. They avoid building large apartment complexes in their own  hometown, but instead seek to do so and repeat a profitable formula in Palo Alto  neighborhoods – not just College Terrace.    The developer asks for special, preferential treatment, through several means we see as  unreasonable and adverse to our community:  6   1. A 3‐story building: No other building in College Terrace compares to this size and bulk  and this plan would be better suited along El Camino Real, perhaps as a mixed  business/residential space.    2. 24 units: Most of the multi‐family complexes in the surrounding area are four units –  as mentioned above College Terrace features several multi‐family, multi‐unit homes but  they are four units or less per property, with on‐property parking.    3. The plan indicates building 24 units on two lots; this would be equivalent to 72 units  per acre, far greater than any existing density in the neighborhood.    4. Planning issues: This oversized complex would require numerous planning and  building variances setting new precedents within Palo Alto. The variances include, but  are not limited to, the following:    a. a variance to build above current height limits  b. a variance to build a very steep increase in units per acre  c. a variance to join two single family lots together  d. a variance to violate existing regulations on setbacks and parking requirements  e. a variance on existing regulations of daylight plane and sightlines affecting  surrounding properties    The volunteer CTRA board meets monthly and seeks to engage our residents. In  January,  we enjoyed one of the largest (virtual) gatherings of our neighbors in recent  memory. At that meeting, residents spoke overwhelmingly in support of the  neighborhood and ten to one against this developer proposal. The message was clear –  speakers support affordable housing, but oppose this project in this location.    Additionally, Cato’s timing is also clearly poor as we are experiencing a record number  of vacant rentals in the neighborhood–and at significantly reduced rental rates.    Since Cato has introduced the subject of affordable housing (we believe in bad faith), we  want our city council to understand two very important points.  But first, we want to  remind you that, even including commercial corridors like San Antonio and downtown,  College Terrace has the 7th highest housing density of the 31 neighborhoods in Palo  Alto.  The many small cottages on undersized lots and multi‐unit apartments in our  neighborhood are regarded by everyone who has chosen to live here as one of its great  strengths.  This originally zoned assortment of mixed used housing adds to the  socioeconomic diversity and architectural character of our little neighborhood. Thus, the  character of our community is naturally inclined to be affordable housing supporters,  when affordable housing planning is done right.      However, where new affordable housing needs to be built to meet new policy goals  embraced by the city, it must be genuine, not fraudulent, and it must be pursued with a  rational plan and map developed by the city, not driven by opportunistic developers  engaging in land speculation.  Here is where our two points come in: (1) City Council  should clear up the ambiguity in the Planned Housing Zone, which Cato's proposal has  targeted, by formally clarifying that the PHZ tool is, and was always intended, as some  council members have already indicated, to be restricted to commercial areas, and (2)  affordable housing policy cannot be responsibly driven through ad‐hoc zoning tools that  allow land speculators to opportunistically disguise their extractive profit‐motive as  7 public‐minded leadership; instead, affordable housing goals should be pursued through  a thoughtful planning process to develop a city‐wide map that, among other things,  strives to make housing density from neighborhood to neighborhood more  equal.  College Terrace supports affordable housing goals when they are pursued  responsibly.  Cato's proposal has inadvertently demonstrated the above two ways Palo  Alto can improve its pursuit of affordable housing goals.    The CTRA opposes this project and requests the City of Palo Alto oppose it,  too.  Although the intentions of the developer are not communicated clearly, it is easy  to trace their records and presume their interest is to serve their billionaire investors  who are not necessarily connected in any other way to our community.  Our intentions  are clear: we welcome new residents with open arms and seek housing projects better  suited to the space and the neighborhood.  The CTRA strongly advocates for more  affordable housing but views this proposal as ill‐suited to both the space and the  community.     In closing, the CTRA requests that the City provide guidance to landowners and  developers about where and what to build, rather than cede this responsibility to  developers. Without clear guidelines, we end up with misguided projects like this one,  not to mention other projects like this throughout our City and neighboring areas, as  detailed in communications unearthed through the freedom of information request.    Sincerely,    The College Terrace Residents’ Association Board    8 Baumb, Nelly From:Melanie Grondel <mel.grondel@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 12:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Melanie Grondel Subject:Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois and Councilmembers, I want to thank you for reviewing the PHZ zoning regulation. I appreciate the complexity in regulating new housing development in our city with its already problematically highpriced land values. With much attention paid to State mandates and financial investment strategies dealing with housing development, I am concerned that two key groups of the public do not get enough consideration. These are the residents who would be living in the "proposed housing" and the people that have to live with "the proposed housing", the neighbors in the near vicinity. Housing planned on commercial and industrial properties has more land available for proper planning of a community of varied density and varied income levels. With proper planning, adequate green space can be designed in as well as one parking space per unit for a car, needed for family duties such as groceries and various other duties. For singles too, whether young or old, a car is needed some of the time. Public transportation may get a family to work and school under the best of circumstances but mobility across town and county is not well provided in our current transportation system. Well priced shopping and services, school events, small outings to parks such as Foothill Park, etc. are hard to accomplish without access to a vehicle. Isolation becomes a problem. Bikes and walking are the preferred ways of mobility. These modes need to be planned in for safe access to daily trips to school and work. With a well planned complex or mini neighborhood on a large parcel of land, such as a commercial or industrial property, access to transportation and shopping can be planned in. On the other hand, when dense housing complexes are dropped haphazardly into single family neighborhoods that cannot provide adequate space, open air and infrastructure, in the typical framework of the single family neighborhood, this new housing will destroy livability for the residents of the new complex as well as for the neighbors who have to live with the consequences of the presence of the new complex. Overcrowding, parking chaos, traffic hazards, noise, lack of trees and plantings, as these are sacrificed to the development, are the result. Prized privacy is compromised for residents and neighbors alike. Liveabilty is seriously compromised in what was a varied neighborhood full of character. In College Terrace, as in many neighborhoods, that includes single family lots as well as RMD and R-2, all small in scale, (as opposed to R-20, R-30, R-40) already offering considerable density and variety in housing options. I request that you focus on commercial, industrial and underutilized government ownned properties (as appropriate), for new housing development. There livability can be created for all, based on adequate space, resources and infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration, Melanie Grondel College Terrace. 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeffrey Lu <jeffreylu6@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 12:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:please do not make it more difficult to build housing in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council Members,    I urge you to carry forth a vision for an inclusive, reasonably affordable, and diverse Palo Alto, and strongly oppose  additional restrictions on multi‐family housing.     Please do not raise fees on multi‐family housing or limit the use of PHZ in R‐1 areas. Such efforts to make housing  construction more restrictive only increase the challenges of meeting our housing and climate change goals. Pushing  prospective community members out of Palo Alto and making it more difficult for folks to choose non‐vehicular  transport are not in line with our values or our responsibilities as a city.    Please vote against these housing restrictions tonight.    Thank you.     Jeffrey Lu  Midtown    10 Baumb, Nelly From:Rob Nielsen <crobertn@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 8:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Item #11 on tonight's agenda (PHZ) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Dubois and city council members. My name is Rob Nielsen, and I live in Midtown, where I have owned a detached single family home with my wife since 1998. I would like to ask the council to keep the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) planned community process in its present form and, specifically, not to exclude residential areas from this so-far successful program. Despite my current housing status, I have lived nearly three decades of my adult life in duplexes and sixplexes located in mixed areas of single- and multi-unit housing with some commercial facilities close by. The changes offered for consideration in the staff memo would preclude such arrangements at a time they have much to offer the city. One such place was a duplex in Menlo Park that I rented for 15 years. It was one of several units near a block-long shopping district in a neighborhood with a plentiful offering of single-family homes as well. Another was for 3 years renting a sixplex unit within a 3/4-mile walk of my job in a Midwestern city of 100,000. A third was for 10 years in a city of over 3 million in a foreign country—again in a neighborhood made primarily of detached single-family homes yet only a block away from small commercial and transportation facilities. No matter where you go, no matter how small or how big the city, neighborhoods like these offer a diversity of housing at better affordability. They help support nearby retail and transit while keeping the basic nature of the community intact. They are as natural as the sun and the rain. Let us not foreclose their use in meeting Palo Alto's housing needs. Or in bringing in new residents who have much to add to a city like ours. Thank you for your consideration, Rob Nielsen 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary B. <mab9999@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 1:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:CATO, PHZ and the Wellesley Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois, Vice Mayor Burt and Members of the City Council, I am writing in reference to Item 11 on the April 12th City Council agenda entitled, “Update on the City's Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) Application Process and Possible Council Direction for Changes Related to its Implementation, Criteria, and Applicability Citywide.” and in reference to the recent, virulently cynical letter sent by Cato, LLC to the Council. Cato decries that the Council is attempting to 'change the rules in the middle of the game' by removing R1 zoning from the ordinance in any updates to the PHZ. The temerity of such a statement astounds! This is the company who has come to the city with an arm's length list of the rules they want changed for their project. Ah! but they, they say, have lofty humanitarian purpose behind their requests, while everyone else is engaging in exclusivity and bigotry - this according to Cato's dubious history of zoning which amounts to R1=Racism and privilege and nothing more. An equation we and you are suppose to accept ipso facto despite its blatant falsity. Throughout California there are R1 zones that are predominantly African American, and there are R1 zones which contain a diversity of people within them. Cato asks that we believe that College Terrace has never truly been R1, that there are apartment complexes in College Terrace, while overlooking the fact that many of the complexes were grandfathered in and will revert to R1 if ever they are sold. They omit to mention that none of the existing complexes are as dense as their proposed project, and all provide parking for their tenants. They slyly omit the fact that they are not asking to build in a multi-housing zone, but in an R1 zone. And make no mistake, they are doing so to weaken R1 so that they, an investment equity company for multi-millionaires and billionaires can come into Palo Alto and make a financial killing for their clients. Cato asks us to believe that their proposed project of 24 units will be affordable for people of low and moderate incomes - their words - and still they have yet to define those terms, yet tell us what 'affordable' actually means to a company whose motivation is profit, and have not even told us what the rents will be for these 350 sq ft dormitories. Forgive me if I find it their profit motive on behalf of their clients incompatible with the humanitarian, civic-minded neighborliness that they are trying to project. They are not neighbors, nor are they civic-minded nor are they providing affordable housing. They are seeking profit, knowing full well, as I hope the members of this Council do, that the denser the build, the more the land value skyrockets. What they are terming 'affordable housing' now will not stay so for very long with their 'build build build denser denser denser' mentality. And they know that all the while acting under the demeanor of pained reasonableness : 'Let's talk this over, if you have issues, and find ways to modify the project while keeping rents affordable.' Again, nary a mention of what those rents will be. But clearly we are being led to understand the reason for the evident cheap construction and lack of amenities seen in the architectural drawing of the 12 project: people paying affordable rents don't deserve more than one window, or common space, or parking or storage or a place to keep a bike ... because modifications must remain 'affordable'. And this is what Cato calls 'residential homes'. Never has it been made more clear to me what is so scary, so offensive and so insulting to the intelligence about the double speak of the 1 percenters to the rest of us. That Cato should impute to us bigotry or prejudice or fear of others, based on their specious understanding of what they are conveniently terming 'exclusionary zoning' is ludicrous. And it is ugly and unconscionable that they should pull such a trick in an attempt to cut off the residents of College Terrace from consideration by announcing to you that our opinions and input are based on fear and racism and therefore invalid. College Terrace to a person welcomes truly affordable housing. This isn't it. 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 9:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:PHZ discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  From Greg Schmid April 12 Agenda item # 11 The City has an obligation to share with the residents of Palo Alto the real costs of Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). They have not done so. Any increase of jobs in Palo Alto or nearby cities increases demand for land and raises its price— currently the highest in the country for new residences. As we plan for new housing, especially affordable housing, we must answer the question of who will pay for the increased cost of land. To do that we need a clear description of impacts: --As market rates for new housing units go up, only highly paid workers can move in; --Average housing size is likely to fall; there are a large share of studio and one bedroom apartments are being built leaving families our and increasing income inequality; --Traditional housing subsidies are used but they are being funded by property or sales tax revenues that are paid for by existing residents or through inclusionary zoning that passes on the cost to new residents; --Formulate new subsidies through such things as reduced parking, less retail, increased FAR or added height. Each of these add to congestion and density, decreases individual mobility, and discourages families. Who pays for the increasing costs and density? It is existing and new residents through higher local taxes and decreased mobility. Who benefits? Businesses get more housing for high priced workers near their job sites. Their existing property values go up. And they get the benefits of agglomeration—needed support workers close at hand. State and national governments benefit. Income taxes and capital gains taxes flow almost exclusively into their hands while local governments bear the costs of new infrastructure to deal with density and congestion. Let’s start this Planned Home Zoning discussion with a clear statement of who benefits and who pays. Only then can we proceed to a serious public Council analysis of how to assure that PHZ truly provides a clear public benefit. Greg Schmid gregschmid@sbcglobal.net 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Kemp <skemp650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 8:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 12th Meeting Action Item #11 PHZ Application Process Proposed Update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,     I am writing with regard to the proposal that Planned Housing Zoning (PHZ) be allowed in R-1, R-2 and RMD areas. I am opposed to converting any R-1, RMD or R-2 zoning to PHZ.  I support keeping all present height rules and protecting all adjacent residential properties with the same height protections since right now, some parcels with residences are far more protected than others and that’s inequitable.  I want building projects to be fully parked: even though use of public transit should be encouraged, no studies support that people are actually replacing single occupancy cars with public transit as a result of living in close proximity to public transit. In our area, public transit by rail is currently geared to a north-south commute (not to all-day general use) and bus service is infrequent and unreliable: VTA loads funds towards south- county projects and the connection between VTA and SamTrans by bus is very clumsy and time-consuming.   I support affordable housing. If developers can’t find a way to comply with our requirements for affordable housing, we should broaden our city's efforts to encourage public entities to develop housing, similar to Alta. If it doesn't pencil out for developers to build housing to meet our city's needs, why keep beating our heads against the wall of economics in order to reward their profitability goals when we could explore non-profit organization efforts instead.  16 I do not support allowing more office space. The office space to housing ratio in Palo Alto is already way out of balance. How about repurposing existing office space to housing?    Thank you.    Sincerely,    Susan Kemp  Ventura Resident  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 7:32 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:April 12 CC Meeting, Agenda Item #11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council Members:    I understand that CC sometimes gauges community concern about an issue by the level of participation at Council  meetings.  I am not likely to be able to put in a speaker card tomorrow so I am writing to comment on PHZ and express  my concern about the project that CATO is proposing for Wellesley Street in College Terrace.    The Staff Report on this matter states:  Location Criteria  While not explicitly stated in the staff report or Council minutes on February 3, 2020, the expectation was that  PHZ applications would be filed in commercial zones.    The CATO project is predicated on variances of an already concession‐rich bit of zoning, the PHZ.  If the intention of the  PHZ had been clear in the first place, this wouldn’t even be an issue.  Something similar happened with the Hotel  President when it was discovered that the grandfathering portion of our code contained a “mistake”.  How the City ends  up needing to correct such mistakes and ambiguities should be questioned by Council.  Is it simply coincidence that  these things advantage developers and disadvantage residents?     It is important that the wording about where PHZ is applicable be explicit so that residents can rely on PHZ not applying  to residential areas and developers know that the PHZ is restricted to commercial areas. If that is not achieved,  developers like CATO will use the concessions inherent in PHZ to offer what can be called Trojan Horse housing:  a sliver  of an over‐sized, variance‐dependent project will be designated “affordable” in order to win approval, while the balance  will be market‐rate. This may yield a handsome return to a developer and investors, but it will be destructive to existing  neighborhoods and not move the needle on the sort of housing that is most needed:  affordable.    Also, it is not the City’s job to assure that a project pencil out for a developer.  Such largesse on the City’s part would  make sense only for 100% affordable housing.    Annette Ross  College Terrace      18 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 5:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:PHZ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Tom DuBois, Vice Mayor Pat Burt & fellow Council Members,    The council is bombarded right now with several projects in the pipeline. Many developers are watching to see what  they can achieve with PHZ zoning.    Please direct staff to focus on affordable housing and not acquiesce to developers. We do not need office space as an  incentive to get developers to build affordable housing.    Stanford Research Park could build affordable housing and homes for families. By doing so trips to medical clinics,  hospital, university and research park would be greatly reduced. It would be a win win for the greater community.    It is of the utmost importance to rule out any upzoning of R‐1, RE, RMD, R‐2 and RM‐20 to high density. Please maintain  the thirty five foot height for new projects to avoid discriminating against residents in higher‐density and mixed‐use  buildings. It is only FAIR to do so. Please keep PHZ to commercial zones.    The former council pushed through a zoning standard that is not good for Palo Alto. Now CATO LLC is using our  community to see exactly what they can GET. The recent letter from Jeffrey Colin’s employee was unprofessional and  included errors concerning land use. They also stress that the housing proposed for the College Terrace neighborhood is  for low income people. There are only four BMR units. This dense apartment complex is targeted to the singleton tech  professional not a teacher with a family.    I believe that the majority on the council understands that this developer is using this project as a test. I respectfully ask  that you do not spot zone to accommodate a speculator whose goal is to use our town as a playground for investment.  This LLC owns several properties in Palo Alto and is itching to develop dense buildings in these areas as well.    To say that R‐1 is exclusionary is in itself incorrect. Zoning is zoning. The majority of single family homes acquired in  Santa Clara county are by Asian people. What caused systemic racist policies in the USA was the collusion of the Federal  Housing Administration which refused to insure mortgages for people living in predominately African American  communities. These Americans could not get loans because of that entrenched practice. African American were pushed  out because of redlining from bankers, realtors, home sellers, developers and bankers. The zoning was not what  prevented people from accessing single family homes. The aforementioned entities colluded to segregate  neighborhoods, suburbs, towns and cities. The other institutional instrument that perpetrated racist policies were the  racist restrictive covenants or home deeds that prevented Jews, Blacks and Asians from buying homes in America.    It was the great Jewish architect, Joseph Eichler, who built homes without restrictive deeds. He was democratic and  wanted housing for everyone. I grew up in Eichlers and appreciate his legacy here in Palo Alto.    Respectfully yours,    19 Ann Lafargue Balin        20 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrew Fetter <andrewfetter@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 2:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Planned Home Zoning Update for 4/12/21 Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I encourage you to adopt the staff recommendation that Planned Home Zoning (PHZ)  be allowed only in  commercial and industrial zoning.       This clarification would make it clear where dense housing could be built and prevent speculative purchases  by wealthy developers in residential areas.     Palo Alto should continue to work with all stakeholders in the community on housing problems and ensure  careful, creative and thoughtful solutions are achieved for all groups.     The recent proposed projects such as the Grant Teacher Housing and already completed mixed‐use  development with affordable housing at Mayfield Place along El Camino Real in Stanford Research Park are  excellent examples of reasonable housing solutions.     Best,     Andrew Fetter    21 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 11:40 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Wong, Tim Subject:PHZ Agenda item 11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and council members, I support maintaining the existing PHZ requirements and application at this time without adding any new restrictions on its use. As the staff report notes, the PHZ has succeeded in bringing forth new housing proposals and has provided a learning process for the council and community. The staff report also notes the increased housing goals for Palo Alto. Finally the staff report notes “However, for the upcoming RHNA cycle (2023- 2031), without significant land use policy adjustments to local zoning, meeting the anticipated market rate housing targets will be challenging. of ABAG’s allocation to the city of the regional goal.” There are two reasons I oppose adding restrictions to the scope and application of the PHZ at this time. The first is about process. The City is at the very beginning of developing an new Housing Element. Last week you appointed a working group and the consultant contract is on your agenda this week. As a result, we have no analysis of alternative sites and policies and no way of knowing what is needed to develop a legal Housing Element. To say or imply that council knows today that the full or even expanded use of the PHZ tool is not needed for our new Housing Element is blatantly and transparently false and will be seen as such by HCD, ABAG and others causing potential legal challenges to the City. The second reason is about policy and vision. Right now, it is very expensive to buy or rent a single-family home in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. I want to make it possible for more middle-income families to live in these neighborhoods and, except possibly for ADUs, the only way to achieve that is to allow housing like duplexes and small apartments that, while not cheap, are affordable to many middle-income families. I have seen examples of this where my son previously lived in Costa Mesa. He lived on a street with a mix of housing types and a neighborhood school. In the single-family homes stretches on his street, nearly every corner has a duplex, triples or small apartment building. We have many streets like his in Palo Alto. Not to do this says clearly that R-1 neighborhoods should be reserved for only families that can afford $2- 3 million or more for a home. I do not support such a policy. While I do not believe residents or council members wanting to restrict the PHZ application are motivated by racial prejudice or the desire to exclude people on the basis of race or ethnicity, such policies do, even if unintentionally, impose restrict economic diversity that is not in keeping with who we are or want to be. I definitely want to see applications for small multi-family projects in our R-1 neighborhoods, perhaps starting with corner lots and see what comes forth in terms of projects and affordability. With regard to concern about a current proposal in College terrace, I am confident that the council can review this application and hear concerns without needing to restrict the PHZ process. 22 Stephen Levy 23 Baumb, Nelly From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:23 PM To:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) Hello Rita,     Thank you for inviting me but I’m afraid I am not available tomorrow afternoon.  My husband and I have previous plans.     Thanks again.     Best,    Pria Graves  On Apr 10, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Rita Abdel‐Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office  <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> wrote:    Hello Pria,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours,  which are held every Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute  meeting this Sunday, April 11th between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite  containing details such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:29 PM, Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,      24 I am delighted that the Council will be looking into clarifying the location criteria regarding the PHZ  zoning.  It is vital that the code be updated to reflect the original expectation that applications would  be filed in commercial zones, not in low‐density residential areas.  In particular I hope that the Council  will adopt the staff recommendation that " PHZ applications be considered for all commercial,  industrial zoning, and multifamily districts”.       I would ask, however, that the definition of multifamily districts in this instance be clarified to  indicate that this does not include RMD and R‐2 zones. While a developer might insist that  these 2‐unit‐per‐parcel zones are “multifamily”, they are typically contiguous with R‐1 districts  and are much closer to those in texture and feel.       As a long‐time resident of the RMD portion of College Terrace, I fear that if this potential  loophole is not closed, we may again find ourselves facing applications for unsuitable projects  in the lower quarter of our neighborhood.  The meaning of multifamily districts in this instance  should be clearly restricted to R‐20, R‐30, and R‐40 zones.      Thank you for your consideration.      Regards,     Pria Graves         25 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:58 AM To:info@wellesleyhousing.com; Council, City Subject:Re: Proposed PHZ Changes Hello Cynthia,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute meeting this Sunday, April 11th  between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:17 PM, Cynthia Gildea <info@wellesleyhousing.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear Mayor Dubois, Vice Mayor Burt and Members of the City Council,     We write today in regards to Item 11 on the April 12th City Council agenda entitled, “Update on the City's Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) Application Process and Possible Council Direction for Changes Related to its Implementation, Criteria, and Applicability Citywide.” From reading the staff report and from listening to recent comments made by the mayor, it is clear that the proposal of the Wellesley project has served as the impetus for an update to the PHZ in which R1 zones will now be cut out of the ordinance. This amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game. While the City Council continues to pay lip service to the housing crisis, this action sends the message to housing developers that Palo Alto is not a place to build.     First a bit about the history of single-family zoning. We are living in a moment right now when many cities, both in the Bay Area and nationally, are confronting the ugly history of single-family zoning. Single-family zoning was invented in Berkeley in 1916 to keep people of color and immigrants out of certain areas of the city. In 2021 Berkeley confronted their history with “exclusionary zoning” head on to “address racial and economic segregation” and now allows for the production of fourplexes on any residential lot in the city.   26   Now, other bay area cities such as South San Francisco and San Jose are considering allowance of fourplexes for similar reasons. Yet, this item on cutting single-family zones out of the PHZ and affirming to residents that currently-zoned R1 will remain single-family only, doubles down on this exclusionary history. And R1 zones cover 87% of the land in Palo Alto.    However, neighborhoods like College Terrace are not and have never truly been R1. There are more than 30 multifamily apartment buildings in the neighborhood of College Terrace alone, dozens of them within a 100-yard radius of the proposed project. By definition, this is not a single-family neighborhood, and certainly no one is advocating for the existing multi-family homes to be torn down. So why restrict height-appropriate new construction and keep new renters from becoming new neighbors?    The Wellesley project would only sit two feet taller than an adjacent single-family home. Its site is walking distance to high-quality transit, jobs and retail. It would provide housing (without any city subsidy) for new neighbors in the moderate, low and very-low income brackets-- populations for which Palo Alto has said it wants to find ways to build for. And it is in the neighborhood with many existing multifamily residences, two of which are less than a block from the Wellesley site.     If the city has issues with particular aspects of the proposed project, let’s discuss these aspects, and find ways to modify the project while keeping rents affordable. Instead, it appears that the city wants to summarily ban such projects without any discussion of their merits.     Cutting R1 out of the PHZ all but freezes in amber 87% of Palo Alto land. Yet, by Palo Alto’s own admission it is already falling more than 900 units short of its own Comp Plan’s housing production goals of approving 266 new units per year. And in the next RHNA cycle, the state has mandated that Palo Alto zone for and build more than 6,000 units. If neighborhood-appropriate projects are outlawed in 87% of the city, then where will they all go?    Lastly, it has never been made clear what is so scary or offensive about multifamily residential homes for very-low, low and moderate income earners. These are the community members who take our order at Cal Ave restaurants, who assist us when we want to buy a product and who teach our children. These are the veterans, the ones who served our Country and need to live close to healthcare, job retraining and are owed the basic right of housing security. What is so wrong with them also being our neighbor? What is so wrong with a height-appropriate apartment building, optimized for affordability, in a neighborhood with 30 existing apartment buildings. Why is the Wellesley project so scary that it justifies banning multifamily and missing middle housing being built in 87% of Palo Alto?    We hope you will answer these questions in this hearing.     Sincerely,   Cynthia Gildea  Cato Investments, LLC          27 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:56 AM To:Council, City; priag@birketthouse.com Subject:Re: Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) Hello Pria,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute meeting this Sunday, April 11th  between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:29 PM, Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,      I am delighted that the Council will be looking into clarifying the location criteria regarding the PHZ zoning.  It is vital  that the code be updated to reflect the original expectation that applications would be filed in commercial zones, not in  low‐density residential areas.  In particular I hope that the Council will adopt the staff recommendation that " PHZ  applications be considered for all commercial, industrial zoning, and multifamily districts”.       I would ask, however, that the definition of multifamily districts in this instance be clarified to indicate that  this does not include RMD and R‐2 zones. While a developer might insist that these 2‐unit‐per‐parcel zones  are “multifamily”, they are typically contiguous with R‐1 districts and are much closer to those in texture and  feel.       As a long‐time resident of the RMD portion of College Terrace, I fear that if this potential loophole is not  closed, we may again find ourselves facing applications for unsuitable projects in the lower quarter of our  28 neighborhood.  The meaning of multifamily districts in this instance should be clearly restricted to R‐20, R‐30,  and R‐40 zones.      Thank you for your consideration.      Regards,     Pria Graves       29 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:33 PM To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom Subject:PHZ/No More Offices / WITH SUPPORTING Links. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We have absolutely NO need -- NONE -- to incorporate office space into housing projects when there's a glut of office vacancies making front- page news AND when we're over-run 4:1 by commuters who cost US money and inconvenience in crowded roads, lack of parking, personal and city costs to administer parking programs when the city STILL can't get it together to count available spaces in garages. (New York Times 4/9/21) Additionally, this congestion hurts our struggling retailers and costs the city needed sales tax revenues. Stop pandering to developers and landlords who under-park to increase their profits by increasing density at our expense while failing to build real BMR housing. We don't need more gentrification and market-rate housing. We don't need them chasing out retailers. Stop pandering to paid lobbyists from PAF, YIMBY/Peninsula For Everyone who are gentrifying minority neighborhoods out of existence while hypocritically playing the "racism" card with their ugly posters and lies that have been their hallmark for TOO many years. high-Level Points for Council Session on PHZ for April 12, 2021  PCs (planned communities) were a disaster in Palo Alto’s past: 30 o public benefits were generally negligible or non-existent o projects were invariably over-sized, creating traffic, density, and often parking problems o the monetary value of the slim public benefits obtained were never evaluated against the huge gains earned by the developers  Renaming PCs as PHZs (Planned Home Zoning) doesn’t solve these problems at all: o the 20% promised inclusionary benefits is not necessarily worth more than the current 15% requirement because developers can choose what to count to meet the 20% goal o PHZs will not necessarily produce any housing below 50% AMI, which is what we need most o PHZs may produce more new jobs than housing because staff are claiming new offices have far fewer workers than industry norms o PHZs will likely produce only small units for single individuals and not serve families  The community wants true below-market-rate housing o The greatest need is for below 50% AMI o We need both family and single-occupancy units o New units need parkland, shared open space, and private open space  We must protect existing residents too: o Rule out any upzoning of R-1, RE, RMD, R-2, and RM-20 to high density o Preserve all existing 35 foot height protections for new projects near residential zones o Extend to all residential uses citywide the same 35 foot height protection to avoid discriminating against residents in higher-density and mixed-use buildings  100% affordable housing creation is being undercut by the PHZ: o A PHZ project is asking for 2.55 FAR whereas our AH (100% Affordable Housing) district allows only 2.40 FAR o A PHZ project can be 50% office space if the residential units are small vs. just 0.40 FAR of commercial space for an AH project o Favoring PHZ over AH makes it harder for 100% affordable housing projects to acquire land o We should turn this completely around: PHZ should only allow a fraction of what AH is allowed  The City Council is focused on the wrong strategy: o Incentivizing developers will never provide the affordable housing needed and only put us further behind o Instead, direct staff to focus on 100% affordable housing o Help affordable housing providers seek funding being offered by Google, Facebook, and others o Rezone office to residential use Resources: 31 After Pandemic, Shrinking Need for Office Space Could Crush Landlords Some big employers are giving up square footage as they juggle remote work. That could devastate building owners and cities. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/business/economy/office-buildings-remote- work.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20210409&instance_id=29028&nl=todaysheadli nes&regi_id=8807495&segment_id=55250&user_id=6c4d178fba68999471f847058ff07ce c Rise of the yimbys: the angry millennials with a radical housing solution https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/02/rise-of-the-yimbys-angry-millennials- radical-housing-solution Staff Report for Monday, April 12, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/current-year/2021/id-11876.pdf Agenda for Monday, April 12, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/04-12-21-ccm-agenda.pdf Palo Alto Weekly article about the PHZ on April 7, 2021: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/04/07/facing-concerns-from-college- terrace-city-looks-to-reassert-commitment-to-single-family-housing-zones Jo Ann Mandinach Palo Alto, CA 94301 32 Baumb, Nelly From:Cynthia Gildea <info@wellesleyhousing.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed PHZ Changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois, Vice Mayor Burt and Members of the City Council,     We write today in regards to Item 11 on the April 12th City Council agenda entitled, “Update on the City's Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) Application Process and Possible Council Direction for Changes Related to its Implementation, Criteria, and Applicability Citywide.” From reading the staff report and from listening to recent comments made by the mayor, it is clear that the proposal of the Wellesley project has served as the impetus for an update to the PHZ in which R1 zones will now be cut out of the ordinance. This amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game. While the City Council continues to pay lip service to the housing crisis, this action sends the message to housing developers that Palo Alto is not a place to build.     First a bit about the history of single-family zoning. We are living in a moment right now when many cities, both in the Bay Area and nationally, are confronting the ugly history of single-family zoning. Single-family zoning was invented in Berkeley in 1916 to keep people of color and immigrants out of certain areas of the city. In 2021 Berkeley confronted their history with “exclusionary zoning” head on to “address racial and economic segregation” and now allows for the production of fourplexes on any residential lot in the city.     Now, other bay area cities such as South San Francisco and San Jose are considering allowance of fourplexes for similar reasons. Yet, this item on cutting single-family zones out of the PHZ and affirming to residents that currently-zoned R1 will remain single-family only, doubles down on this exclusionary history. And R1 zones cover 87% of the land in Palo Alto.    However, neighborhoods like College Terrace are not and have never truly been R1. There are more than 30 multifamily apartment buildings in the neighborhood of College Terrace alone, dozens of them within a 100- yard radius of the proposed project. By definition, this is not a single-family neighborhood, and certainly no one is advocating for the existing multi-family homes to be torn down. So why restrict height-appropriate new construction and keep new renters from becoming new neighbors?    The Wellesley project would only sit two feet taller than an adjacent single-family home. Its site is walking distance to high-quality transit, jobs and retail. It would provide housing (without any city subsidy) for new neighbors in the moderate, low and very-low income brackets-- populations for which Palo Alto has said it wants to find ways to build for. And it is in the neighborhood with many existing multifamily residences, two of which are less than a block from the Wellesley site.     If the city has issues with particular aspects of the proposed project, let’s discuss these aspects, and find ways to modify the project while keeping rents affordable. Instead, it appears that the city wants to summarily ban such projects without any discussion of their merits.     Cutting R1 out of the PHZ all but freezes in amber 87% of Palo Alto land. Yet, by Palo Alto’s own admission it is already falling more than 900 units short of its own Comp Plan’s housing production goals of approving 266 new units per year. And in the next RHNA cycle, the state has mandated that Palo Alto zone for and build more than 6,000 units. If neighborhood-appropriate projects are outlawed in 87% of the city, then where will they all go?    33 Lastly, it has never been made clear what is so scary or offensive about multifamily residential homes for very-low, low and moderate income earners. These are the community members who take our order at Cal Ave restaurants, who assist us when we want to buy a product and who teach our children. These are the veterans, the ones who served our Country and need to live close to healthcare, job retraining and are owed the basic right of housing security. What is so wrong with them also being our neighbor? What is so wrong with a height- appropriate apartment building, optimized for affordability, in a neighborhood with 30 existing apartment buildings. Why is the Wellesley project so scary that it justifies banning multifamily and missing middle housing being built in 87% of Palo Alto?    We hope you will answer these questions in this hearing.     Sincerely,  Cynthia Gildea  Cato Investments, LLC        34 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 1:52 PM To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:PHZ/Housing -- NO MORE OFFICES CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We have absolutely NO need -- NONE -- to incorporate office space into housing projects when there's a glut of office vacancies making front- page news AND when we're over-run 4:1 by commuters who cost US money and inconvenience in crowded roads, lack of parking, personal and city costs to administer parking programs when the city STILL can't get it together to count available spaces in garages. Additionally, this congestion hurts our struggling retailers and costs the city needed sales tax revenues. Stop pandering to developers and landlords who under-park to increase their profits by increasing density at our expense while failing to build real BMR housing. We don't need more gentrification and market-rate housing. We don't need them chasing out retailers. Stop pandering to paid lobbyists from PAF, YIMBY/Peninsula For Everyone who are gentrifying minority neighborhoods out of existence while hypocritically playing the "racism" card with their ugly posters and lies that have been their hallmark for TOO many years. high-Level Points for Council Session on PHZ for April 12, 2021 35  PCs (planned communities) were a disaster in Palo Alto’s past: o public benefits were generally negligible or non-existent o projects were invariably over-sized, creating traffic, density, and often parking problems o the monetary value of the slim public benefits obtained were never evaluated against the huge gains earned by the developers  Renaming PCs as PHZs (Planned Home Zoning) doesn’t solve these problems at all: o the 20% promised inclusionary benefits is not necessarily worth more than the current 15% requirement because developers can choose what to count to meet the 20% goal o PHZs will not necessarily produce any housing below 50% AMI, which is what we need most o PHZs may produce more new jobs than housing because staff are claiming new offices have far fewer workers than industry norms o PHZs will likely produce only small units for single individuals and not serve families  The community wants true below-market-rate housing o The greatest need is for below 50% AMI o We need both family and single-occupancy units o New units need parkland, shared open space, and private open space  We must protect existing residents too: o Rule out any upzoning of R-1, RE, RMD, R-2, and RM-20 to high density o Preserve all existing 35 foot height protections for new projects near residential zones o Extend to all residential uses citywide the same 35 foot height protection to avoid discriminating against residents in higher-density and mixed-use buildings  100% affordable housing creation is being undercut by the PHZ: o A PHZ project is asking for 2.55 FAR whereas our AH (100% Affordable Housing) district allows only 2.40 FAR o A PHZ project can be 50% office space if the residential units are small vs. just 0.40 FAR of commercial space for an AH project o Favoring PHZ over AH makes it harder for 100% affordable housing projects to acquire land o We should turn this completely around: PHZ should only allow a fraction of what AH is allowed  The City Council is focused on the wrong strategy: o Incentivizing developers will never provide the affordable housing needed and only put us further behind o Instead, direct staff to focus on 100% affordable housing o Help affordable housing providers seek funding being offered by Google, Facebook, and others o Rezone office to residential use 36 Resources: Staff Report for Monday, April 12, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/current-year/2021/id-11876.pdf Agenda for Monday, April 12, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/04-12-21-ccm-agenda.pdf Palo Alto Weekly article about the PHZ on April 7, 2021: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/04/07/facing-concerns-from-college- terrace-city-looks-to-reassert-commitment-to-single-family-housing-zones Jo Ann Mandinach Palo Alto, CA 94301 37 Baumb, Nelly From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 10:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,      I am delighted that the Council will be looking into clarifying the location criteria regarding the PHZ zoning.  It is vital that  the code be updated to reflect the original expectation that applications would be filed in commercial zones, not in low‐ density residential areas.  In particular I hope that the Council will adopt the staff recommendation that "PHZ  applications be considered for all commercial, industrial zoning, and multifamily districts”.      I would ask, however, that the definition of multifamily districts in this instance be clarified to indicate that  this does not include RMD and R‐2 zones. While a developer might insist that these 2‐unit‐per‐parcel zones  are “multifamily”, they are typically contiguous with R‐1 districts and are much closer to those in texture and  feel.      As a long‐time resident of the RMD portion of College Terrace, I fear that if this potential loophole is not  closed, we may again find ourselves facing applications for unsuitable projects in the lower quarter of our  neighborhood.  The meaning of multifamily districts in this instance should be clearly restricted to R‐20, R‐30,  and R‐40 zones.     Thank you for your consideration.     Regards,    Pria Graves    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 11:05 AM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Wong, Tim Subject:Comments on Tonight's Agenda - PHZ and Fees Attachments:PHZ_April 2021 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  April 12, 2020 Re: (Agenda Item #11) Update on the City's Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) and (Agenda Item #10) Public Hearing: Park, Community Center, Library Impact Fee Study   Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members,   Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on the intersection of housing, transportation, and climate change. We have members in every neighborhood and strive to make Palo Alto a more inclusive, affordable, and climate positive place for residents at all income levels. We are writing to oppose the new restrictions to multi-family housing development that City Council will discuss at the April 12th meeting. By disproportionately raising fees on multi-family housing and limiting the use of the Planned Home Zone (PHZ) in R-1 lots, Palo Alto will make it virtually impossible to build a wider range of housing options to meet our housing needs. Given state mandates and city priorities, this Council should be considering how to make PHZ more desirable and feasible to ensure the development of needed new homes.   The change to the PHZ, prohibiting the use on R-1 lots, is wrongheaded and inappropriate. The PHZ never mentioned exemptions for single family lots and by changing this policy midstream to meet the requests of one neighborhood, the City Council will demonstrate a bad faith effort that blocks new, affordable housing. Further, by limiting the ability to use this important tool across the city, Palo Alto will make it impossible to equitably zone for new housing in every neighborhood.  This is the wrong time to constrict future housing proposals and is not in line with the mandate of “housing for social and economic balance”. Last week the council appointed a Housing Element Working Group and tonight will approve a Housing Element consultant team. Taking a potential needed housing tool off the table before the process of developing a new Housing Element even begins sends a signal to HCD and ABAG that Palo Alto does not intend to undertake the Housing Element update in good faith exploring what alternative sites and policies are needed to meet housing goals. Palo Altans have consistently demanded the prioritization of climate change action. The single most impactful way to reduce our GHG emissions in Palo Alto now and in the future is to build more infill housing. Unless we begin to replace some of the inefficient, aging housing stock we have with new, dense homes, we will continue to fail future generations. Thank you. Gail Price, President of Palo Alto Forward   April 12, 2020 Re: (Agenda Item #11) Update on the City's Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) and (Agenda Item #10) Public Hearing: Park, Community Center, Library Impact Fee Study Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on the intersection of housing, transportation, and climate change. We have members in every neighborhood and strive to make Palo Alto a more inclusive, affordable, and climate positive place for residents at all income levels. We are writing to oppose the new restrictions to multi-family housing development that City Council will discuss at the April 12th meeting. By disproportionately raising fees on multi-family housing and limiting the use of the Planned Home Zone (PHZ) in R-1 lots, Palo Alto will make it virtually impossible to build a wider range of housing options to meet our housing needs. Given state mandates and city priorities, this Council should be considering how to make PHZ more desirable and feasible to ensure the development of needed new homes. The change to the PHZ, prohibiting the use on R-1 lots, is wrongheaded and inappropriate. The PHZ never mentioned exemptions for single family lots and by changing this policy midstream to meet the requests of one neighborhood, the City Council will demonstrate a bad faith effort that blocks new, affordable housing. Further, by limiting the ability to use this important tool across the city, Palo Alto will make it impossible to equitably zone for new housing in every neighborhood. This is the wrong time to constrict future housing proposals and is not in line with the mandate of “housing for social and economic balance”. Last week the council appointed a Housing Element Working Group and tonight will approve a Housing Element consultant team. Taking a potential needed housing tool off the table before the process of developing a new Housing Element even begins sends a signal to HCD and ABAG that Palo Alto does not intend to undertake the Housing Element update in good faith exploring what alternative sites and policies are needed to meet housing goals. Palo Altans have consistently demanded the prioritization of climate change action.The single most impactful way to reduce our GHG emissions in Palo Alto now and in the future is to build more infill housing.Unless we begin to replace some of the inefficient, aging housing stock we have with new, dense homes, we will continue to fail future generations. Thank you. Gail Price, President of Palo Alto Forward 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Kelsey <barbara.kelsey@sierraclub.org> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 7:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gladwyn d'Souza Subject:Sierra Club comment letter: Request to exclude lands East of Highway 101 from Planned Housing Zone eligibility Attachments:April 12, 2021 Comment Letter City of Palo Alto re- Planned Housing Zone projects.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   April 12, 2021    Mayor DuBois and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto, California    The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter is greatly concerned about the threat of sea level rise (SLR) and the impacts of development in proximity to the Bay and its natural resources. Decisions made now not only will shape the future shoreline of the Bay and the viability of our valued ecosystems, but will define what sea level rise adaptation approaches are - and are not - possible for decades to come.  As you consider adjustments to the Planned Housing Zone (PHZ), we encourage you to specifically exclude lands east of Highway 101 from eligibility for PHZ applications. Please see our full comment letter attached.    Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.    Sincerely,  Gladwyn D’Souza Co-Chair Conservation Committee  Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter    sent by:  Barbara Kelsey  she/her/hers  Chapter Coordinator  Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter  3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Suite 204  Palo Alto, CA 94303  barbara.kelsey@sierraclub.org    Hours: Monday-Thursday, 9:30 am to 2:00 pm  Friday, 9:30 to 11:30 am    Please note that our Chapter office in  Palo Alto is closed until at least  July 4, 2021 so email is the best  way to contact us. Thank you.    sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES April 12, 2021 Mayor DuBois and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto Via email: Tom.DuBois@cityofpaloalto.org city.council@cityofpaloalto.org RE: Request to exclude lands East of Highway 101 from Planned Housing Zone eligibility Dear Mayor DuBois and Members of the City Council, The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter is greatly concerned about the threat of sea level rise (SLR) and the impacts of development in proximity to the Bay and its natural resources. Decisions made now not only will shape the future shoreline of the Bay and the viability of our valued ecosystems, but will define what sea level rise adaptation approaches are - and are not - possible for decades to come. As you consider adjustments to the Planned Housing Zone (PHZ), we encourage you to specifically exclude lands east of Highway 101 from eligibility for PHZ applications. Vulnerability to sea level rise and the stated policies in Palo Alto’s Baylands Master Plan make tall, dense housing inappropriate for that land area. We appreciate Palo Alto’s leadership among peninsula cities in committing to a localized sea level rise vulnerability assessment, adaptation planning, and exploration of opportunities for nature-based solutions to support climate change resilience. Consistent with the City Council’s adopted priority of Climate Change Protection and Adaptation, this forward-thinking approach to climate change should be reflected in all the City’s work, including land use policy. Indeed, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy L-2.12 states that the City will “Ensure that future development addresses potential risks from climate change and sea level rise.” High Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise In April 2020, California’s Ocean Protection Council in the State Department of Natural Resources published Principles for Aligned State Action urging statewide policy makers to use a minimum baseline projection of 3.5 feet of SLR by the year 2050 for planning, decision-making, project design and implementation of sea level rise resilience strategies. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Adapting to Rising Tides mapping tool indicates that even 24 inches of SLR combined with king tide will inundate the vast majority of Palo Alto’s land area east of Hwy 101. sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 The combined SLR threat of impacts from flooding and associated groundwater rise in the east of 101 area make it incompatible with housing, and particularly inappropriate for vulnerable populations. Furthermore, significant new development, and especially the introduction of residential use in the area, will likely increase future pressure to construct hard fortification against sea level rise (sea walls and tall vertical levees), requiring repeated, costly public investment and forestalling opportunities for more sustainable strategies including nature-based resilience and habitat migration. Baylands Master Plan Palo Alto’s Baylands Master Plan encompasses the entire area east of Highway 101 and is incorporated by reference in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure “compatibility with the special aesthetic qualities and environmental conditions unique to the Baylands,” the Master Plan’s site and design principles and guidelines are applicable not just to the Baylands, but also to the service and commercial areas within the Plan’s boundary. Both generally and through specific policies, the Baylands Master Plan calls for low-profile structures (including levee modifications), use of Palo Alto Nature Preserve Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for private lands, limited vehicle circulation, and strong standards of low external glare night lighting. High density housing is simply not compatible with those constraints. We are very appreciative of Palo Alto’s work toward sea level rise resilience for both our community and natural ecosystems and look forward to assisting the City in developing a strong and effective SLR Adaptation Plan. Inviting new development, and particularly housing, in the highly vulnerable areas east of Hwy 101 is a step in the wrong direction. We urge you to address this incompatibility as you consider adjustments to the Planned Housing Zone criteria. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Gladwyn D’Souza Co-Chair Conservation Committee Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 8:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: SV@Home Comment on Item 11: Update on the City’s Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) Attachments:SVH letter RE Item 11 - PHZ.pdf     Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Rick Gosalvez <rick@siliconvalleyathome.org>   Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 4:30 PM  To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison  <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia  <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: David Meyer <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tanner, Rachael  <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: SV@Home Comment on Item 11: Update on the City’s Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning ‐ PHZ)    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone, and Tanaka:    RE: Item 11 – Update on the City’s Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning ‐ PHZ)    Last year, SV@Home was encouraged that Palo Alto adopted a Planned Home Zone (PHZ) policy to encourage residential  development and help the city meet its housing and affordable housing goals. SV@Home and its members have been  generally supportive of the City’s PHZ efforts to enable housing; however, despite three good faith proposals from  developers to use the policy to bring 593 new homes to the city as well as three additional prescreening applications for  an additional 125 units, we are disappointed that the Council has not found a way forward for any of these proposals.     As noted on page 3 of the staff report, “The [current] application process is too long for many developers, carries a fair  amount of risk, and lacks predictability.” This uncertainty proves challenging for developers to have confidence that the  process works as intended and although an additional 350 units are being discussed, developers are now choosing to sit  5 on the sidelines or convert their mixed‐use proposals into office‐only developments, further widening the City’s jobs‐ housing imbalance and putting Palo Alto’s own Comprehensive Plan housing goals further out of reach.     Now, despite these challenges, the Council is considering altering the policy to place further restrictions on where new  homes can be built in Palo Alto. As it reviews the PHZ process, we urge the Council to explore how to make the policy  more likely to result in much‐needed residential development, not less. Given the policy’s strong affordability  requirements, every delayed or rejected proposal is only delaying or rejecting desperately‐needed deed‐restricted  affordable housing, which the city cannot afford to pass up. Palo Alto should be taking steps to make much‐needed  housing development easier, not more difficult.    Sincerely,  Rick Gosalvez  c/o David Meyer, Director of Strategic Initiatives    Rick Gosalvez  |  408.840.3169  Housing Development Senior Assoc.  350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110      350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL April 8, 2021 Mayor DuBois and City Councilmembers City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton St Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone, and Tanaka: RE: Item 11 – Update on the City’s Planned Community (Planned Home Zoning - PHZ) Last year, SV@Home was encouraged that Palo Alto adopted a Planned Home Zone (PHZ) policy to encourage residential development and help the city meet its housing and affordable housing goals. SV@Home and its members have been generally supportive of the City’s PHZ efforts to enable housing; however, despite three good faith proposals from developers to use the policy to bring 593 new homes to the city as well as three additional prescreening applications for an additional 125 units, we are disappointed that the Council has not found a way forward for any of these proposals. As noted on page 3 of the staff report, “The [current] application process is too long for many developers, carries a fair amount of risk, and lacks predictability.” This uncertainty proves challenging for developers to have confidence that the process works as intended and although an additional 350 units are being discussed, developers are now choosing to sit on the sidelines or convert their mixed-use proposals into office-only developments, further widening the City’s jobs-housing imbalance and putting Palo Alto’s own Comprehensive Plan housing goals further out of reach. Now, despite these challenges, the Council is considering altering the policy to place further restrictions on where new homes can be built in Palo Alto. As it reviews the PHZ process, we urge the Council to explore how to make the policy more likely to result in much-needed residential development, not less. Given the policy’s strong affordability requirements, every delayed or rejected proposal is only delaying or rejecting desperately-needed deed- restricted affordable housing, which the city cannot afford to pass up. Palo Alto should be taking steps to make much-needed housing development easier, not more difficult. Sincerely, David K Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives Board of Directors Kevin Zwick, Chair United Way Bay Area Gina Dalma, Vice Chair Silicon Valley Community Foundation Candice Gonzalez, Secretary Sand Hill Property Company Andrea Osgood, Treasurer Eden Housing Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern CA Ron Gonzales Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Janice Jensen Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Janikke Klem Jan LIndenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group STAFF Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 9:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:Housing ... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  1. I am deeply concerned at the "process" by which the Housing Element Working Group was selected at the City Council meeting on April 5. Although it did not technically violate the Brown Act, in real life, three members of the council took it on themselves, without full council knowledge or approval, to preselect a slate of candidates. I suspect they did so in full confidence that at least one more member of the council would endorse their choices. In so doing, they usurped any real discussion of how to choose from among the 80 citizens who volunteered to serve. Whatever you call it, it is not open government. 2. I strongly oppose approval of what are currently Agenda Items 10 and 11 for your meeting on April 12. Painful as it is to admit, much as we may want to believe Palo Alto is an open and welcoming community, locking in R-1 zoning and - most incredibly - making it more expensive to build multi-unit buildings are part of a process whose effects have been both exclusionary and racist throughout America's history. I am saddened to believe that this is what most people in Palo Alto want: I've got mine, I personally am not racist, end of discussion. Ellen Smith 1469 Dana Ave. 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Lee Merkle-Raymond <lee.merkle.raymond@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lee Merkle-Personal Subject:Housing Topics on April 12: permit apartments near transit CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,   Please ensure that any changes to Zoning and permitting encourage more apartments near high transit areas.  If there  are apartments added, there should be no disproportionate fees assessed on apartment buildings, and even discounts  on buildings that exceed the required percentage of low income housing units.      Palo alto zoning should have a plan that does not get changed by each developer:  housing density along transit lines  and within a 0.5 mile radius of a transit center.  San Antonio, El Camino, Alma should all have housing density, and the  area near CalTrain should increase density.  Ensure that these apartments/townhomes include low income units so Palo  Alto can have workers who live in the community without long commutes.    Do not make the Planned Home Zones more exclusive.  These planned areas need higher density, low income and  affordable units, with adequate parking.      Thank you,  Lee Merkle‐Raymond  Heather Lane  Palo Alto, CA  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 1:06 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Greer Stone; Cormack, Alison; Pat Burt; Greg Tanaka; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Rebecca Eisenberg; Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Human Relations Commission; Jethroe Moore; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuck jagoda; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia Subject:Viewpoints It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.           FYI: Please consider reading the below linked to item before voting on action item # 11 on tomorrow’s April 12, city  council agenda...re possible changes to —planning home zoning ....consider racist implications and inability to meet Palo  Alto’s housing ‐low and very low income state mandates .....  Thanks, Aram      ewpoints It’s Time to End Single‐Family Zoning https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrea Allais <allais.andrea@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Planned Home Zoning in R-1 zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council of Palo Alto,  We would like to express our support for the Planned Home Zoning program, in its widest possible application, including  in R‐1 zones. Two years ago, my wife and I both found a great job, and moved to Palo Alto. We live in one of the few  apartment buildings in Professorville: our home would not be permitted under current zoning law. We are deeply  grateful that we can live in Palo Alto, and we want to extend the same opportunity to all the people who want to live  here but can't find a home.     Andrea Allais  Pamela Milani      5 Baumb, Nelly From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 10:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 12 Agenda Item 11: Planned Home Zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois, Vice Mayor Burt and Members of the City Council, I disagree with several of the statements Cato Investments made in their letter to you regarding Planned Home Zoning. To say "R1 zones will be cut out of the ordinance" is rather misleading, because they never were really in it. I and others could not think of any PC in Palo Alto history that rezoned R1. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the City is proposing to allow such rezoning at 2951 El Camino Real. Also, the examples Cato gives of other cities allowing (Berkeley) or thinking of allowing (South San Francisco and San Jose) fourplexes argue against them, because they are not proposing putting just four units on each parcel. In other words, Cato didn't name any city doing what it wants from Palo Alto. There is also no evidence that R1 zones in Palo Alto were exclusionary. In fact, at least two areas of R1 in Palo Alto (Fife Avenue and North Ventura) were historically occupied by African-Americans. So if R1 was created to keep them out, it utterly failed. The true exclusionary forces were realtors, home sellers, banks, and (frankly) many developers. I don’t think 87% of Palo Alto is actually zoned R1. According to the Comp Plan Housing Element, the city encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, one–third of which is open space. When developers try to rewrite the facts, be sure you double-check those facts. Thank you, Sheri Furman 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Lee Merkle-Raymond <lee.merkle.raymond@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 7:35 AM To:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office Cc:Council, City; leemerkleraymond@gmail.com Subject:Re: Housing Topics on April 12: permit apartments near transit Hi Rita,  I can do a Zoom call with Mr Tanaka at 2pm today. Please confirm and send a Zoom link.     Thank you,   Lee  Email from my iPhone       On Apr 10, 2021, at 7:55 AM, Rita Abdel‐Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office  <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> wrote:    Dear Lee,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours,  which are held every Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute  meeting this Sunday, April 11th between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite  containing details such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka       Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:02 PM, Lee Merkle‐Raymond <lee.merkle.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     7 Dear City Council,   Please ensure that any changes to Zoning and permitting encourage more apartments near high transit  areas.  If there are apartments added, there should be no disproportionate fees assessed on apartment  buildings, and even discounts on buildings that exceed the required percentage of low income housing  units.       Palo alto zoning should have a plan that does not get changed by each developer:  housing density  along transit lines and within a 0.5 mile radius of a transit center.  San Antonio, El Camino, Alma should  all have housing density, and the area near CalTrain should increase density.  Ensure that these  apartments/townhomes include low income units so Palo Alto can have workers who live in the  community without long commutes.     Do not make the Planned Home Zones more exclusive.  These planned areas need higher density, low  income and affordable units, with adequate parking.       Thank you,   Lee Merkle‐Raymond   Heather Lane   Palo Alto, CA     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:56 AM To:margaret_rosenbloom@hotmail.com; Council, City Subject:Re: April 12 Council Meeting: Agenda Items #10 & 11 Hello Margaret,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute meeting this Sunday, April 11th  between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:54 PM, Margaret Rosenbloom <margaret_rosenbloom@hotmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   I am disturbed to hear the Council is considering 2 items that will make it increasingly difficult for Palo Alto to make any  progress in addressing its jobs/housing imbalance problem.       Lack of affordable housing is a key element driving down the City’s ability to meet its goals of reducing CO2 emissions  as it forces more and more of its workforce into long commutes and creates parking problems here in Palo Alto.  We  should be ENCOURAGING development of Apartment buildings here, not making it more difficult and expensive     Agenda Item 10 will  disproportionately increase fees on apartment buildings, making their development more  expensive.  Vote NO     Agenda Item #11 will make Planned Home Zones more exclusive, limiting available space for building the needed  affordable apartments.;  Vote NO      2 Both of these measures will make it even more difficult for City of Palo Alto to meet our climate change and  affordability goals.       Margaret Rosenbloom     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 9:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed building at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley St CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Council,    I’m writing to tell you that I don’t support using the Planned Housing Zone in areas that are designated as R‐1 or are not  within .5 miles of a train station.    Cato Investments‘ proposal to build apartments at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley St in College Terrace is too dense for that  specific location. It is also too tall. It would be a 3 story apartment building inside a predominantly 1 and 2 story  neighborhood.    It asks for a reduced amount of off‐street parking in a neighborhood that already uses parking permits in order to have  adequate parking for existing residents and visitors.    The proposed units are all small studio and 1 bedroom units. Housing units targeted for teachers and other city  employees should be large enough for families, especially if it would replace existing multi‐family units.    There is very little outdoor space proposed for tenants to use and the balconies are tiny.    I hope we can attract site‐appropriate, more reasonably priced and more appropriately sized units that take parking and  outdoor space needs into account.    Thank you,  Kim Lemmer  2282 Amherst Street  Palo Alto CA 94306  (650) 213‐6836  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 5:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, I was encouraged when I heard you were going to reduce the size of the R-1 overlay in Palo Alto. 87% is so much space that we will never be able to build the affordable housing that we desperately need. Unless we can change some of the R-1 area to denser housing, Palo Alto is not going to be able to meet the needs of our community. We've priced out almost all of our workers (teachers, civil servants, hospitality workers, fire fighters...) Agenda Item #10 We definitely should not disproportionately increase fees on apartment buildings, making affordability more difficult to achieve. Agenda Item #11 We should not make the Planned Home Zones more exclusive. We have to make space for apartments if we want to meet our climate change and affordability goals. As I said in my last letter to Council, if not now, when. You can't keep saying you're in favor of affordable housing and a more diverse population in Palo Alto and then keep shooting down every project saying it is "too big for the neighborhood" or it doesn't "fit the neighborhood." My first house in San Mateo was in a neighborhood that had single family houses and tri-plexes and duplexes. We had Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and whites all living next to each other. We had professionals and secretaries, savings and loan officers and blue collar workers. Our kids played together, went to school together, and we all got along. I wish we could have neighborhoods like this in Palo Alto. Personally, I'd rather have a nicely designed duplex or quadraplex in my neighborhood rather than another gigantic mini mansion. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson Midtown 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:No exceptions to current zoning rules to developers, for Office and above market rate and at market rate housing construction projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:    Having read the letter that Sheri Furman and Rebecca Sanders sent to you earlier in relation to the  project at 2951 that the city council considered and if I remember right is still considering ‐  decision not cast in concrete, yet, I have decided to copy parts of theri letter that summarizes the  issues in my own letter to you.  Enough cannot be said about the violations of the existing code  that is being contemplated for this project and other such projects in our city.     Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) fully supports truly affordable housing, but 2951 El Camino Real is  not  an example of how to achieve it. This complex’s height, density and massing:  A. Cover 5 separate parcels in North Ventura  B. Violate current zoning Laws  C. Are out of proportion to the character of the adjacent single‐family neighborhood  D. Exceeds what the City’s own development tools to incentivize housing allow (namely HIP and  PHZ)  The Council should say NO to 2951 because it:  1. Violates the law of the City.  2. Encourages other developers to do the same.  3. Encourages other developers to wait and see what concessions they might get from the city;  developer giveaways actually disincentivize other developers to build now.  4. Makes developers unequal before the law. “Compadres” and “Olive Garden” complied, but  2951  doesn’t want to.  5. Victimizes homeowners and renters. Anyone who lives within 150 feet of a commercial or  mixed‐  use zone anywhere in the City could confront new height and massing.  6. Drives up the price of commercial/mixed‐use land because giveaways add value to the land.  7. Higher prices make it harder for non‐profits like Alta Housing to buy land. It will make it harder  for  the City to create affordable housing, as is being proposed by many residents. What if we want  to issue bonds or use a proposed new business tax to build BMR housing and address the  camper crisis? The value of the UPZONED land will make it very hard for beneficial builders to  2 acquire land.  8. Steady up‐zoning of properties along El Camino Real disproportionately affects neighborhoods  nestled behind El Camino Real in South Palo Alto. Upzoning is not allowed in other  neighborhoods, why in these neighborhoods?  9. The City hands the developer millions of dollars in value in exchange for a handful of BMR units  which the developer would have had to provide anyway (the ones we need) and more at market  and above market rate housing (which would be nice, but we don’t need.) There is no value to  the city in this bargain.  10. Municipalities are obligated to look after the long‐term health, diversity and viability of its  community; therefore, providing developers with massive giveaways is not compatible with  sustaining a robust civic life nor solving the problem at hand, the need for more affordable  housing.  11. Furthermore, the housing crisis was not caused by the residents, but by the previous Council  Members and City Manager who encouraged runaway office development as a source of funds  for the city. Palo Alto now suffers from a 3‐1 jobs‐to‐housing imbalance, the highest housing  costs in the land, and high property values. 2951 not only does not abide by our laws but it  makes our housing crisis worse.    Here are some of the specific ways 2951 ECR violates the City’s Zoning Code including HIP and PHZ  tools:   Upzones R‐1 to Dense PC  ○ Violates our Comprehensive Plan to change zoning in this manner  ○ Violates the NVCAP consensus to preserve or only slightly upzone R‐1   Exceeds 35 ft. Height Limit within 150 Ft. of Low‐Density Residential  ○ Violates §18.13.150(b) for PCs  ○ Violates the NVCAP consensus to retain the 35 Ō. transiƟon zone   Exceeds Other Height Limits (proposes 58 ft. maximum)  ○ Violates CS Zone general 50 foot height limit per §18.16.060(b)  ○ Violates R‐1 Zone 30 foot height limit per §18.12.040(a)   Exceeds Allowed Floor Area (proposes 2.55 FAR)  ○ CS Zone allows 1.0 FAR per §18.16.060(b)  ○ R‐1 Zone allows 0.43 FAR per §18.12.040(a) for the sites in the project   Exceeds Allowed Footprint (proposes 63%)  ○ CS Zone allows 50% per §18.16.060(b)  ○ R‐1 Zone allows 35% for multistory homes per §18.12.040(a)   Eliminates Current Ban on Underground Garages in R‐1 per §18.12.060(e)    We respectfully request that Council insist that developers adhere to the zoning codes and make  use of  the tools that the city has provided to incentivize housing development.    Even though the letter centers on the project at 2951 ECR, the points raised are of extreme  relevance to many other projects that are being submitted to the city at breakneck speed.  It is as  3 though developers see a bonanza of exceptions that they can extract from the city to make a  killing.  Building office spaces is the last thing we need. Building even a single one only makes the  jobs/housing imbalance worse. The real need for BMR and low cost housing is getting swept aside  under the pretext of more housing ‐ but what is being pushed is at market or luxury apartments,  etc.  Is there any justification for this kind of switch‐a‐roo or priorities, except lining the pockets of  developers ?  The following is a nice summary of what's on the city's books at the present time  and I would urge the City Council to stick with them ‐ no exceptions please.  As the list below  points out, housing needs for at market and above market rates have been satisfied plenty  enough. What's conspicuously missing is the housing number for the BMR and low cost ‐ both  desperately needed. The council should focus on these and on these only.    Thank you.    Ranganath      Current Zoning Situation:   Currently the city has a zoning code which is the law of the city.   Recently the redevelopment of the old Compadres site and the old Olive Garden site were  approved  under the current zoning tools.   The City has on its books the Housing Incentive Program which relaxes the building code to  incentivize developers to build housing.   Recently 788 San Antonio was approved under the HIP with a few concessions.   Additionally, last year the city brought back the controversial PC zoning (Planned Community  Zoning)  under a new name Planned Housing Zone.   Even with all zoning for housing concessions, 2951 wants even more, ushering in a floodgate of  developers watching, waiting and wanting “more.”   If developers believe Council is soft on code enforcement, developers will continue to waste  Staff,  Council and Commission time on projects that should never be entertained in the first place.  Context ‐ RHNA Goals:  Palo Alto has met or is close to meeting its RHNA allocation goals for market rate and above  market  rate housing for this last 8 year cycle. (We only have confirmed data from RHNA up through 2018  so  estimates based on city data have us at 117% of our goal.) Where we are woefully behind is the  production of Below Market Rate housing.  Every 8 years, ABAG‐‐working with the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC)‐‐distributes a  share of  the region’s housing need (RHNA) to cities throughout the Bay Area. This triggers the production  of a  4 new Housing Element for our Comprehensive Plan which brings together city staff and community  members to review possible parcels and their zoning to make sure it’s possible to meet our  allocation.  The next housing work plan process begins in 2021 and will be seeking applicants.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 2:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of skateboard park investment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council: I've done a bit of research on the skateboard issue and published my findings at my blog, Plastic Alto. FYI. To wit: Palo Alto City Council has agendized for next week, Monday, April 12, a discussion of skateboarding. There is also a memo written by members Alison Cormack and Greg Tanaka on the topic. What should we do with the Greer Park skateboard element, which is abandoned? Should we push, perhaps as a public-private-partnership for a state-of-the-art (or usable) skate park, like kids enjoy nearby in Menlo Park, Fremont, Newark, San Jose? Palo Alto built an early public park but no one uses it now for sundry reasons. The graffiti adds a roux to the scene but is evidence that Community Services has given up here. Kieran, a 16 year old Paly student and neighbor, agreed to meet me at Greer yesterday to teach me about his world, to help me try to impact the result of these discussions. He said he had not been to the park in eight years. He had gone to Burgess the day before. He has gone as far as Oregon to skate new parks (with his family, if I got this correct — he and friends with cars go to Bay Area and south bay parks frequently, it seems). Kieran is a talented skater, who has won prizes in competitions. Maybe he would go pro after high school*, although both his dad and uncle are Stanford professors and scientists. His uncle Mark played tennis for Stanford (and Gunn – -I knew him, slightly, since grade school). Ironically, a skater like Kieran approaches Palo Alto’s publicly-financed skate park like street skaters approach the built environment: what can we do here? Our park is not suitable for skating per se but you can use your head — if you are someone who is always looking to make do or improvise to turn the odd bench, curb, stairs or rail into your domain — to find some use for it. Kieran is not political so this might be his only input on this issue. His parents had opinions on the topic – dad had signed the petition — and sent me some links but didn’t say whether they would chime in on April 12 or continue to advocate. I want Palo Alto to talk to and learn from the brightest and most interesting people on this topic and not just crank thru with a bureaucratic response. My ollies on this are: Cormack, mayor Tom Dubois, commissioners Keith Reckdahl, Jeff LaMere and David Moss, and activists Rebecca Eisenberg and Aram James (whose friend Jameel Douglas is a pro-level skater). I don’t know how to prioritize this compared to stopping Castilleja expansion, helping the homeless, building a police station, preventing police dogs from biting the innocent or 10 other things I have had opinions on. But I do think this is an opportunity to do right by a fairly substantial sub-community, albeit a special interest. 2 At least two famous skaters are also great musicians: Steve Caballero of Soda and other bands; Tommy Guerrero. Jon Wurster of Superchunk published a childhood photo of himself on a board. Jazz and improv musician Philip Greenlief played in my series at Palo Alto Art center, skates and even wrote a letter to Berkeley City Council, who are responding to a similar opportunity. Gunn graduate Colt Cannon is also a known skater. Here are two short clips of Kieran teaching me his skills: (video) (video) If Greer were better designed or upgraded, Kieran would catch some air and continue or flow to more features and tricks, and not end up in the grass. The skateboard initiative points out that contemporary parks would accomodate beginners more than Greer’s archaic and disused feature does or could or did. You can view the clips at Plastic Alto, "Fieldwork regarding the skate park". or: Fieldwork regarding the skate park initiative in Palo Alto     Fieldwork regarding the skate park initiative in Palo Alto Palo Alto City Council has agendized for next week, Monday, April 12, a discussion of skateboarding. There is al...    Mark Weiss in Palo Alto from the clay wheels generation PS Kieran's mom contacted me shortly after I published this essay to say that her son is not actually contemplating a career in skating, beyond imagining being a lifelong skater. If Council member Tanaka, beyond having unusually good balance for a middle-aged man knows any skateboard tricks, like the "ollie", he could reveal such...and we will take his word on it. I actually have a clip of him riding his board down the hallway at Cubberley...I mean beyond 360 effects on his GoPro camera...   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on Policy and Services Item 3 (IPA Referral) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers of the Policy and Services Committee,    I support restoring the process of referring internal complaints to the Independent Police Auditor. The 2019 decision to  remove it from the IPA contract was a mistake, especially when there was news over a complaint just a few months  beforehand. The danger of keeping things hidden is that there is less pressure for the issues to be addressed, and  policing has had a long history of brushing things off and misconduct spreading in a department. Officers are given  unique powers in their duty to enforce the law and therefore should be held to a higher standard, otherwise the law  may not be applied fairly and would instead breed discontent. And for a city with many recent news stories about the  department, it would be best to err on the side of transparency.    Transparency and policies means nothing if there isn't accountability and enforcement. I ask the committee to ensure  that complaints and concerns are properly followed up so that corrective measures can be done swiftly and  comprehensively. This is especially important with a Policy Manual that still feels generic, what with the  "[Department/Office]" references everywhere. For all the talk around criminals within the community, we need to make  sure our own law enforcement officers are in order first.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Betty Howell <anderwell2@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Sustainable/Climate Action Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,   Thank you for concern for actions that can help slow climate change and improve life for years in Palo Alto.  I'm asking  that you consider:  1. Planting more trees as they absorb Carbon Dioxide and make our city beautiful  2. Incentivizing purchase of zero emissions vehicles  3. Lift some R‐1 zoning near public transit and build more affordable housing, as the state has mandated we must.    Thank you for your consideration,  Betty Howell  850 Webster #639  Palo Alto . 94301  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Rosenbloom <margaret_rosenbloom@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:April 19 meeting - Review of S/CAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am writing to express strong support for the 80 x 30 climate goals set 5 years ago and to ask the Council to continue to  support this critical effort to mitigate the inexorable effects of climate change.    Towards this end I propose the City puts more resources into the effort to review and approve the necessary changes,  whether they be installation of EV charging stations, homeowners converting from gas to electric, or developers wanting  to provide multi unit housing in current R‐1 zones.    As an example, we have now been waiting for over 3 months for review and approval to install EV chargers in the  parking lots at First Presbyterian Church.  Fund more staff to review plans, lay out the requirements in unambiguous  language, provide prompt feedback if there is a problem in the plans. Make it a pleasure to deal with City Hall.    Margaret Rosenbloom  Cowper St  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Joe Margevicius <joe_margevicius@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 7:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Climate Change Initiative ... please fund CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council Members,    As a long‐time resident of Palo Alto, I am proud of the forward thinking the city has implemented over the  years.  These serve not just our community, but are examples for other cities to emulate.    The Climate Crisis Initiative with its 80% by 2030 mandate is an aggressive goal, but we should take it as a plan  for the next 9 years and beyond.  The things we do will help us all, and again, serve as good examples for other  communities.     I urge you to put the full force of economic and political investments into this initiative.      Thank you for all the good work you do for us !  ‐ Joe Margevicius  (resident since 1975)   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Hannah Bolinger <hbolinger@molliestones.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:59 AM To:Council, City Cc:mike stone Subject:California Avenue Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    April 14th, 2021 Dear City Council,      As the CEO of Mollie Stone’s Markets, I am writing in regard to the closure of California Avenue and ask that you  consider the perspective of our family‐owned grocery store while making your decision on whether to extend the  closure of this street. With California Avenue closed, we saw sales drop by approximately 20%, but sales returned to  normal during the winter’s shut‐down when the street was re‐opened. Now that the street is closed again, we see the  same pattern of reduced sales.      Many in the media will cite increased profits for grocery stores during this time, but they fail to consider limits on  customer capacity and the additional operating costs that stores like ours face during the pandemic. We have invested  heavily in our stores in an effort to protect our customers and employees. We have installed plexiglass barriers on our  check stands and supply gloves, masks, face shields, hand sanitizer, and disinfectants, the price of which have all  increased since last March. We have hired staff to conduct daily screenings of our employees for COVID‐19 symptoms,  disinfect grocery carts and hand baskets, and ensure that we are abiding by the requirement to limit the number of  customers in our stores. Additionally, we have helped our employees find vaccine appointments, and all employees that  were willing and able to be vaccinated have done so.     I would ask the council to consider not extending the closure of California Avenue. Vaccine eligibility will expand to all  Californians over the age of 16 on April 15th. Currently, the street will re‐open on May 31st at which time hundreds of  thousands of additional Californians* will have received their vaccine and a greater proportion of the population will feel  safe dining out. However, if our business were to experience the current level of reduced sales until September, I am  afraid that we may be forced to evaluate the operations at this store, which might include operating at a reduced  capacity, laying off employees, or in the worst‐case scenario, possibly closing the store. Taking the above into  consideration, I ask that the street closure is not extended past the May 31st date.      We have done our very best to protect our employees as well as the communities we serve during this public health  crisis. I ask that you please consider the additional operating costs that retailers are facing at this time. We take pride in  the service that we provide to our community, and in our ability to respond to the challenges of this pandemic.     Sincerely,  Mike Stone, CEO  (415) 716‐0178  mike.mollie@gmail.com     *Data from the Santa Clara County vaccine dashboard. SCC is currently vaccinating around 20,000 people every day.  https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard‐vaccine‐CAIR2.aspx  2         Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Louise Selchau-Hansen <lselchau@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:46 AM To:Council, City; Christian Selchau-Hansen Subject:Please keep parklets and street closures through summer 2021 and indefinitely!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,   I am a community member and have frequented the restaurants with their awesome on‐street and parklet dining since  it opened up. The roads being closed make the town SOOO much better! Our kids are 9 and 11 and they can walk up and  down the block while we're waiting for the food and we feel safe. It feels like Europe, to be honest. We have such  amazing weather here in California. WHY haven't these streets been closed to traffic all along? The ambiance and feeling  of community is just worlds better like this.    Please keep the parkets through the summer! Keep portions of University and Cal Ave closed! We love this new set up!    Cheers,  Lou & Christian Selchau‐Hansen  4 Baumb, Nelly From:senemerberk@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Nick Nance <nance.nick@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Sogoal Davani <sogoald@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Nick Nance <thenicknance@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  8 Baumb, Nelly From:Ashley Cupples-Lee <acuppleslee@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 4:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council:  I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets  CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Ashley Cupples‐Lee  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Barry Evans <brevanstx@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 4:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I LOVE dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    512‐666‐0322    Regards,  Barry Evans  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Melissa Hopkins <moplehopkins@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep Downtown Streets Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Esteemed Members of the Palo Alto City Council:    I like dining outdoors and the feeling on University & Ramona with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets  CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Sincerely‐  Melissa Hopkins  619 Guinda Street  415‐265‐4950 mobile    Sent from my iPhone  11 Baumb, Nelly From:Marilyn Delaplaine <vmdelaplaines@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  12 Baumb, Nelly From:Marilyn <vmdelaplaines@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Marilyn Delaplaine Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Jessica Schugardt <jessicaschugardt@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council:       I like dining outdoors on Ramona Street and University Ave with the closures, please count my vote for City Streets  CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Respectfully,     Jessica Overton  Midtown Palo Alto resident    Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Elina Smith-Leitch <elinalovesdogs@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Heather and Jared Smith-Leitch <smithleitch@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 12:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Pratik Mehta <mehtap3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Orit Yehezkel <orityeh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.   18 Baumb, Nelly From:Teela Pulliam <teelap@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:I vote to extend the Uplift Local through the end of 2021, and beyond CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I hereby vote to keep University Ave open for pedestrians and bicycles, so that we can enjoy the carefree and safe  environment through the Year 2021 and beyond.    Thank  You!    Teela Pulliam  Mountain View Resident and frequent visitor to University Ave.  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Tawni Escudero <tawniescudero@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council:  I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets  CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    ~ Tawni Escudero  20 Baumb, Nelly From:Dana Hiniker <dchiniker@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep downtown streets OPEN TO PEOPLE (not cars) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, and University Ave  with a majority closure downtown. Please count my vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer (and beyond!) for  safe, distanced, outdoor dining and a healthy, person‐centered neighborhood.    Thank you,  Dana      Sent from my iPhone  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Baltay <peter@toposarchitects.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:I vote to extend the Uplift Local through the end of 2021, and beyond CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    I hereby vote to keep University Ave open for pedestrians and bicycles, so that we can enjoy the carefree and safe  environment through the Year 2021 and beyond.    Thank You!      ‐peter baltay  (415) 407‐1621      22 Baumb, Nelly From:Harrison (Buzz) Frahn <hfrahn@stblaw.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    _______________________________    Harrison (Buzz) Frahn  Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP  2475 Hanover Street  Palo Alto, CA 94304    T: +1‐650‐251‐5065  M: +1‐650‐255‐5035  hfrahn@stblaw.com       23 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Frahn <annefrahn@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  24 Baumb, Nelly From:sara castiglioni <castiglioni.sara@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:I vote to extend the Uplift Local through the end of 2021, and beyond CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I hereby vote to keep University Ave open for pedestrians and bicycles, so that we can enjoy the carefree and safe  environment through the Year 2021 and beyond.    Thank  You!   25 Baumb, Nelly From:Sustainably Abundant <sustainablyabundant@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 5:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  26 Baumb, Nelly From:Maryam Tafreshi <maryamtafreshi14@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Sent from my iPhone  27 Baumb, Nelly From:siavoshrezvan@gmail.com Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Sent from my iPhone  28 Baumb, Nelly From:Sheryl Chamberlain <sheryl.chamberlain@coupa.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.      Sent from my iPhone    29 Baumb, Nelly From:Vijay Jaswal <vsjz99@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  30 Baumb, Nelly From:yash as <as.yashar@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 1:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  31 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanna Bennett <suzy.bennett@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Sincerely,  Suzanna Bennett  32 Baumb, Nelly From:ALLAN BERNSTEIN <alive5@aol.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 11:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Susan Bernstein  Sent from my iPhone  33 Baumb, Nelly From:CHRISTINE MEYER <cjm101@me.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 10:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I already wrote a note to you about this a few weeks ago but love that my favorite coffee shop Coupa is already in  favor!!    Christine Meyer      Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  34 Baumb, Nelly From:Lee Zulman <lzulman@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 8:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    A.L.Zulman  35 Baumb, Nelly From:Emmy <emmypilotzi@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 8:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.  36 Baumb, Nelly From:Dominique Piché <nano.piche@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 7:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  37 Baumb, Nelly From:bobby okorakpo <bobbidon007@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  to CLOSE Ramona St, through the summer.    Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  38 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Maida <michael@tarcinc.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  to CLOSE Ramona St, through the summer.     Thank you           In an effort to promote health and wellness amid the COVID‐19 pandemic, we will begin to serve you remotely. The best  way to contact your TARC  team is via email. Please understand that this may affect our response times, but rest assured  that we are working diligently to continue to provide excellent customer service. We thank you for your understanding  during this time.        Michael Maida / Estimator  TARC CONSTRUCTION, INC.  3230 Darby Common, Suite A / Fremont, CA 94539  C 408.202.0895 / T 408‐224‐2154 / F 831.431.6925   Michael@tarcinc.com  www.tarcinc.com / Contractor’s License # 853583          39 Baumb, Nelly From:Matthew W. Kanan <mkanan@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  40 Baumb, Nelly From:Ana Marshall <anawmarshall@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.  41 Baumb, Nelly From:David Scacco <david.scacco@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.      Sent from my iPhone  42 Baumb, Nelly From:Artis Jackson <artis@oldpropa.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  to  CLOSE Ramona St, through the summer.     Thank you    43 Baumb, Nelly From:Bar Fling <barfling.inc@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  to  CLOSE Ramona St, through the summer.     Thank you    44 Baumb, Nelly From:Artis Jackson <originaldgf@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  to  CLOSE Ramona St, through the summer.     Thank you    45 Baumb, Nelly From:James Embleton <jamesembleton@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 5:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.      Sent from my iPhone  46 Baumb, Nelly From:Albert Vasquez <avasquez@menloschool.org> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.      Sent from my iPhone  47 Baumb, Nelly From:Albert Vasquez <avasquez@menloschool.org> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 4:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep University Ave Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy safely dining outdoors on University Ave with the street closed from traffic. Please count  my vote for city street CLOSED through the summer for a safe, socially distanced experience.      Sent from my iPhone  48 Baumb, Nelly From:Olga Generalova <olgageneralova@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 3:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  to CLOSE Ramona St, through the summer.    Thank you  49 Baumb, Nelly From:Ashley Griffin <agriffin13@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  50 Baumb, Nelly From:Kelson Warner <wpkelson@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 3:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  51 Baumb, Nelly From:Bhatia, Shivani <shbhatia@amazon.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 2:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Thanks  Shivani  52 Baumb, Nelly From:Zeta Weiss <3zsaqui@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 2:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Zeta Weiss  Palo Alto Resident  Sent from my iPhone  53 Baumb, Nelly From:Pamela Weiss <pamelaweiss@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 2:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Pamela Weiss  Palo Alto resident      Sent from my iPhone  54 Baumb, Nelly From:Angela Cabral <angelacabral413@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 2:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you, Angie      Sent from my iPhone  55 Baumb, Nelly From:Marie-Cristine Kaptan <mckaptan@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 1:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.   56 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Forsyth <margaret.forsyth@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 1:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  57 Baumb, Nelly From:Michele Jacobson <mjjacobson5@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 1:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  58 Baumb, Nelly From:Mina Murata <minamurata@prodigy.net> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council:     I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets  CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Warmly,  Mina Murata  (she/they)  59 Baumb, Nelly From:Rocio Gronachon <rgronachon@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 1:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  60 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Gilloch <dan.gilloch@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 12:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.   Thank you   61 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo <kentonraiford@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 12:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you        62 Baumb, Nelly From:Kristy Holch <kholch@outlook.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 12:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Kristy Holch  855 El Camino Real, 13a‐350  Palo Alto, CA 94301  63 Baumb, Nelly From:Nicholas Ingram <nick.ingram93@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 11:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  64 Baumb, Nelly From:Christine Chua <chuachristine@me.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  65 Baumb, Nelly From:Adam Tavin <adam.tavin@rabbitpd.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 11:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor     experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the  summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  66 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeremy Monson <monson.jeremy@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Best,  Jeremy  67 Baumb, Nelly From:Heather Wasserlein <hwasserl@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 9:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  68 Baumb, Nelly From:Heather Wasserlein <hwasserl@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 9:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  69 Baumb, Nelly From:Senchal Rodriguez <senchalrodriguez4@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  70 Baumb, Nelly From:Mark Hopper <markhopski@me.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We lived in Europe for 20 years before Palo Alto.  We urge you strongly to keep the streets pedestrian and for outdoor  dining.    Best regards,    Mark & Ola Hopper    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.   Thank you    Best regards,       Mark              M a r k  A.  H o p p e r  _____________________  m:  +1 317 523 3988    71 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Peterson <jpeterson2014@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  72 Baumb, Nelly From:Brad Smallwood Gmail <smallbradwood@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  73 Baumb, Nelly From:Cody Kala <codykala@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  74 Baumb, Nelly From:Wade Wilhite <wwilhite4@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  75 Baumb, Nelly From:Jenna Havyer <jghavyer@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  76 Baumb, Nelly From:Kaveh Milaninia <kmilaninia@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  77 Baumb, Nelly From:Amir Ghorbani <ghorbanidds@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  78 Baumb, Nelly From:Carole Grace <carolelfgrace@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:outdoor dining CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I hope the City decides to continue the road closures to accommodate outdoor dining on University and California  Avenues. In fact, I’d love to see more permanent outdoor dining in Palo Alto. Not keen on the outdoor speakers blaring  music outside NOLA, however. Music should be allowed only when the restaurant is open, or just not allowed at all.    I also want to mention that the Shake Shack at Stanford Shopping center needs to be responsible for emptying the trash  cans outside their store at least daily‐ those cans are always overflowing with Shake Shack trash.    And finally, THANK YOU for painting the steps at the Cal train station and for keeping the hallway/tunnel clean‐ so nice  not to have it filled with broken glass, trash and smelling like pee!!! We walk through there weekly on our way to eat  downtown.    Carole Grace  Menlo Park  carolelfgrace@gmail.com        701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/26/2021 Document dates: 04/07/2021 – 04/014/2021 Set 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 79 Baumb, Nelly From:Aditya Kamat <adityak1985@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Regards,  Adi  80 Baumb, Nelly From:Stephanie Lynn Nguyen <steph.lynn.nguyen@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 5:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.    Thank you,  Stephanie Nguyen  81 Baumb, Nelly From:Samantha Goldmam <dancsam259@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 5:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  82 Baumb, Nelly From:James Cullen <jrc777@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 5:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you    James Cullen  83 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberto Listek <rlistek@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  84 Baumb, Nelly From:david palma <palmadavidpato@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 4:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  85 Baumb, Nelly From:unitednickpatriots@gmail.com Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  86 Baumb, Nelly From:Nikhil Mallipeddi <nmallipeddi@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 4:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  87 Baumb, Nelly From:Alan Mason <amperso@me.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 4:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Alan Mason  +336 88 69 97 19  +1 646 321 8957    88 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Gale <jengale78@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you    Jen Gale  89 Baumb, Nelly From:Kirstin Sego <kirstins@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep streets Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street and University Avenue with the half  closure, please count my vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Kirstin Sego  Hutchinson Ave.      Sent from my iPhone  90 Baumb, Nelly From:Sophia Colombari Figueroa <sophiacr3@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  91 Baumb, Nelly From:Roni Gayer <rgayer@usc.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  92 Baumb, Nelly From:Christina Stidham <christinastidham@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Christina    93 Baumb, Nelly From:kalle stidham <kallestidham@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  94 Baumb, Nelly From:Kat Swank <kas063@bucknell.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  95 Baumb, Nelly From:isabelle habibi <isabelle.habibi@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  96 Baumb, Nelly From:isabelle habibi <isabelle.habibi@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  97 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy To <amyandshahin@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  98 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Miller <rhmillernj@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone      Sent from my iPhone  99 Baumb, Nelly From:Dr Fuzzybutt <anelso34@vt.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      I've lived in Palo Alto a long time. I commute through University Avenue every day. I don't find the street closures a  problem for traffic. On heavier days/times there are plenty of alternative routes. As a resident, I absolutely love the  outdoors spaces for dining and pedestrians. I hope you continue to keep the streets closed to cars and reserved for the  people and local businesses. Its such a more relaxed environment than the busy, noisy, smoggy, bad driver, trying to  park, stop‐go, inappropriate uber pick‐up/drop‐offs, annoying street traffic that used to pollute the downtown area in  the before times. The closed areas make Palo Alto's upscale dining and shopping vibrant, safe, relaxing, and 1,000x more  enjoyable.    Thank you,   Amanda Nelson  100 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Hadrovic <peter.hadrovic@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: PLEASE!!!  I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please  count my vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining. It is a Pandemic Silver  Lining!  101 Baumb, Nelly From:Ariana MacDavid <arianamacdavid@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      102 Baumb, Nelly From:Adrienne Germain <aegermain@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Adrienne Germain      Sent from my iPhone  103 Baumb, Nelly From:Perry Germain <perrymgermain@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  104 Baumb, Nelly From:Taryn Curiel <taryn_curiel@me.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  105 Baumb, Nelly From:David Hilbert <davidhilbert@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  106 Baumb, Nelly From:Kendra Srivastava <kendra.srivastava@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep city streets closed for outdoor dining! :) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello and hope you're doing well!      I'm just writing in support of street closures for this summer (and hopefully beyond!) since I think outdoor dining adds a  positive atmosphere to Palo Alto. It's safer and more enjoyable than being stuck inside, especially given California's  generally excellent weather.    Thank you for your consideration,  Kendra  107 Baumb, Nelly From:Max Quertermous <maxquertermous@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  108 Baumb, Nelly From:Jim Fulker (jfulker) <jfulker@cisco.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  109 Baumb, Nelly From:Caitlin Leverenz Smith <c.leverenz.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  110 Baumb, Nelly From:Troy Hall <troyincalifornia@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      ‐ sent from my iPhone  111 Baumb, Nelly From:Sara Tucker <sara.tucker89@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Outdoor dining CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi there,     I recently heard that there will be a review of whether to extend the closure of streets or open the streets back up in  Palo Alto as it relates to outdoor dining. I would like to advocate for it to remain open, at least through the summer, in  order to continue allowing people to gather for meals in a safe and socially distanced manner and to continue mitigating  the spread of covid‐19. Thank you for your consideration!    Sara Tucker   ‐‐   Sara Tucker   BSW, Valparaiso University '12  MSW, University of Southern California '13  112 Baumb, Nelly From:Curt Nakamura <sazzyrye@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  113 Baumb, Nelly From:acallahan888@gmail.com Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you.      Sent from my iPhone  114 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Geffon <yaruki@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Michael  115 Baumb, Nelly From:Ryan Park <ryanjwpark23@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: Europe is winning in culture for a reason!  I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the  closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe,  socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  116 Baumb, Nelly From:Adrian S <aspiga@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you          Adrian Spiga  117 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadim Saad <nsaad31@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you        Sent from my iPhone  118 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Sanie <michael@sanie.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Michael  119 Baumb, Nelly From:Maria J. Ocampo <ocampomariaj1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  120 Baumb, Nelly From:Eric Kauderer-Abrams <eric17ka@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Best,  Eric  121 Baumb, Nelly From:Scott Bader <smbader@me.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  Scott    Sent from my iPhone  122 Baumb, Nelly From:jeannette pinzon <jeannette.pinzon14@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 12:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  123 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Lopez <0618jenniferlopez@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.   124 Baumb, Nelly From:Tyler Canning <ty_canning@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  125 Baumb, Nelly From:laudy najem <laudynajem@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  126 Baumb, Nelly From:laudy najem <laudynajem@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  127 Baumb, Nelly From:Rajesh Razdan <zoondub@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  128 Baumb, Nelly From:Rajesh Razdan <rajesh.razdan10@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  129 Baumb, Nelly From:Vini Jain <vini.jain08@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  130 Baumb, Nelly From:Boris Zalan <bzalan@thermalmech.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  131 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Raushenbush <r.raushenbush@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    GPalo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my  vote for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  132 Baumb, Nelly From:Jessica Tsai Wen <jtwen@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      jw    Sent from my iPhone  133 Baumb, Nelly From:Heyhey <alla.lubchenko1602@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  134 Baumb, Nelly From:Joe Najem <joenajem@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience. Thank you Keep it open.   Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  135 Baumb, Nelly From:Samantha Zagha <20szagha@pinewood.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  136 Baumb, Nelly From:Nick Raushenbush <nick@getshogun.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Nick Raushenbush  Cofounder  Shogun  137 Baumb, Nelly From:Kenneth Bernard <bernardkw@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      ‐Ken    138 Baumb, Nelly From:Lilly Connell <lillyconnell@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you  Lilly  Sent from my iPhone  139 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Connell <elizabethwconnell@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      ‐ Betsy  650.861.6683  140 Baumb, Nelly From:Winnie Wang <wangwne@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      Sent from my iPhone  141 Baumb, Nelly From:Pamela Gong <pgong610@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to keep Ramona St. Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I enjoy the safe outdoor experience created with the closure of Ramona St. Please count my vote  for a CLOSURE of University Ave through the summer to continue a safe, socially distanced community experience.  Thank you      從我的iPhone傳送  142 Baumb, Nelly From:Di-Ann Eisnor <diann@eisnor.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  143 Baumb, Nelly From:anahi chapela <anahichapela@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  144 Baumb, Nelly From:Andreas Zoellner <andreaszoellner@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 11:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.  145 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Umphrey <anneumphrey@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 9:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Please keep outdoor dining CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see below.   Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Anne Umphrey <anneumphrey@gmail.com>  Date: April 9, 2021 at 6:39:25 PM PDT  To: city.council@cotyofpaloalto.org  Subject: Please keep outdoor dining  Hi. We love the outdoor dining options on University and Lytton. Please keep it forever!! Or at least until  this pandemic is over. We would not dine out if we had to eat indoors. Beseechingly, Anne Umphrey  (Menlo Park)    Sent from my iPhone  146 Baumb, Nelly From:Marc Itzkowitz <marc@itzkowitz.org> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 8:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep outdoor dining CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    Our whole family loves the outdoor dining in downtown and on California Ave.  We’d love to see it continue forever.   (Props to Local Union 271 for making it so festive)    Please extend it for as long as possible. It’s the one good thing that came out of the pandemic.    Marc Itzkowitz  Downtown Palo Alto Resident    Sent from my iPhone  147 Baumb, Nelly From:Greg DeJager <gregdejager@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 6:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the streets closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please keep the streets closed for restaurants.    Regards    Greg      148 Baumb, Nelly From:Shelley DeJager <shelleydejager@me.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 6:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the Streets Closed! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please keep the downtown streets closed to cars and open to downtown dining! It’s good for the businesses and the  community!    Thank you,  Shelley  149 Baumb, Nelly From:Zane Veater <zaneaveater@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 5:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep PA City Streets Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As big fans of the outdoor dining “street fair” situation we’ve got going on in Palo Alto right now, my wife and I want to  voice our support for keeps University and California Ave closed.     Thanks,  ‐‐   Zane A. Veater  559‐760‐4065      150 Baumb, Nelly From:aliraesims@gmail.com Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Regards,  Alison SImonetti  Sent from my iPhone  151 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike- Comcast <shibuyamike@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Best,  Mike McMullen    159 Coleridge Avenue  Palo Alto  CA 94301  152 Baumb, Nelly From:Dolores McMullen <tokyomcmullens@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining    Dolores McMullen 159 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto      Sent from my iPhone  153 Baumb, Nelly From:Gilbert Simonetti <gilbert.simonetti.iii@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.      Sent from my iPhone  154 Baumb, Nelly From:Gilbert Simonetti <gilbert.simonetti.iii@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Street Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I strongly urge you to keep the city streets closed through at least the summer months as we continue to safely manage  our transition through the pandemic. Our restaurants need our support.    Sincerely        Sent from my iPhone  155 Baumb, Nelly From:aliraesims@gmail.com Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:City streets closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I urge the City Council of Palo Alto to vote to keep the city streets CLOSED through the summer.    Alison SImonetti    Sent from my iPhone  156 Baumb, Nelly From:Ginger Quiroga <gingergquiroga@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 4:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:I'm Voting to Keep Ramona St Closed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council: I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, please count my  vote for City Streets CLOSED through the summer for safe, distanced, outdoor dining.    Ginger Quiroga    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Giordano Bruno Beretta <yoko.giordano@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 7:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:UAC Subject:Internet in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilor,    I recently had major surgery and would require physiotherapy. Although I live just 1 mile from PAMF, due to Covid‐19  measures, I should use telemedicine. Unfortunately, the therapist is not able to monitor my eye reaction time because  my internet connection is too slow: she said I should have at least 6 Mbps up, while currently I only have 1 Mbps up  (when the node is not saturated).    I logged into my AT&T account to upgrade my service, but I only got this page:    which suggests that fiber‐to‐the‐node DSL is no longer available in my area of Palo Alto. AT&T is not offering fiber in my  area, so basically there is no longer any internet access and I am not able to do telemedicine.    I am writing to you because at the end of 1999, City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) recommended us in our Embarcadero  Oaks neighborhood to install an underground conduit for fiber to the home (FTTH) from CPAU. Most of us installed the  expensive conduit, CPAU put the fiber under the sidewalk, but never hooked up our homes.    What are you waiting for?    2 To give you an idea of what is available elsewhere, here is what is available in Switzerland, which has the same  population as the Bay Area, but a much more challenging geography with the Alps and the Jura:    Link: https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/plans‐rates/inone‐home/internet.html    What are the consequences? In Summer 2020, Lonza was able to build a factory in Visp with 3 fab lines to manufacture  the Moderna Covid‐19 vaccine you hopefully got by now. Manufacturing this vaccine has a very challenging supply chain  which requires workers to be available 24/7. With the factory in Visp, the workers can spend time with their families at  home when they are not in the plant for their shift.    It would not have been possible to build the factory in Palo Alto because workers do not have broadband service to their  homes.    I chose this example because above Visp, high up in the Alps, there are many sheep, which wear an Alptracker  https://www.alptracker‐ag.ch on their neck that allows the shepherd to monitor his flock from his hut. When the sheep  get restless, he flies out his drone to check for a wolf and scare him away. This is possible because the entire country is  serviced with the low power network (LPN)  LoRaWAN. https://www.swisscom.ch/en/business/enterprise/offer/iot/lpn.html    Back in 1999, CPAU also announced they would install smart meters operated with something like the LoRaWAN used by  the sheep. To this day, there is still a blood and flesh human from CPAU who comes every month in my backyard to read  my meters, like a century ago.    What is your vision for Palo Alto?    Kind regards,  Giordano Beretta  1760 Newell Road  Palo Alto, CA 94303  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation <info@siliconvalleycf.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:You're invited! The Obama Foundation and SVCF event, April 20 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In        To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice     You are invited to join us for a discussion between SVCF President and CEO Nicole Taylor and The Obama Foundation President Valerie Jarrett on Tuesday, April 20, from 1 to 2 p.m. Pacific time. Also joining the conversation:  Shari Davis, The Obama Foundation Fellow and Executive Director of the Participatory Budgeting Project   Webinar INVESTING IN A NEW GENERATION OF POWER- BUILDING LEADERS April 20, 2021 1 to 2 p.m. Pacific time Register Now    4    Poncho Guevara, Executive Director of Sacred Heart Community Service, which serves Santa Clara County Together we will explore how leaders are building on progress made in 2020, and how philanthropy can contribute to the power-building work happening now across the nation.   Register Now ›     Featured Speakers     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Valerie Jarrett PRESIDENT OF THE OBAMA FOUNDATION To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Nicole Taylor PRESIDENT AND CEO OF SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Shari Davis THE OBAMA FOUNDATION FELLOW AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING PROJECT To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Poncho Guevara EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE   As the past year has proved, inequality can have tragic consequences: more than 500,000 Americans killed by COVID-19, dismal economic aid for those facing the most challenges, and rising police brutality. Too often, people without a voice in civic life – low-income individuals from communities of color or undocumented immigrants – disproportionately shoulder these consequences, reminding us of the racial inequities and injustices throughout our country’s systems. 2020 also gave us glimpses of hope and change. The events of last year galvanized new leaders – predominantly young people of color operating with limited resources – to organize and challenge the systems that do not work for their communities. Silicon Valley Community Foundation and The Obama Foundation are committed to investing in this new generation of leaders who are building power to reimagine their communities.   5 Register Now ›       To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.  How can we build power among Silicon Valley residents who don’t have it? The idea of power and how to build it for those who historically have not had it is becoming central to all of Silicon Valley Community Foundation’s grantmaking initiatives.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040   About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Copyright © 2021 Silicon Valley Community Foundation  View in browser | Unsubscribe          6 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:53 AM To:Aram James Cc:Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Raven Malone; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Greer Stone; ParkRec Commission; DuBois, Tom; Josh Becker; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Raj; Binder, Andrew; Kaloma Smith; Jeff Rosen; Mark Petersen-Perez; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association Subject:Re: Palo Alto City Council holds to on old school racist and exclusionary zoning tactics CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is clearly an example of racial, class and ethnicity discrimination. We will need to investigate   legal action against the city in the light of state‐mandated standards.What a deceptive  policy action as a well as a huge disappointment!    Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Low‐income Housing Committee    On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:41 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Follow the link below to view the article.  https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=182b80127_1345d12      Sent from my iPhone  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:22 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; midge@thebarretts.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Lying by Biden re "enough vaccine for every American". Then have army vaccinate them. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:02 AM  Subject: Fwd: Lying by Biden re "enough vaccine for every American". Then have army vaccinate them.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:52 AM  Subject: Fwd: Lying by Biden re "enough vaccine for every American". Then have army vaccinate them.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:42 AM  Subject: Lying by Biden re "enough vaccine for every American". Then have army vaccinate them.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                     Late on Tues., April 13, 2021                        To all‐    8           Listen to our Liar in Chief today in the Oval Office:  "My message to the American people is that we made sure that  we have 600 million doses of good vaccine, 100% unquestionable, not Astrazeneca or Johnson and Johnson, for every  American".  Listen to him say that at the one minute mark:            Biden: There's enough vaccine for every American despite Johnson & Johnson pause ‐ YouTube                 That is a lie. We do not have that. If we do, Biden should order 100,000 troops, Army, Navy, AF and Marines to  fan out to all 50 States, to 200 sites per State, and get every American vaccinated by Friday.                  We may have that many doses ordered and in the pipeline so that we can vaccinate "every adult American by the  end of May" or some such claim. But to say that we have enough to vaccinate every adult NOW   NOW     NOW  is just a  straight‐up lie.                            So we are back to the "time fallacy" we keep hearing out of the WH. If Biden will not release the AZN  vaccine, thousands of Americans who could have it now will die in April, May and June and later. He is saying, and  hoping we don't catch on, that we have enough doses in the pipeline, without AZN, to vaccinate every adult American  by some future date, at some future date,  NOT  NOW !!   But some future date is not the issue when AZN is holding up  30 million doses now and waiting an eternity for the FDA to grant an EUA for it. The issue is not what we will have at  some future date if vulnerable people cannot get a shot now and the shots are available. The issue, in that case, and IT IS  the case, is that we need the AZN vaccine released immediately  and given to vulnerable persons now.  If they won't do  that, then Biden is just a murderer and Congress has a clear constitutional duty to impeach him.                   He sits there today, wearing a mask, yelling that "My message to the American people is that we have 600  million doses of the good vaccines,   100% unquestionable as to safety, to vaccinate every American"  Well then, why  don't they use them by Friday?  See how easy it is to see how he's lying?                 One could speculate that Biden is just senile and so we have to overlook this stuff. But what he saying is that we  have so much other vaccine that we  do not have to release and use the 30 million doses of AZN that is available. Its use  now, with precautions, would save thosands of lives. NOBODY in the medical or scientific community can dispute that.  Biden is just lying about having enough other vaccines now to save every American life.                 The UK continues apace vaccinating with the Oxford‐AZN vaccine in persons over 30.  The Germans are giving it  to those over 65.  We know that it is younger persons who are getting the cerebral venus sinus thromboses., the  CVSTs.  We also know what symptoms to look out for that warn of those: Severe headaches, abdominal pain and pain in  the legs, trouble breathing. We also know not to give them Heparin to dissolve any clots they develop.  We know how  long after vaccination the symptom may appear. If we limited the AZN vaccine to those over 65 and monitored them  carefully, that should be a safe vaccine. Releasing it now would save thousands of lives.                I don't like all of the lying out of the WH re vaccines. It shows a deep contempt for the American people.  In a mail  I sent out 48 hours ago, the big‐gun experts and government officials re the pandemic in the UK held a press conference,  and I included the video. You notice that they are VERY careful to deliver the facts as they know them. They are  meticulous in their choice of words. They show a deep respect for, and a fear of, the people of the UK. They fear  showing contempt for them. Not the case with our government and I don't like it.                  L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.                            9 Baumb, Nelly From:Friends of Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 7:39 PM To:Clerk, City; Council, City; Kou, Lydia Subject:Public comment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Waited so long for public comments then lost the connection :(    Can I please have an extra minute with this comment ?    Sent from my iPhone  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Friends of Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 7:36 PM To:Kou, Lydia; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Community comments !! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sent from my iPhone  11 Baumb, Nelly From:zohar.lotan@att.net Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:06 PM To:pwecips Cc:Council, City Subject:Another stop sign hit in College Terrace CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear People,    This has become a repeated familiar scene. One of the stop signs (the ones in the middle of the College Ave) is down  again. It probably happened a hundred times already and I personally witnessed 2 of these incidents with my own eyes.    The most hit stop signs are at the intersection of College and Hanover. I’d like to explain to the traffic experts at city hall  why it happens:    When driving on Hanover in south direction (towards California Ave) there is a visible “dead end” sign. However, when  drivers see that Hanover continues with some traffic on the section between California and Page Mill, this “dead end”  sign does not register. From my window close to this dead end, I notice that the majority of cars reaching this point  make a Y turn and go back. Now imagine that you are the driver frustrated to find himself in this situation and loosing 2  precious minutes, going back on Hanover to turn fast to College. Unfortunately, the stop sign which is highly visible  when driving on College is hardly visible when coming from Hanover. The driver’s state of mind at this time does not  help either.    In my mind, the obvious solution is to remove these wack‐a‐mole stop signs. Knowing that the traffic (Public Works)  department has additional political considerations – listening to residents that insist on “traffic calming”. I do not trust  the department to do the right thing. (Admitting it was a mistake and explaining it to College Terrace residents). The  current situation is costly to us: The minor toll is the pay to contractors to replace and resurrect the signs. The bigger  issue is that car insurance for 94306 zip code is increasing since this zip code is prone to numerous car damages.    My next suggestion is a compromise: Remove the islands surrounding the stop signs. Being a square shape and high  island instead of low and rounded is another hazard as the many tire marks on those islands will tell. Instead, plant the  stop sign in a highly visible plastic barrel with sand inside. It is easy for drivers to miss a 2” grey pipe – which is all one  sees coming from Hanover – but an orange barrel is significantly more visible and less likely to cause serious damage to a car.    Regards  Zohar Lotan        12 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:23 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:WILPF Low-Income Housing Goals CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Commissioners:     The Low‐income Housing Committee of the Women's Internat;ional League for  Peace & Freedom, Peninsula Branch, advocates these imm;ediate actions:   1. A rent registry for all types of Palo Alto housing, we need facts and data   towards more transparency,  2. Expansion of the tenant relocation assistance program‐ there is clearly not enough support for those in need,  3. Rent stabilization. Large landlords are exploiting tenants in serious and egregious ways and there is no control on their  acts.Look at the cities around us that have successful controls on the amount that owners can raise rents  It is time for city committees to take immediate ACTIONS  to assist the renters   who live in this city and we need to have you NOT approve office or expensive condo projects until we have fulfilled our  need for service sector low‐income housing. EPA , MV and RWC have done more than their fair share!    Sincerely  Roberta Ahlquist, for the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom  Committee for Low‐income Housing     13 Baumb, Nelly From:Tietjen, Brent <TietjenB@samtrans.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 12:46 PM To:Martin J Sommer; CalMod@caltrain.com Cc:Board (@caltrain.com); Council, City; Pat Burt Subject:RE: University Ave Beige Pole Color CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Martin,    The joint ARB/HRB meeting was held on January 10th, 2019. The City of Palo Alto records and uploads videos of these  Board meetings for review. The full video of the presentation, including photo simulations shown to the Board, and the  ARB/HRB member discussion and decision can be seen on this page https://midpenmedia.org/architectural‐review‐ board‐74‐1102019/.     Thanks,  Brent     From: Martin J Sommer [mailto:martin@sommer.net]   Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:59 AM  To: Tietjen, Brent <TietjenB@samtrans.com>; CalMod@caltrain.com  Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt  <pat@patburt.org>  Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color  ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from  unknown senders.  Thanks Brent, looks like "bait and switch" to me. Can you please send me the photos presented to the Palo Alto ARB? You mentioned them in the prior email, but they were not included with the ARB report. We need to get this issue resolved. Thank you, Martin On 4/13/21 9:16 AM, Tietjen, Brent wrote: Hi Martin,   Thanks for your patience. I believe your questions are related and hope the below information below is  helpful.    14 The image you are referencing was a rendering that was created before the final design of the pole and  foundation locations was complete. This rendering was also complete prior to the ARB/HRB decision on  pole colors for the station area.     There are three main types of poles used along the corridor, single side poles, two track cantilevers (on  one side), and center poles. The use of each pole is dependent on the site conditions, including utilities  and the clearance between the tracks. Where feasible, center poles were chosen in order to reduce the  number trees pruned or removed required to provide clearance for the electrical safety zone (ESZ). The  ESZ is typically 10 feet from the farthest electrified element in most cases. A center pole has the ESZ set  by the train pantograph as that is the electrified element that is farthest out. With single side poles, the  electrical safety zone is set by the pole location which supports an electrified wire.   Thanks, Brent    From: Martin J Sommer [mailto:martin@sommer.net]   Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 9:28 AM  To: CalMod@caltrain.com  Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt  <pat@patburt.org>  Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on  links from unknown senders. Thanks Brent, appreciate you staying on this issue. In addition, please see the attached photo. This vision of Caltrain rolling into the University Ave station in Palo Alto, is one of the most widely distributed photos of the Caltrain Electrification Project. Notice: a) short poles, b) back color, and c) symmetric north and south cantilevers. What we received in Palo Alto, bears no resemblance to this? What went wrong, and can we please fix it? Martin On 3/27/21 6:22 PM, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: Hi Martin,   Yes, I will work to get this information from the project team.    Best,  Brent    From: Martin J Sommer [mailto:martin@sommer.net]   Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 2:15 PM  To: CalMod@caltrain.com  15 Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>;  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org>  Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments  or click on links from unknown senders. Hi Brent, I am still working on this issue. When we talked via phone, you offered to look into why the tall single poles were used at the University Ave station, vs two shorter poles on the side, with or without a crossbar. The Cal Ave station, uses two shorter poles, placed right on the platform. Can you please answer that for me? Thanks, Martin On 1/13/21 9:58 AM, Martin J Sommer wrote: Hi Brent, Thanks for talking this morning. Yes, please try to put a number on repainting the top half of one or more poles at the University Ave station. Once we have this number, I will reach out to the City Of Palo Alto, for potential funding sources. Best regards, Martin On 12/22/20 7:49 PM, Martin J Sommer wrote: +cc: Pat Bert Brent, please take a look at the attached photo. I don't think this is what the City, nor the design engineers, had in mind. Please tell me, how I can help correct this situation. Thank you, Martin 16 -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation <info@siliconvalleycf.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Introducing SVCF's Early Childhood Development Strategic Initiative CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In        To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     SVCF's Early Childhood Development Strategic Initiative Silicon Valley Community Foundation has long supported children and families through our Center for Early Learning. Now, we're building upon that work and evolving those efforts into our Early Childhood Development strategic initiative to ensure that all Silicon Valley children and their families have access to quality care, education and resources.   Learn More ›   SVCF's Strategic Initiatives At SVCF we envision a community united by creating an equitable, financially secure and vibrant future for all. Early childhood development is one of three strategic initiatives — key, interrelated impact areas — in which we will deepen our work to drive systemic change in our region and achieve that vision. 18   Our two forthcoming strategic initiatives are housing for extremely low-income and very low-income communities, and financial security. We will announce more information about these two strategic initiatives in the near future. Questions about our Early Childhood Development Strategy? Contact SVCF Director of Early Childhood Development Christine Thorsteinson at cthorsteinson@siliconvalleycf.org.     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Giving Guide: Early Childhood Care & Education SVCF invests in and partners with local organizations that work in the areas of childhood advocacy, early childhood care and education. Learn about and support these organizations and their work.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Podcast: Early Childhood Development Strategy Seeks to Address Systemic Disparities 19   Christine Padilla, executive director of Build Up for San Mateo County's Children, is our guest. Listen to learn more about SVCF’s multi-pronged approach to dismantling systemic barriers and working to ensure all children and their families have access to the care, education and resources they need to flourish.     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Report: Local Parents Polled on Impact of COVID-19 SVCF joined other partners to fund this report from Education Trust–West, which provides important data about the pandemic's impact on families in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties whose children are age 5 or younger.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   AB 1073 Would Be a Win for Early Childhood Education 20   We were thrilled to see AB 1073, which removes barriers to becoming an early childhood educator, pass unanimously in the California Assembly Committee of Higher Education. SVCF engages in federal, state and local public policy to drive lasting change and we are proud to support AB 1073. Learn more about our priorities.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040   About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Copyright © 2021 Silicon Valley Community Foundation   View in browser | Unsubscribe         21 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:33 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; Steve Wayte; Mark Standriff; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; russ@topperjewelers.com; midge@thebarretts.com; sanchezphilip21 @gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Munich becoming a SV- APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:39 PM  Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:11 PM  Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:06 PM  22 Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:10 PM  Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:50 PM  Subject: Fwd: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:19 PM  Subject: Munich becoming a SV‐ APPL, MSFT, Intel, IBM, Google, Keep hiring.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                                  Almost obscenely late on Montag, April 12, 2021                     Alles‐                  Hier is valuable information re the fast growing Silicon Valley in Munchen: They call it Quantum Valley. Why live  under the Nazi regime in the United States? Get even, move to Munchen.  Und dann schicken Sie alles eine Brief.               Silicon Valley in Europe | Why Apple building Silicon Design Center in Munich? ‐ YouTube            Und hier ist zwei Stunden mehr, dies auf Deutsch.  Ob Sie Deutsch sprechen oder nicht, Sie haben die Idee  hier:  Munchen ist die Ort wo die Nazis sind aus, und es ist moglich dass seine Zukunft liegt da. Auf wiedersehen,  USA:  Two hours here, really good. Congress needs to see this and reflect upon  it before they pass a new round of Nazi  23 affirmative action laws to ruin the lives of white, American men: Ask around. People who try that find that we like to get  even.                   Munich Quantum Valley Kick‐Off ‐ YouTube               Here is a good piece re the big airport at Munchen.  It was build ~15 years ago, and it is a beauty. It took a lot of  traffic off of Frankfurt.  This shows the impact of the pandemic on the business of the airport:  Stillstand statt  Hohenflug:  Standing still instead of flying high:                     Stillstand statt Höhenflug: Der Flughafen München während der Coronakrise | DokThema | Doku | BR ‐  YouTube              Hier ist a vid re the crisis which Covid has created for Airbus:    Tell that to Boeing:     Airplane maker lands hard. A  hard landing  Flugzeughersteller hart gelandet:                                         Flugzeughersteller hart gelandet: Airbus in der Krise | DokThema | Doku | BR ‐ YouTube              Hard times for businesses in Germany during the pandemic:  With pluck, valor through Corona‐year, an restaurant  keeper, a choir, a retail clothing store, since Easter, 2020.  They are not happy campers with all of the lockdowns. They  have some company in the USA.                  Mit Mut durchs Corona‐Jahr ‐ ein Wirt, ein Chor, ein Modehaus seit Ostern 2020 | DokThema | BR ‐ YouTube                  L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                  PS‐   DW News is saying that the U.S. Sect. of Defense has told NATO that the U.S. will not be pulling any troops  out of Germany. All smiles in Europe as they report this. Germans won't be getting their faces and genitals burned off  defending Germany. That wil be done by Americans.                           24 Baumb, Nelly From:Arnold Matsuda <matsuda_arnold@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 10:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:4/12/2021 - City Council Meeting Public Comment, Skatepark Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good Evening, The session for the skatepark was scheduled to begin at 8:45 p.m. this evening. However, it appears that the housing discussion is continuing into the evening. I wanted to send this email as a contingency in the event the skatepark discussion is tabled further, or there is no time for public comments today. I would like to submit my comment in support of a new skatepark in the City of Palo Alto or consideration for further expansion and annexation of the current Greer Skatepark. Comments in support of the skatepark have been previously shared on record with Council Member, Greg Tanaka on 9/20/2020, the Parks and Recreation Commission on 9/20/2020, and the City Council on 10/26/2020. We continue to support and advocate for the skatepark to be built in Palo Alto. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Arnold Matsuda 25 Baumb, Nelly From:Dr. Nancy E. Wang <ewen@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 8:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:proposed wellesley apartment complex CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    Hope you are well.   I was unable to make the meeting today but I wanted to voice my opposition to the proposed wellesley apartment  complex.  The place does not fit with the context of the neighborhood. It would be tallest building in the middle of an  eclectic but much differently styled neighborhood.  It is much too big for the space.  I worry that it will be unsafe for  children.  (A large 3 story building on the corner blocking the view) Also there is no planned parking in an already very  crowded neighborhood that has started a parking permit system.    Thank you so much for your consideration   Best   Nancy Wang        Dr. Nancy E. Wang Professor Emergency Medicine Associate Director Pediatric Emergency Medicine Stanford University School of Medicine 900 Welch Road - #350/MC: 5768 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Office: (650) 723-0757 Fax: (650) 723-0121 ewen@stanford.edu   26 Baumb, Nelly From:Hank Edson <hank.edson@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 5:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on PHZ tool CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Council Members,  I cannot be present at tonight's meeting and therefore am sending my comment:  The TMZ tool hopes for easy assistance in addressing a problem that needs much more careful leadership from  City Hall.    I note last session one of the council members, in discussing the street parking issue and homelessness, noted  that the council had never looked at the map to understand what impacts the parking zoning along middlefield  might have.  This observation should alert the council that it is in a re‐active mode, rather than a proactive  planning mode.  I urge you to create a vision with a map of the city and not simply turn your leadership over to  third parties with their own agendas.  Specifically, I urge the council to approach its goals for homeless shelters, below market affordable housing,  market rate affordable housing, and rv parking by drawing a map that thinks about whether population density  should be equalized from neighborhood to neighborhood and how different types of housing should be equally  distributed throughout the city.  This should be done before turning to the question of proposing development  projects to realize these goals.    The TMZ tool turns out to be vulnerable to opportunistic developers who pose as affordable housing specialists  although they have no credentials for making such a claim.  These opportunistic developers are really seeking to  benefit investors by generating profits created by increasing housing density which inflates land values.  The  profits they anticipate being able to make give them a math that guides how much they can spend on the land  underlying these projects.  Thus, they overbid prospective homeowners anticipating even greater profits.  It  creates an inflationary cycle in the name of affordable housing!  This is what comes from abdicating responsible  city planning for "tax incentives" and other motivators that do not lead, but foolishly hope to encourage the  private sector to accomplish public policy.  This does not work.  Public policy such as affordable housing will not  be advanced by private sector interests; it will only be used and abused by them.  The city should seek grants and government funding to create a citywide socio‐economic diversity and population  density map and plan.  Then it should put out to bid to non‐profit developers with a long record of integrity and  expertise in affordable housing projects to build the various projects throughout the city.  These affordable  housing projects should be 100% affordable housing and 100% non‐profit.  This is leadership that transforms Palo  Alto from a small town overrun by dot.com money into a model of democratic local ecology and  government.  This is what the people need and will celebrate, even those who don't know it yet.  Sincerely,  Hank Edson  2106 Oberlin Street  27 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Li <cli@compass.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 5:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:We support PHZ to be considered for Commercial industrial zoning and multiple family districts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We are the homeowners in college terrace in Palo Alto. We support you as PHZ applications shall be considered for all  commercial, industrial zoning, and multifamily districtsڐڑڒ     Thanks and regards,     Carol Li  Laura Cui          28 Baumb, Nelly From:Zelek Herman <zelek.herman@att.net> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 5:27 PM To:Council, City; Zelek Herman Cc:Cook, James F. Subject:I support the PHZ proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Members of the Council:    As long‐time residents of the College Terrace neighborhood, we support the staff recommendation that "PHZ  applications be considered for all commercial, industrial zoning, and multifamily districts."    The unique character of College Terrace should not overwhelmed by large developments.    Respectfully,    Jane P. Buechel and Zelek S. Herman        Zelek S. Herman, Ph.D.    Consultant in Mathematics, Biostatistics, Chemistry, Computers, Genomics, and Environmental Health and Safety    1680 College Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94306‐1228 USA  Tel and fax: (650) 856‐2659  Alternate Tel: (650) 213‐8687  E‐mail: zelek.herman@att.net    Web site: http://www.girinst.org/zeke  29 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 5:02 PM To:Bill Robinson Cc:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; borisyaz@protonmail.com; Council, City Subject:c214930322 / Civil Grand Jury investigation into Public Guardian CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mr. Robinson,    You appear to have deliberately not counted Javier Juarez # 9150 as this your responsibility regarding habeas corpus.  It  is impossible for you not to have known there was fraud committed and that evidence had been fabricated.  This is alll  over the internet & there is no record by me indicating that the policy changes had been implemented and though  Goodman and others insist,  they still are unable to present these documents,.    It has come to my attention that although you did not make contact with him, neither did County Counsel though lori  Pegg did know, and Deputy public defender George Abel knew as well. Javier Juarez just happened to be bus driver with  VTA and someone from Santa Clara County Sheriff department called him regarding some apparent mismatched  records.  They had obvseverd on video conversations we had and others.   There are records relating to these things,  which as we made clear, were being tracked. Why did you not attempt to obtain any of this.     Javier Juarez not only was VTA bus driver , but there are copies of receipts and other documents  still retained going  back a long time.  Some are with Public Guardian as Heidi and I rented room from him in Sunnyvale.     Other documents indicate that we were living at home of another VTA bus driver , the home  burned down allegedly  because Heidi had been careless disposing of a cigarette.     Are you sure that ypu are feeling sir?  Have you been taking your medication?  You sure have been behaving stangely and it appears you have lost touch with reality.      Cary Andrew Crittenden  30 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrea Cook Fleming <andreafleming@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:52 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cook, James F. Subject:I support staff recommendation on PHZ applications (Save College Terrace) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,  I am writing to support the staff recommendation that PHZ applications be considered for all commercial, industrial zoning, and multifamily districts.    This topic is on the council agenda tonight and is crucially important to our neighborhood in College Terrace. I have lived here for 25 years and volunteered on the neighborhood association board.    While not explicitly stated in the staff report or Council minutes on February 3, 2020, the expectation was that PHZ applications would be filed in commercial zones. However, there also was no explicit restriction advising owners that the City would not consider a PHZ on a low-density, residentially zoned parcel. A pending PHZ application for a property located in College Terrace and zoned R-1 has generated a significant amount of correspondence to the City Council mailbox. As noted earlier, staff is unable to reject or fail to process pre screening applications, but staff did advise the prospective applicant that the proposed PHZ application was not consistent with the intent of this program.    This application by Cato Investments must not be approved. This program was for commercial zones, not family neighborhoods like College Terrace. Please vote in line with the staff recommendation.    Warm regards,  Andrea Fleming  2011 Columbia Street Palo Alto    --   Andrea Cook Fleming  AndreaFleming@StanfordAlumni.org  31 Baumb, Nelly From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:NO on Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear PACC Members,    Please oppose and vote against the proposed Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) proposal coming before you tonight.  It is a  redo of our past, failed, Planned Community (PC) zoning which gave huge profits to developers but little of value back to  the community.    Some relevant points:     PCs (planned communities) were a disaster in Palo Alto's past: o public benefits were generally negligible or non-existent o projects were invariably over-sized, creating traffic, density, and often parking problems o the monetary value of the slim public benefits obtained were never evaluated against the huge gains earned by the developers  Renaming PCs as PHZs (Planned Home Zoning) doesn't solve these problems at all: o the 20% promised inclusionary benefits is not necessarily worth more than the current 15% requirement because developers can choose what to count to meet the 20% goal o PHZs will not necessarily produce any housing below 50% AMI, which is what we need most o PHZs may produce more new jobs than housing because staff are claiming new offices have far fewer workers than industry norms o PHZs will likely produce only small units for single individuals and not serve families  The community wants true below-market-rate housing o The greatest need is for below 50% AMI o We need both family and single-occupancy units o New units need parkland, shared open space, and private open space  We must protect existing residents too: o Rule out any upzoning of R-1, RE, RMD, R-2, and RM-20 to high density o Preserve all existing 35 foot height protections for new projects near residential zones o Extend to all residential uses citywide the same 35 foot height protection to avoid discriminating against residents in higher-density and mixed-use buildings  100% affordable housing creation is being undercut by the PHZ: o A PHZ project is asking for 2.55 FAR whereas our AH (100% Affordable Housing) district allows only 2.40 FAR o A PHZ project can be 50% office space if the residential units are small vs. just 0.40 FAR of commercial space for an AH project o Favoring PHZ over AH makes it harder for 100% affordable housing projects to acquire land o We should turn this completely around: PHZ should only allow a fraction of what AH is allowed  The City Council is focused on the wrong strategy: o Incentivizing developers will never provide the affordable housing needed and only put us further behind o Instead, direct staff to focus on 100% affordable housing o Help affordable housing providers seek funding being offered by Google, Facebook, and others o Rezone office to residential use   Thank You,  Ben Lerner  3482 Janice Way  33 Baumb, Nelly From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:ranguranganath Subject:PHZ and R-1 zoning not compatible ! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,  City Council to Take Up Changes to the new Planned Housing Zone (a rebirth of the Planned Community Zone which lost favor due to its being a failure) .  In order to incentivize housing development by for-0profit developers, City Staff recommends sweetening the deal for developers exceeding height and density limits. A bad idea !  A precedent for this was set in February when Council greenlit the flipping of two single family zoned parcels behind 2951 El Camino Real, to allow for the single story parcels to be added to a proposed mixed-use building. This property is in North Ventura and directly impacts the homes of our neighbors Anupa, Matt and Candy.   A second foray into flipping R-1 to higher density is happening in College Terrace where 24 units are proposed to be built on two adjacent lots in an R-1 neighborhood. The developer of the Wellesley Project (Cato Investments) is hoping that the Council will   apply PHZ to their application. Even though PHZ was never intended for single family neighborhoods, that’s exactly what Cato and some staff appear to be angling for.   It’s important that the Council send clear directions that PHZ is not targeted at R1 neighborhoods, but in flipping under-utilized commercially zoned space into housing.   High-Level Points for Council Session on PHZ for April 12, 2021   • No conversion of any R-1 (single family), RMD (residential medium density), or R-2 (two unit residential) to PHZ   • Keep all present height rules   • Protect all adjacent residential properties with the same height protections -- right now, some parcels with residences are far more protected than other • 34 Fully park all buildings – as much as we want people to use public transit, no studies support that people don’t own cars   • Don't back off of affordable housing requirements   • Reduce and remove office zoning options so that land prices reflect housing usage, thus helping the housing projects we need to be affordable   Context  PCs (planned communities) were a disaster in Palo Alto’s past:   o public benefits were generally negligible or non-existent   o projects were invariably over-sized, creating traffic, density, and often parking problems   o the monetary value of the slim public benefits obtained were never evaluated against the huge gains earned by the developers   • Renaming PCs as PHZs (Planned Home Zoning) doesn’t solve these problems at all:   o the 20% promised inclusionary benefits is not necessarily worth more than the current 15% requirement because developers can choose what to count to meet the 20% goal   o PHZs will not necessarily produce any housing below 50% AMI, which is what we need most   o PHZs may produce more new jobs than housing because staff are claiming new offices have far fewer workers than industry norms   o PHZs will likely produce only small units for single individuals and not serve families   • The community wants and needs true below-market-rate housing   o The greatest need is for below 50% AMI   o We need both family and single-occupancy units   o New units need parkland, shared open space, and private open space • We must protect existing residents too:   o Rule out any upzoning of R-1, RE (“ADU” properties), RMD, R-2, and RM 20 to high density  o Preserve all existing 35-foot height protections for new projects near residential zones   o Extend to all residential uses citywide the same 35-foot height protection to avoid discriminating against residents in higher-density and mixed-use buildings   • 100% affordable housing creation is being undercut by the PHZ: o A PHZ project is asking for 2.55 FAR whereas our AH (100% Affordable Housing) district allows only 2.40 FAR   o A PHZ project can be 50% office space if the residential units are small vs. just 0.40 FAR of commercial space for an AH project   o Favoring PHZ over AH makes it harder for 100% affordable housing projects to acquire land   35 o We should turn this completely around: PHZ should only allow a fraction of FAR of what AH is allowed   • The City Council is focused on the wrong strategy:   o Incentivizing developers will never provide the affordable housing needed and only put us further behind   o Instead, direct staff to focus on 100% affordable housing   o Help affordable housing providers seek funding being offered by Google, Facebook, and others   o Rezone office to residential use     I have taken the liberty of liberally borrowing from the points and bullets raised by Becky Sanders from VNA. I fully endorse the above statements for the city council to seriously consider. How the long term viability of our City please do the right thing, not just what the developers want.. Developers come and Developers go after making their killing. We the residents have to live with the consequences of their actions - which you can negate by sticking to the actual needs (Low cost housing, no more office spaces and definitely no luxury and abome market rate housing).     Many thanks for hearing me out,    Sincerely,     Ranganath  (Long time resident of greater Ventura)   36 Baumb, Nelly From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:YES: Allow PHZ for R1 zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Dubois, Members of the City Council    I urge you NOT to turn around and restrict PHZ by excluding that designation from R1 zones and lots.  Blocking new housing sends all the wrong signals to neighborhoods, to the state, and to people who want to live here.     Palo Alto needs to get on the right side of ways to meet housing needs and requirements. Restricting PHZ is a turnabout  that belies supposed City, County, State, and national priorities.    Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto      37 Baumb, Nelly From:Penny Proctor <plumbago1927@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:No PHZ in R1 & No to huge Cato Wellesley project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Du Bois and City Council Members,    The huge proposed project at the corner of College Ave and Wellesley would ruin the quality of life nearby, and if  allowed, every neighborhood in Palo Alto would be vulnerable to the same fate.    How important have our gardens been for all of us during the pandemic? Very! A person's backyard is the heart of their  treasured home. There are lots of birds, trees, and the rainwater soaks in, helping prevent flooding. Our gardens are  peaceful, pleasant, private, and quiet. They restore our souls.    This proposal, 3 stories tall, very close to the property lines,  with inadequate parking, would be awful. No birds, no  trees, no privacy! People's windows looking into your house and garden. The cars would be everywhere. Almost  everyone owns a car, even if they don't drive it every day. The increased traffic from 24 units where 2 houses had been  will not help safety for the pre‐school students coming and going next to the library.    The developer will make a profit and the neighborhood will pay the price, if this is allowed.    The other PHZ projects in commercial, industrial, and multifamily zones seem good.    I have 4 cottages, built in 1927, that are about 400 square feet, a few blocks from the Wellesley site. They have parking  and gardens, and are relatively affordable rentals, look pretty, and fit in with the neighborhood. My understanding is  that they are a non‐conforming use, and could not be built new now. Perhaps very different, modest projects could work  in R‐1 neighborhoods, such as cottage clusters, or duplexes, in additions to adu's now allowed. Anything in R‐1 zones  needs to protect the peace and privacy of neighbors. They need parking and gardens, and no more than 2 stories.    Please modify PHZ so that no massive projects are allowed in R‐1 zones.    Thank you,    Penny Proctor  Greer Rd  Palo Alto      38 Baumb, Nelly From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:No exceptions to current zoning rules to developers, for Office and above market rate and at market rate housing construction projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:    Having read the letter that Sheri Furman and Rebecca Sanders sent to you earlier in relation to the  project at 2951 that the city council considered and if I remember right is still considering ‐  decision not cast in concrete, yet, I have decided to copy parts of theri letter that summarizes the  issues in my own letter to you.  Enough cannot be said about the violations of the existing code  that is being contemplated for this project and other such projects in our city.     Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) fully supports truly affordable housing, but 2951 El Camino Real is  not  an example of how to achieve it. This complex’s height, density and massing:  A. Cover 5 separate parcels in North Ventura  B. Violate current zoning Laws  C. Are out of proportion to the character of the adjacent single‐family neighborhood  D. Exceeds what the City’s own development tools to incentivize housing allow (namely HIP and  PHZ)  The Council should say NO to 2951 because it:  1. Violates the law of the City.  2. Encourages other developers to do the same.  3. Encourages other developers to wait and see what concessions they might get from the city;  developer giveaways actually disincentivize other developers to build now.  4. Makes developers unequal before the law. “Compadres” and “Olive Garden” complied, but  2951  doesn’t want to.  5. Victimizes homeowners and renters. Anyone who lives within 150 feet of a commercial or  mixed‐  use zone anywhere in the City could confront new height and massing.  6. Drives up the price of commercial/mixed‐use land because giveaways add value to the land.  7. Higher prices make it harder for non‐profits like Alta Housing to buy land. It will make it harder  for  the City to create affordable housing, as is being proposed by many residents. What if we want  to issue bonds or use a proposed new business tax to build BMR housing and address the  camper crisis? The value of the UPZONED land will make it very hard for beneficial builders to  39 acquire land.  8. Steady up‐zoning of properties along El Camino Real disproportionately affects neighborhoods  nestled behind El Camino Real in South Palo Alto. Upzoning is not allowed in other  neighborhoods, why in these neighborhoods?  9. The City hands the developer millions of dollars in value in exchange for a handful of BMR units  which the developer would have had to provide anyway (the ones we need) and more at market  and above market rate housing (which would be nice, but we don’t need.) There is no value to  the city in this bargain.  10. Municipalities are obligated to look after the long‐term health, diversity and viability of its  community; therefore, providing developers with massive giveaways is not compatible with  sustaining a robust civic life nor solving the problem at hand, the need for more affordable  housing.  11. Furthermore, the housing crisis was not caused by the residents, but by the previous Council  Members and City Manager who encouraged runaway office development as a source of funds  for the city. Palo Alto now suffers from a 3‐1 jobs‐to‐housing imbalance, the highest housing  costs in the land, and high property values. 2951 not only does not abide by our laws but it  makes our housing crisis worse.    Here are some of the specific ways 2951 ECR violates the City’s Zoning Code including HIP and PHZ  tools:   Upzones R‐1 to Dense PC  ○ Violates our Comprehensive Plan to change zoning in this manner  ○ Violates the NVCAP consensus to preserve or only slightly upzone R‐1   Exceeds 35 ft. Height Limit within 150 Ft. of Low‐Density Residential  ○ Violates §18.13.150(b) for PCs  ○ Violates the NVCAP consensus to retain the 35 Ō. transiƟon zone   Exceeds Other Height Limits (proposes 58 ft. maximum)  ○ Violates CS Zone general 50 foot height limit per §18.16.060(b)  ○ Violates R‐1 Zone 30 foot height limit per §18.12.040(a)   Exceeds Allowed Floor Area (proposes 2.55 FAR)  ○ CS Zone allows 1.0 FAR per §18.16.060(b)  ○ R‐1 Zone allows 0.43 FAR per §18.12.040(a) for the sites in the project   Exceeds Allowed Footprint (proposes 63%)  ○ CS Zone allows 50% per §18.16.060(b)  ○ R‐1 Zone allows 35% for multistory homes per §18.12.040(a)   Eliminates Current Ban on Underground Garages in R‐1 per §18.12.060(e)    We respectfully request that Council insist that developers adhere to the zoning codes and make  use of  the tools that the city has provided to incentivize housing development.    Even though the letter centers on the project at 2951 ECR, the points raised are of extreme  relevance to many other projects that are being submitted to the city at breakneck speed.  It is as  40 though developers see a bonanza of exceptions that they can extract from the city to make a  killing.  Building office spaces is the last thing we need. Building even a single one only makes the  jobs/housing imbalance worse. The real need for BMR and low cost housing is getting swept aside  under the pretext of more housing ‐ but what is being pushed is at market or luxury apartments,  etc.  Is there any justification for this kind of switch‐a‐roo or priorities, except lining the pockets of  developers ?  The following is a nice summary of what's on the city's books at the present time  and I would urge the City Council to stick with them ‐ no exceptions please.  As the list below  points out, housing needs for at market and above market rates have been satisfied plenty  enough. What's conspicuously missing is the housing number for the BMR and low cost ‐ both  desperately needed. The council should focus on these and on these only.    Thank you.    Ranganath      Current Zoning Situation:   Currently the city has a zoning code which is the law of the city.   Recently the redevelopment of the old Compadres site and the old Olive Garden site were  approved  under the current zoning tools.   The City has on its books the Housing Incentive Program which relaxes the building code to  incentivize developers to build housing.   Recently 788 San Antonio was approved under the HIP with a few concessions.   Additionally, last year the city brought back the controversial PC zoning (Planned Community  Zoning)  under a new name Planned Housing Zone.   Even with all zoning for housing concessions, 2951 wants even more, ushering in a floodgate of  developers watching, waiting and wanting “more.”   If developers believe Council is soft on code enforcement, developers will continue to waste  Staff,  Council and Commission time on projects that should never be entertained in the first place.  Context ‐ RHNA Goals:  Palo Alto has met or is close to meeting its RHNA allocation goals for market rate and above  market  rate housing for this last 8 year cycle. (We only have confirmed data from RHNA up through 2018  so  estimates based on city data have us at 117% of our goal.) Where we are woefully behind is the  production of Below Market Rate housing.  Every 8 years, ABAG‐‐working with the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC)‐‐distributes a  share of  the region’s housing need (RHNA) to cities throughout the Bay Area. This triggers the production  of a  41 new Housing Element for our Comprehensive Plan which brings together city staff and community  members to review possible parcels and their zoning to make sure it’s possible to meet our  allocation.  The next housing work plan process begins in 2021 and will be seeking applicants.  42 Baumb, Nelly From:OpenGov <support@opengov.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 11:56 AM Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Joyce Beattie; Aram James; rebecca; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (external); Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mary Sylvester; Pat Burt; Ruben Abrica; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Dave Price; Pastor Kaloma Smith; Sunita de Tourreil; Debbie Mytels Subject:[Public Engagement] Update: Re: Announcements from the City of Palo Alto for 04/10/2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.OpenGov ##- Please type your reply above this line -## You are registered as a CC on this support request (#70063). Reply to this email to add a public comment to the request. ~Please note that public comments will be visible to anyone who has access to this ticket.~ To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Marisol Garcia (Public Engagement) Apr 12, 2021, 2:55 PM EDT Hello Roberta, You've reached us here at OpenGov. We are the people who host and help to administer the Open Town Hall forums on behalf of your City, County, State, or Municipality. Please send your question(s) directly to your City in order for it to reach its intended audience. The OpenGov Support Team   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Roberta Ahlquist Apr 11, 2021, 5:14 PM EDT We want the city to re‐prioritize their interests. We desperately need low income housing. Turn the Roth  Building into a low‐moderate housing project   for local service sector workers. What are you thinking of? Why do you resist seeking federal funding for  low‐income apartments?   Get serious about serving the larger community.   43 Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist WILPF Low ‐income Housing Committee    On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:01 AM Palo Alto <support@opengov.com> wrote:  Updates from the City of Palo Alto about Open Town Hall  Is this email not displaying correctly?  View it in your browser.     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Which of the high community‐supported projects would you like  submitted for federal funding?  Apr 09, 2021 10:45 am | The City of Palo Alto    Share your letter of support for select Palo Alto projects to potentially gain Community Project Funding during this year's Congressional federal fiscal year 2022- 23 budget process. Part of this year’s federal appropriations, Congressmembers can request Community Project Funding (earmarks) for non-profits and public agencies for local initiatives in the federal fiscal year 2022-2023. The deadline for submission to Congresswoman Eshoo’s Office is April 12. Congresswoman Eshoo’s office is requesting community support letters along with the City's project requests. The City has developed three (3) project requests for possible submittal, each having prior City Council supportive action. In addition, the Palo Alto Museum, in partnership with the City of Palo Alto, will be submitting a non-profit project to support the renovation of the Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue. There is also an opportunity to summit a letter of support for this community project. The City invites the community to submit letters of support 44 for these projects that we will include with our application to Congresswoman Eshoo's office. Thank you for your support. We'll be accepting letters through the morning of Monday, April 12! Read More    To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.sh are o n Tw itter   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Like Which of the high community-supported projects would you like submitted for federal funding? on Facebook            Copyright © 2021 OpenGov, All rights reserved.  You are receiving this email because you participated on the  City of Palo Alto ‐ Open City Hall website.     Our mailing address is:  OpenGov   955 Charter Street  Redwood City, CA 94063    Add us to your address book    unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences          To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Visit our Resource Center for answers to most of your questions This email is a service from Public Engagement. [R506WP‐M4G5]   45 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 8:23 AM To:pwecips; Council, City Cc:Boyd, Holly; Chan, Joanna; megha.bansai@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Resurfacing East Meadow - Trail access striping? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Staff and City Council I saw the list of street resurfacing for FY21 includes East Meadow from Fabian to East Meadow Circle. This is an upcoming council item on the consent calendar. This block includes the new access to the Adobe Creek trail, leading to the 101 Bridge. Will it include restriping according to the plans that were intended for that trail access? The ARB review version of the plans is here, on page 33: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering-services/webpages/pe-11011-highway-101-bike-bridge/highway-101-bridge-15-design-arb-prelim-submittal-reduced.pdf I'm glad to hear that the new bridge structure should go up this month! Thank you for your work and service for our city, -- -- Robert Neff robert@neffs.net 46 Baumb, Nelly From:Jean Lythcott <jlythcott@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 12, 2021 8:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:a letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To all seven Palo Alto City Council members,    1. • To learn that three City Council members took it upon themselves to make City Council decisions, to be voted on, without including all Council members determines that those members were really comfortable being seriously unethical.  • Specifically, the full council was not apprised that the group of three were bent on constructing the selection criteria for choosing a total of 15+2 volunteers from among the 80 who’d applied to be on the new Housing Committee.   • For the 60 or so volunteers not chosen, what criteria the three members in hiding had arrived at for denying them a position on the committee must also be of deep and abiding interest.  • Finally, the three, who did this deed, shamefully asked the full City Council to vote on the list of 17 volunteers as a whole, with no discussion about the individuals, and with the selection criteria still hidden, unavailable.     2. Additionally, the decisions both to lock in R-1 zoning and to make building multi-unit complexes even more expensive continues the systemic racist stance to work really hard to keep certain people out of Palo Alto.    I am appalled that the housing committee list will be allowed to stand, without challenge.    Jean Lythcott  4135 Maybell Way  47 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 5:55 PM To:Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen Subject:Re Reparations discussion city council member Greg Tanaka and Palo Alto resident Aram James Sunday April 11, 2021) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    >  >   >>  >> https://fb.watch/4PfTYjUapb/  >>  >>  >> Sent from my iPhone  48 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 4:25 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: AZN Oxford, platelets, cerebral clots, current theory. How exactly is mystery for now CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 2:59 PM  Subject: Fwd: AZN Oxford, platelets, cerebral clots, current theory. How exactly is mystery for now  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 2:05 PM  Subject: Fwd: AZN Oxford, platelets, cerebral clots, current theory. How exactly is mystery for now  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 1:52 PM  Subject: Fwd: AZN Oxford, platelets, cerebral clots, current theory. How exactly is mystery for now  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 1:18 PM  49 Subject: AZN Oxford, platelets, cerebral clots, current theory. How exactly is mystery for now  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>              Sunday, April 11, 2021                 To all‐            But before we see Dr. John Campbell in the UK  discussing blood clots and the big gun UK experts also discussing  them in a one hour briefing‐ really good‐ I want to point out something said during the WH Covid task force briefing on  April 7, Wednesday.  See this at 7:40. You see the head of the CDC, who has seemed like a straight shooter, say the  following:  At 7:40 here. Very brief:   She is discussing the "educator vaccination" effort:                "By the end of March, 80% of all teachers, school staff and child care workers across this country had received at  least one dose of a covid vaccine. That's nearly eight million people, educating our children and working in our schools  who, who HAVE some protection against the virus".                  Dr. John Campbell in the UK has said over and over in his vids that you have zero immunity to Covid for the first  21 days after you get a shot. They have been using the Oxford‐AZN and the Pfizer vaccines in the UK. Now the Moderna  is starting to be available to them. BUT Campbell says YOU HAVE NO IMMUNITY FOR THE FIRST 21 DAYS AFTER THE  FIRST SHOT. THEN IN THE FOURTH WEEK YOU DEVELOP SOME IMMUNITY. THEN, AT FOUR WEEKS, AT LEAST IN THE U.S.,  YOU GET THE SECOND SHOT. THEN, A WEEK TO TEN DAYS AFTER THE SECOND SHOT, YOU ARE FULLY IMMUNIZED. AT  LEAST THAT IS WHAT KAISER TOLD ME WHEN I GOT THE SECOND MODERNA SHOT ON FEBRUARY 13, 2021.              So teachers, et. al., who got a Covid shot on March 31, 2021 will have no immunity until 21 days later, on April 21.  Today is Sunday, April 11, 2021. I just point that out.  She said  "HAVE"  on April 7.  That was not true for those getting  the first shot in late March. Just an oversight, I assume, by the Director of the CDC.  But she is head of the CDC, so how  could she make such a stupid mistake, unless it was a deliberate lie to save Biden's a‐‐?   And, of course that means that  20% of teachers, etc., had not received a first shot on March 31. Endless lying out of D.C. regarding the pandemic.  Shading the truth.                                      WATCH: White House COVID task force holds briefing ‐ YouTube                 Now "Vaccine safety update" on April 8, 2021, Thursday, by Dr. John Campbell in the UK.  He goes into detail  about the Oxford‐AZN vaccine and the cerebral blood clots. 29 minutes.  Informative. Highly recommended:                   Vaccine safety update ‐ YouTube               I have only watched it three times. He discusses platelets, how they are severely diminished in pts. who get the  cerebral blood clots, but he never says what is cause and what is effect!!!!!!!!   People who have a very low platelet  count and then get the AZN vaccine are prone to cerebral blood clots??? He never says. GEEZ. Being unclear like that is  unusual for him.  It's sort of a confused mess. Informative, except he never says what is cause and what is effect.   He  offers a theory at the end:  Inject the vaccine into a vein, into blood cells, by mistake, instead of into muscle cell, and  maybe that triggers the problem.               Now here are the really big gun regulators and experts in the UK holding a one hour briefing this week.  Here, at  long last, we DO here a theory as to what is going on with the clots. But three of even these towering experts, the best  the UK has, never think to say what is cause and what is effect until one of them does offer a theory at the 55 minute  mark. You see him say that at 55:00. How could it be that the rest of them talk for an hour and never say  this??????????  Too busy out shopping to prepare for the briefing, I guess.     50                  These are, merely, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the UK, the lady who is Chief Executive of the MHRA,  and Dr. Munir Pirmohamed, who is merely Chair of the Committee of Human Medicines.  Plus a fourth person.  Here is  what Dr. Pirmohamed says at 55:00: Start the video. The briefing starts at ~14 minutes:                     UK's drugs and vaccine watchdogs hold news conference on blood clot concerns ‐ YouTube              "The evidence suggests that this constellation of symptoms is caused by an immune response against platelets  which allows the platelets to then lead to clotting in different parts of the body, but what we don't have is the link  between the vaccine and how the immune response becomes activated against the platelets. Scientific work needs to go  on to identify what that link is so we can develop ways and strategies to overcome this adverse event in the future".                     At least we now have a theory.                 I think the lady says at one point, "We have had 79 cases of this after 20 millon vaccinations with the AZN  vaccine, and 19 have died".                    L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                                              51 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 4:21 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:The City's brand new website doesn't work -- please fix CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Manager Shikada, Council, and UAC, On Friday, 04-09-21, the City launched a brand new website. Now, when I try to use old links to access things, I get "404 ... Oops" messages (that mean the website can't find the requested content). They say, "Pardon the dust." This is unacceptable. At Council's 04-12-21 meeting, during "City Manager Comments," perhaps City Manger Shikada can explain what's going on. (But the Brown Act probably doesn't allow for an extended discussion on 04-12-21.) Perhaps Council can arrange to have the topic agendized for a future Council meeting, to discuss this topic further, and to provide direction to staff about the urgency of fixing the problem. The discussion could include the option of just restoring the old website, as either an interim or a permanent solution. Thanks. Jeff PS: I haven't been following the general topic of why staff wanted to launch a brand new website in the first place. I wouldn't mind reading something about that. But I don't know how to find it. Once the website works again, I might have more to say about whether it's better or worse than the old website. 52 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <kidslovehorses@me.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 3:19 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Thank you for the joint cities letter to the FAA. Planes fly over my house every five to ten minutes. It’s awful.    Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch, 94306, 321‐7375  53 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 2:14 PM To:Palo Alto; Council, City; Aram James; rebecca; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (external); Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mary Sylvester; Pat Burt; Ruben Abrica; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Shikada, Ed; Dave Price; Joyce Beattie; Pastor Kaloma Smith; Sunita de Tourreil; Debbie Mytels Subject:Re: Announcements from the City of Palo Alto for 04/10/2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We want the city to re‐prioritize their interests. We desperately need low income housing. Turn the Roth Building into a  low‐moderate housing project   for local service sector workers. What are you thinking of? Why do you resist seeking federal funding for low‐income  apartments?   Get serious about serving the larger community.   Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist WILPF Low ‐income Housing Committee    On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:01 AM Palo Alto <support@opengov.com> wrote:  Updates from the City of Palo Alto about Open Town Hall Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In   Which of the high community-supported projects would you like submitted for federal funding? Apr 09, 2021 10:45 am | The City of Palo Alto Share your letter of support for select Palo Alto projects to potentially gain Community Project Funding during this year's Congressional federal fiscal year 2022-23 budget process. Part of this year’s federal appropriations, Congressmembers can request Community Project Funding (earmarks) for non-profits and public agencies for local initiatives in the federal fiscal year 2022-2023. The deadline for submission to Congresswoman Eshoo’s Office is April 12. Congresswoman Eshoo’s office is requesting community support letters along with the City's project requests. The City has developed three (3) project requests for possible submittal, 54 each having prior City Council supportive action. In addition, the Palo Alto Museum, in partnership with the City of Palo Alto, will be submitting a non-profit project to support the renovation of the Roth Building at 300 Homer Avenue. There is also an opportunity to summit a letter of support for this community project. The City invites the community to submit letters of support for these projects that we will include with our application to Congresswoman Eshoo's office. Thank you for your support. We'll be accepting letters through the morning of Monday, April 12! Read More   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.share on Twitter To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Like Which of the high community-supported projects would you like submitted for federal funding? on Facebook          Copyright © 2021 OpenGov, All rights reserved.   You are receiving this email because you participated on the  City of Palo Alto ‐ Open City Hall website.     Our mailing address is:   OpenGov   955 Charter Street  Redwood City, CA 94063    Add us to your address book    unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences        55 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 11, 2021 9:26 AM To:Joe Simitian; Cormack, Alison; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; Raj; Richard Konda; Jeff Rosen; Planning Commission; Jeff Moore; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; GRP-City Council; Roberta Ahlquist; Tony Dixon; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Reifschneider, James; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Subject:BALTIMORE SUN: Maryland legislators pass landmark police reform package into law, overriding Gov. Hogan’s vetoes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI: more on landmark police reform in Maryland. Is California next?   Maryland legislators pass landmark police reform package into law, overriding Gov. Hogan’s vetoes  Read in Baltimore Sun: https://apple.news/ABnF‐qX0bQsubv2KeLfoHOg    Shared from Apple News    Sent from my iPhone  56 Baumb, Nelly From:Parag Patkar <parag@virtunetsystems.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 9:20 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Cc:Office of the CIO Subject:Issues with the new CityofPaloAlto website, proposed quick remedy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Hello Tom, Ed and team  I am not sure if you are aware that the new website is returning many 404 page not found errors..  I am assuming many folks are facing this same problem and your webmaster has posted the below solutions. IMHO,  these are not the correct solutions  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News‐Articles/City‐Manager/5‐Tips‐to‐Easy‐Website‐Navigation  Point #1 on the link above says – “use our new improved search!”  The new search is not working as well as Google search works. This is a common problem with many websites, and this  is not a fault of the webmaster or the new website really. Google just does a far better job of searching on web content  than site specific search engines.  Points 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not useful advice since search is the way people use websites and not directory / website based  navigation and bookmarks. How many Google searches do you do a day versus how many links do you bookmark daily?  Here is an example. I am looking for City of Palo Alto building inspection guidelines for plumbing pipes under concrete  foundation.   Search on City of Palo Alto website for “UNDERSLAB AND SLAB PLUMBING" , the results are not relevant at all.   Now search using “UNDERSLAB AND SLAB PLUMBING" site:cityofpaloalto.org in Google. Very relevant results are shown.  But ALL links come back with 404 results not found.     Here are two quick solutions I propose:  1. Put a link on the top right on the new site that says “CLICK HERE FOR THE OLD WEBSITE”, so users have a choice  of browsing the new website or the old one.  2. You must implement https redirects from old pages to new. This is standard practice to maintain relevance in  Google search. If you do #1 above, you don’t even need to do this.    This is for Ed and the CIO.  To measure the effectiveness of the new website.  1. See the % and volume of end user web hits coming back with 404 page not found errors, that will let you know  how many users are frustrated.  2. Measure the monthly volume of end user web hits versus in the same month last year. This will tell you how  many folks are just giving up on using the website.   With regards  Parag    57 Parag Patkar  4117 Park Blvd, Palo Alto  Cell: 1 (510) 418 2912    58 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:23 PM To:new@freedomamerica.net; Ammo Land; AmmoLand; Uncle Dudley Brown; Teresa Mull; Evan Nappen; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; Council, City; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY; BBC Westen | ONLY Subject:Re: It’s time to FIGHT for the 2nd Amendment! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Old Illigitimate Joe and his Kommie Handlers can write all of the illegal, UnConstitutional laws they want, and wipe their  arses with them. Unless those laws conform to the US Constitution 100%, and do NOT infringe, they are Null & Void  from inception and nobody has a duty to obey them, and nobody has a right to ENFORCE them, either. So says the  Supremacy Clause found in Article Six of the US Constitution. Which is still the Highest Law of the Land, last time I  looked.  Old Joe and his KamelToe Hoe can just GO TO HELL.  They should all be charged with TREASON, convicted,  tarred & feathered, and strung up by their scrawney necks.  They are a total disgrace to this country, and our Esteemed  Founders would have had them swinging from the gallows long ago.  Let us not ever forget the quote made famous by  Pennsylvania Delegate Mr. Tench Coxe when our Esteemed Founders were crafting our  Sacred Second Ammendment,  “All of the horrible implements of the soldier are the birthright of the American citizen”.   Keep repeating it over and  over and over again, and perhaps it will sink into their thick skulls !!!     Best Regards, & Stay Healthy, Wealthy & Wise.  RJS      On Apr 9, 2021, at 1:49 PM, Jan Morgan for U.S. Senate <new@freedomamerica.net> wrote:     To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.State Co-Op (Dynamic)   Please see a special message from our sponsor.          To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.      Fellow Conservative, Our God-given Second Amendment rights are not up for discussion. 59 But apparently, Joe Biden thinks he’s God. Right now, his administration is considering ramming a gun control executive order down the throats of law abiding, God-fearing Americans like you and me. You and I can’t let him do that without a fight, and that’s why I’m asking for your best contribution to support my U.S. Senate campaign today. You can show these tyrannical paper-pushers in D.C. that their actions will have electoral consequences by supporting pro-gun, constitutional conservatives like me who will go to the Washington Swamp and stand up for your rights! To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Senile Joe Biden travels everywhere with armed guards. But he wants to strip you of your right to protect yourself. He thinks that only the Washington Elites deserve personal protection. That’s how third-world dictators behave! 60   As the proud owner of a gun range in Arkansas, you can count on me to protect your Second Amendment from tyrants like Joe Biden when I’m in Washington. That's why I hope you'll help send me to fight for you against the D.C. Swamp by making an amazing gift of support today. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Please don’t wait, fellow Patriot. Radical leftists in Congress and the Biden administration are fighting fast and fighting dirty. They’re pushing H.R. 8, a Universal Background Check Bill, and H.R. 1446, a waiting period bill in Congress, both of which are unconstitutional... ...and who knows what Senile Joe has planned for his Executive Order! I fear that we might be on the brink of total gun bans, and I’m asking for your support today before that happens. Chip in any amount today to show the radical left that you won’t stand for ridiculous, nonsensical, anti-American gun restrictions.   DONATE $100     61 DONATE $50     DONATE $25       Thank you for standing with me against the radical far-left, and the dictator in the White House. Godspeed, To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Jan Morgan Signature Jan Morgan Republican for United States Senate P.S. Senile Joe Biden is governing by executive order like a dictator, and guns are next on his list. Will you donate your best gift to my campaign today to show Senile Joe and the radical Dems that you won’t stand for more tyrannical restrictions on your second Amendment? DONATE!           PAID FOR BY JAN MORGAN FOR US SENATE             62 PO Box 455, Leesburg, VA 20178  If you no longer wish to receive sponsored promotional emails from us click here to unsubscribe.       63 Baumb, Nelly From:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:33 PM To:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office; Council, City Subject:Re: Housing Topics on April 12: permit apartments near transit Greg you need to get the entire city council off these emails. Train your team. Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device From: Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org Sent: April 10, 2021 7:55 AM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; lee.merkle.raymond@gmail.com Cc: leemerkleraymond@gmail.com Subject: Re: Housing Topics on April 12: permit apartments near transit   Dear Lee,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute meeting this Sunday, April 11th  between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka       Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:02 PM, Lee Merkle‐Raymond <lee.merkle.raymond@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear City Council,   64 Please ensure that any changes to Zoning and permitting encourage more apartments near high transit areas.  If there  are apartments added, there should be no disproportionate fees assessed on apartment buildings, and even discounts  on buildings that exceed the required percentage of low income housing units.       Palo alto zoning should have a plan that does not get changed by each developer:  housing density along transit lines  and within a 0.5 mile radius of a transit center.  San Antonio, El Camino, Alma should all have housing density, and the  area near CalTrain should increase density.  Ensure that these apartments/townhomes include low income units so  Palo Alto can have workers who live in the community without long commutes.     Do not make the Planned Home Zones more exclusive.  These planned areas need higher density, low income and  affordable units, with adequate parking.       Thank you,   Lee Merkle‐Raymond   Heather Lane   Palo Alto, CA     66 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:14 PM To:David Angel; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Greer Stone; Greg Tanaka; Binder, Andrew; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Jeff Moore; Raj; Richard Konda; Jonsen, Robert; Tony Dixon; Cecilia Taylor; Roberta Ahlquist; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Kaloma Smith; DuBois, Tom; Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Charisse Domingo; Raven Malone; Tanner, Rachael Subject:We’re Tracking Police Dog Bites Across the Country | The Marshall Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI: at least 3 have died after canine attacks .......  https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/11/17/we‐re‐tracking‐police‐dog‐bites‐across‐the‐country      Sent from my iPhone  67 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 1:53 PM To:Greer Stone; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Jethroe Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Planning Commission; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Roberta Ahlquist; ParkRec Commission; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Raj; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Cecilia Taylor; Joe Simitian; DuBois, Tom; Raven Malone Subject:Hogan vetoes three major police accountability bills - but democratic controlled congress overrides his vetos ....The Washington Post CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI: police officers bill of rights is no more in the state of Maryland—is California Next?        https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md‐politics/hogan‐vetoes‐police‐accountibility/2021/04/09/c0ac4096‐9967‐ 11eb‐962b‐78c1d8228819_story.html      Sent from my iPhone  701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/26/2021 Document dates: 04/07/2021 – 04/014/2021 Set 3 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 68 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Abdel-Malek from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:58 AM To:Council, City; eratner@pacbell.net Subject:Re: Agenda Item 2 on Services for the Unhoused (April 5 City Council Agenda) Hello Elizabeth,     My name is Rita, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 30‐minute meeting this Sunday, April 11th  between 2:00pm and 2:30pm?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Rita Abdel‐Malek   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Rita | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 6:16 PM, Elizabeth Ratner <eratner@pacbell.net> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council.     We support the letter signed by “162 signers”in the Palo Alto community regarding Agenda Item 2, Services  for the Unhoused (April 5 city council meeting).     In addition to the points made in that letter, these points should be emphasized:     The homeless, those in danger of becoming homeless, and the displaced include families with school age  children living in RVs on El Camino Real; single working adults living in vehicles on our streets; and people in  vehicles living on social security or disability income.  Other people vital to our community and who used to  live here‐‐‐ teachers, administrators, hospital workers, police and fire workers, laborers, therapists, retail and  hospitality workers‐‐either cannot afford housing in Palo Alto or spend more than half their income on  69 shelter cost.  Many people essential to our local economy and fabric of our community commute punishingly  long hours to work here.     We agree with the council members on April 5 who discussed making the following city priorities:      Put on fast track the creation of 24/7 Safe Parking lots on public land and commercial parking  lots for immediate use as shelter for the unhoused. Two lots were specifically mentioned:  an  unused lot across from the newly opened Geng Road and a waste‐water treatment site;   Identify local hotels which would be interested in being bought by the city and converted to  temporary or permanent shelter, using either Measure A funds, Home Key funds, or part of the  $12 million federal stimulus money expected over the next two years, and assign city staff to  ensure the city is ready to apply for federal or state funds;   Expand the city’s Human Services Program by hiring a case worker to provide services to the  unhoused (current spending is about $500,000) using federal stimulus money.     The root cause of high rents and homelessness is the failure to create a sufficiently large stock of  permanently affordable housing for all income levels not served by the private market.   Communities which  have stemmed the tide of homelessness have followed this approach.  If we only address the immediate crisis  of low‐income or emergency housing, more affluent households will displace lower‐income households in  older units as rents and prices continue to rise. Building permanently affordable housing for low and  moderate income households de‐stigmatizes these developments and makes such developments financially  feasible.      It is essential that the city look for public land to help solve this problem.     An example is the city’s financial support of the 321 Grant Avenue teacher housing project on county land,  which will create 110 units of housing affordable to a range of income levels for families employed by a two  school districts.      The city can also adopt a policy of building affordable housing over city parking lots (as done in Mountain  View) and should immediately re‐engage the school district in discussions of reusing the jointly‐owned  Cubberley site.     Bill Alexander  Lisa Alexander  David Bergen  James Fox  Kate Lorig  Lisa Ratner   Ted Schachter   Members, Congregation Etz Chayim Social Action (Areivut) Committee          70 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Grover <elizgrover@me.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 3:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi,    I am writing in support of the project proposed by Castilleja.  It concerns me that this project continues to be stalled by a  very vocal minority of neighbors, who would love nothing more than for Castilleja to move.  And of course, were that to  happen, the property would convert to housing, most likely a number of houses, which would provide these neighbors  yet another opportunity to protest.    It seems to me that Castilleja has worked incredibly hard to balance the needs of the neighbors with its own needs.  I  was really dismayed and distressed to hear the reports of the recent City Council meeting in which pretty much every  Council member seemed to oppose the project, which has been in the works for a number of years now.  Castilleja has  bent over backwards to address community concerns within reason.  And I believe that the underground garage is a vast  improvement over the current state of affairs.    Here are some things the City should and should not consider, in my view:    1.  There are repeated assertions about the expense of attending Castilleja—a fact that is completely irrelevant.  Who  cares?  It is a private school and determines its tuition based on its cost of providing an outstanding education for young  women.  It is recognized as one of the best private schools in the country.  Its tuition is in line with all of the private  schools in the area.    2.  Castilleja should be required to enroll a certain number of young women from Palo Alto and East Palo Alto.  Castilleja  does support many local students, and offers scholarships to those in need.  And as for Palo Alto students, many do  attend for their middle school years and then transition back to Palo Alto HS and Gunn.  If Palo Alto students wish to  attend Castilleja, they should apply, but it is ridiculous to require that Castilleja accept a quote from either community.    3.  A parking garage with 78 spaces is not unreasonable.  Not all students are allowed to drive to campus and this would  accommodate those students who are allowed to drive, faculty, staff and visitors.  It would eliminate any parking issues  in the neighborhood.  Castilleja has worked very hard to address the traffic and parking issues over the past few years  and I believe their efforts have been successful, but for these neighbors, it’s just not enough.    4.  Some have suggested that Castilleja severely limit its other activities and events.  I don’t see the same requirement  being mandated for Palo Alto HS, which does create traffic and congestion for the surrounding neighborhoods.  No one  seems to complain about that.    5. The design of the campus will enhance the neighborhood.  The planting of a hundred trees is planned.  The buildings,  as I understand it, will be among the most environmentally sustainable in the city.  Castilleja is really a wonderful asset  to the community.    71 Unfortunately, mistakes, whether intentional or not, made regarding enrollment limits years ago have soured some of  the neighbors and I understand that.  But it seems to me that Castilleja has adequately addressed those issues and will  continue to honor its agreements with the City.  It’s time to move forward with this project.    Sincerely,  Elizabeth Grover  Palo Alto resident  72 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 1:19 PM To:Honky Subject:The MOTHERLOAD of what is NECESSARY ? A UNITED WE THE PEOPLE (AND IT WAS TAKEN DOWN? WTF LOL) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  4.7.21 POWERFUL Interview with Bishop Larry Gaiters, Global Declaration Of War: PARABELLUM     4.7.21 POWERFUL Interview with Bishop Larry Gaiters, Global Declaration ... 4.7.21 POWERFUL Interview with Bishop Larry Gaiters, Global Declaration Of War: PARABELLUM For more amazing v...      73 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 9, 2021 11:43 AM To:Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.com; Human Relations Commission; Council, City Subject:Can you point me to the section of your policies and procedures manuel ..700 plus pages where your current interview -interrogation protocol is located ?   > April 6, 2021    > Hi Andrew,  >   > Yes I agree yesterday was a very busy day. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I look forward to discussing the  below issues with you when your time permits.   >   > Best regards,  >   > aram  >   >   >   > Sent from my iPhone  >   >> On Apr 6, 2021, at 7:55 AM, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  >>   >> Mr. James ‐ Yesterday was a busy day preparing for our Council items   >> and managing on‐going PD operations. I want to let you know I've   >> received your email on Sunday (and your VMs yesterday) and will be   >> giving you a call soon about discussing your questions below. Thanks   >> ‐ andrew  >>   >> Andrew Binder  >> Assistant Police Chief  >> Palo Alto Police Department  >>   >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  >> ________________________________  >>   >>>   >>> FYI: Mike copied this email to 40 or so folks and inadvertently left u off.  >>> Aram  >>>>   >>>> Sunday April 4, 2021 start e‐mail at 10:04  >>>>   >>>> Hi Andrew, ( Assistant Palo Alto Police Chief) Hope you are doing   >>>> well. I was scanning your online policies and procedures manuel ....and could not locate ...I’m sure it is there —‐ current policy on interviews and interrogations of crime suspects.  >>>>   74 >>>> Here are a few questions u might be able to answer for me:  >>>>   >>>> 1. Do you require all felony interrogations to be taped? Misdemeanor interrogations?  >>>>   >>>>   >>>> 2. Does your department allow or disallow off the camera ....so called softening up interrogations ....that take place  off the camera before a taped interview proceeds?  >>>>   >>>> 3. Is your training for interviews and interrogations tactics done   >>>> in‐house or using the old school tactics taught by InBau and Reed?   >>>> ( see in that regard Criminal Interrogation and Confessions ( I   >>>> have the 4th edition...may be a later ones) by Fred E. ImBau, John E.  >>>> Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Brian C. Jayne  >>>>   >>>> 4. Since the Jorge Hernandez case ‐case of alleged coerced confession  by former PAPD officer Natasha Powers — case settled for $75 000.... has the PAPD changed any interrogation policy or training?  >>>>   >>>> ****side note:  ( Hernandez case was national news at the time and still used as a teaching model re how not to  conduct interrogations. Jorge Hernandez was a Gunn HS student at the time he falsely confessed. Many years later the  true suspect was captured and ultimately plead guilty to the brutal rape of a 94 years woman living at the Palo Alto  Commons at the time of the rape.  >>>>   >>>> 5. Unless there is case law I’m not familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court still allows police to lie to crime suspects in  order to obtain confessions. Of course local police agencies can have interrogation policies that prohibit  officers from  lying to suspects during interviews/ interrogations. See question at # 6.  >>>>   >>>> 6. Can you tell me what the PAPD policy is re officers lying to suspects to obtain confessions? Can lie? Prohibited?  Some gray area in between?  >>>>   >>>> 7. Any current cases where the PAPD is being sued for using coercive interrogation tactics?  >>>>   >>>> 8. Does the current contract with the IPA include reviewing claims ....complaints that the PAPD engaged in  impermissible interrogation tactics?  >>>>   >>>> 9. Any other information you might have that is instructive re the current interview interrogation tactics used by  the PAPD.  >>>>   >>>> Ok, as always I would appreciate discussing this issue with you when you time permits.  >>>>   >>>> Best regards,  >>>>   >>>> Aram James  >>>>   >>>> P.S. I don’t know whether this issue can be discussed at tomorrow’s study session ‐given my late notice re my  interest in the topic....but on the off chance you can address these issue at tomorrow’s study session..... I will CC my e‐ mail to the city council and other potentially interested parties.  >>>>   >>>>   75 Baumb, Nelly From:Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:02 PM To:cityattorney@santaclaraca.gov; bcc@dca.ca.gov; mc03100-11@yahoo.com; mcuban@axs.tv; admissions@calbar.ca.gov; dsun@cupertino.org; susan.lee@doj.ca.gov; srubenstein@sfchronicle.com; otaylor@sfchronicle.com; johanna.luerra@shf.sccgov.org; angelo.tom@hud.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; markhamplazata@gmail.com; moneal@pdo.sccgov.org; schatman@scscourt.org; donald.rocha@sanjoseca.gov; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; sylvia.macdonald@ido.sccgov.org; mary.murtagh@eahhousing.org; gary.goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; hwilliams@scscourt.org; Human Relations Commission; aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org; mturpin@bayareanewsgroup.com; publisher@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@siliconvalleyfreepress.com; eclendaniel@bayareanewsgroup.com; rkeith@bayareanewsgroup.com; sdussault@bayareanewsgroup.com; helbraun@helbraunlaw.com; jcanova@scusd.net; csanfilippo@scusd.net; asgonzalez@scusd.net; jmuirhead@scusd.net; vjfairchild@scusd.net; aratermann@scusd.net; mrichardson@scusd.net; mryan@scusd.net; pubworks@sunnyvale.ca.gov; joebravo@bravolaw.com; joe@piastalaw.biz; districtattorney@sfgov.org; 6th.district@jud.ca.gov; scottlargent38@gmail.com; will@crim- defense.com; anna@annaeshoo4congress.com; guardians@aclu.org; fdngift@aclu.org; chartley@sunnyvale.ca.gov; pubdef-mediarelations@sfgov.org; Council, City; patrick@sdpap.org; ukoffice@chinaculture.org; parmit.randhawa@georgehills.com; corrupt@brianmccomas.attorney; jdiaz@sfchronicle.com; 1guitard.as@gmail.com; paulette.altmaier@gmail.com; hotline@hudoig.gov; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov; david.rose@doj.ca.gov; servesdap@sdap.org; john.bennett@ic.fbi.gov; mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org; chesa@sfgov.org; mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; info@siliconvalleydebug.org; florestrisha09@gmail.com; mike@mikegoldman4mayor.org; nsallings@scusd.net; mrichardsom@scusd.net; ndefreitas@scusd.com; radams@scu.k12.ca.us; jluyau@scu.k12.ca.us; amasur@scusd.net; adoptions@hssv.org; intake@hssv.org; education@hssv.org; comments@hssv.org; officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; third.district@jud.ca.gov; fourth.district@jud.ca.gov; fifth.district@jud.ca.gov; sfagdocketing@doj.ca.gov; karlene.navarro@gmail.com; judicial.council@jud.ca.gov; first.district@jud.ca.gov; cityatty@sunnyvale.ca.gov; Be Judged; j@fuerylaw.com; Jeremy Schmidt; Stretch Brian (USACAN); raymond.hulser@usdoj.gov; second.district@jud.ca.gov; lik roper Subject:Re: KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE #18 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  One more thing...What my evil cunt sister really wants is to call the police to have them respond and shoot me so she can get the house and get me out of the picture...She knows that supposed anti- Nazi SCCDA Rosen will take zero action regarding officer-involved shootings...And she has been trying to inch towards this nefarious goal for a number of years...So even though dumb ass democrats wants to offer blanket trust to all women simply because they are women; remember that there are many BAD women out there who do not deserve automatic trust... On Thursday, April 8, 2021, 1:47:01 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: BTW: The last email segment was obviously so volatile that it blew up the thread causing Yahoo to called it SPAM haha...So here is a new email thread...Have a nice day everyone! :D 76 Baumb, Nelly From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 5:35 AM To:Council, City Cc:Jeff Rosen Subject:Housing Committee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I was very troubled by the report in the newspaper about the method used for the appointment of the Housing  Committee.      I think that this issue should be brought to the attention of the City Attorney for a quick resolution. There are allegations  of Brown Act violations with council members allegedly meeting privately to determine this vital committee.    Palo Alto deserves better than to become a behind closed doors Council.     Please clarify this issue in an open forum of the City Council.    Alice Schaffer Smith  850 Webster Street Apt 520  Palo Alto, CA 94301  650 283 2822        77 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:10 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte Subject:Fwd: DW- EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:19 AM  Subject: Fwd: DW‐ EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:05 AM  Subject: Fwd: DW‐ EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:03 AM  Subject: Fwd: DW‐ EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:00 AM  78 Subject: Fwd: DW‐ EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 4:06 PM  Subject: Fwd: DW‐ EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:26 PM  Subject: DW‐ EMA sees link between OXFORD AZN vaccine and blood clots in young women  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                   Very late on Wednesday, April 7, 2021                To all‐                  We see clots in older people, especially in men,  from Covid disease.  We see clots in younger people, perhaps  from the AZN vaccine.                Here is discussion on DW from a virologist in the UK:                         "Clear link between AstraZeneca and rare blood clots" | DW News ‐ YouTube              And here are two or three vids featuring experts on this clot issue that came out in the past 24 hours:                  Is The AstraZeneca Vaccine Safe? Professors Debunk Vaccine Fears | This Morning ‐ YouTube                 AstraZeneca vaccine: What impact will the policy change have? ‐ BBC Newsnight ‐ YouTube                WATCH: White House COVID task force holds briefing ‐ YouTube               So they will have to tailor the administration of the AZN vaccine by gender and age groups IF there is a proven  causal relationship between the AZN vaccine and blood clots, and maybe even if it not proven, just to be safe. Despite  the headline here, the EMA still has not stated that there is a causal link.  The clots, whatever the cause, are extremely  rare. Covid pts. get clots while fighting the disease.  Note what the EMA said on Wednesday, April 7, 2021:  There  APPEARS TO BE a definite link between the AZN vaccine and certain blood clots.  Appears and definite.  They have been  panned for that juxtiposition.  Talking out of both sides of their mouths.              The Germans started restricting the AZN vaccine to those over 65 about three weeks ago.  The U.S. could do that  too.  Tell people that if you are over 65, the clot risk seems low and if you cannot obtain any other vaccine due to the  continuing, serious shortage of  the other vaccines, despite the BS from the WH press briefing room, you can now elect  79 to receive the AZN vaccine. That could be the message if Biden over‐ruled the FDA and caused it to issue a conditional  EUA for the 30 million doses of the AZN vaccine on hold by the Co. in the U.S.                The FDA advisory panel should issue a CONDITIONAL EUA for the Oxford‐AZN vaccine today and get the 30  million doses moving. THEN they should meet in intense, 10‐hour daily sessions to review the data from the recent  30,000 person trial which AZN conducted and concluded. The Co. says the results show the vaccine to be safe and  effective. They did not see one case of these cerebral clots in the 30,000 participants in the triall. One expert said that  that is not surprising since you see a few of thes clot cases in MILLIONS of vaccinations with the AZN vaccine.  The  current plan is for the Co. to apply for an EUA in mid‐April, and for the advisory panel to then review the data for  WEEKS!!!!!!!!!   That is a crime against humanity.  Maybe we need different people on that advisory panel.                Biden should get them together in a good hotel in D.C. with conference rooms, staff, whatever they need. I think  to date they have met by Skype or something. We want them to work!! after the CONDITIONAL EUA IS GRANTED TO THE  AZN VACCINE. Biden should make that happen, and then the advisory group can pour over the data. If they see  something that regulators in the EU  and the UK and a total of 70 countries missed, they can halt the use of the vaccine.              The UK injects hundreds of thousands of doses of the Oxford vaccine daily, and has done so since January 4,  2021.  They have seen 30 cases of the cerebral blood clots in 18.1 million AZN vaccinations.  Seven of those died.                 Young women on b.c. pills get these clots in 1 in 100 cases over 10 years!!!!!!!!!!!!  So they are far more common  in those people than in other people.  The UK is restricting the AZN vaccine to those over 30. The Germans are  restricting the vaccine to those over 65.  WE COULD DO THAT.                Here is a report from today. An Italian member of the EMA says that he thinks there is a causal link between  (rare) blood clots and the use of the Oxford‐AZN vaccine. The EMA will release a statement later today, Tues. 4‐6‐21, or  tomorrow:                  'Clear link' between AstraZeneca's COVID‐19 vaccine and rare blood clots: European Medicines Agency ‐ YouTube               One boob with a big rich academic position looked directly into the camera about two weeks ago and said  this:   "Re the Oxford vaccine, by May 1 or May 31, we will have so much other vaccine available that we probably won't  need the AZN vaccine."   A third grader could see the error in this logic by this boob. The issue isn't what we will have on  May 1 or May 31. The issue is that we do not have enough of the other vaccines NOW  NOW  to vaccinate all who need  it in the U.S.  Therefore, Americans will die in late  April;, in May, in June and July because Biden is preventing them from  getting the AZN vaccine NOW. That is, NOW. This boob is damaging the name of his school.  The program that had him  on is damaging their network.  I'll never listen to him again for 5  seconds.  See, they get used to thinking that the run of  the American people are a bunch of uneducated, losing boobs. Just tell them  anything!!!!!!!! They are a bunch of  rubes who can't think their way out of a paper bag. The people with big‐gun educations see through the BS, but they are  unlikely to speak up. Don't want to get their name up.  But a few of us will speak out against this crap.             There are two groups acting as a jock strap for Biden:  The networks, and certain academic institutions or the people  they put out there for comments. The networks "  "There is new trouble for the Astrazeneca vaccine  tonight!!!!!!!!!"  with no context.  Jesus, I sure don't want that thing injected.  Duh.                  Release the AZN vaccine in the U.S. and limit it to older age groups.  One vid says that now that we know this can  occur with the AZN vaccine, we can warn recipients of it of certain symptoms to look out for. If they see those, we can  hospitalize and treat them. Those blood clots are treatable.                   So now despite what the jock straps in some universities are saying and what the jock straps at the networks are  saying to try to save Biden's ass, Biden should be impeached for murder if he does not release the AZN vaccine. He has  already killed people who will die in April, May and June for lack of the AZN vaccine. NOBODY SAYS THEY HAVE ENOUGH  80 DOSES. This BS from Biden that all over 18 will be "eligible" to be vaccinated on April 19 is just that. He is trying to save  his ass. There will not be enough vaccine for all on April 19, even if the AZN vaccine is released, but releasing it now will  save thousands of lives.  When they make the shots available to all those over 18, those people will be competing with  the millions of over 65's who are not yet vaccinated.   A big gun expert epidemiologist from NYU Med. School was  interviewed this morning by phone on KCBS 740 SF and she said that is a major concern she has.                  L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.  81 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 10:20 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Reifschneider, James; Jonsen, Robert; Jay Boyarsky Subject:One active African American officer on the current PAPD TEAM ......what does it all mean? A possible answer below ........ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/black‐hispanic‐female‐police‐use‐force‐less‐than‐white‐male‐officers/amp      Sent from my iPhone  82 Baumb, Nelly From:HEIDI SCHWENK <heidi29@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 4:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Heidi Schwenk Subject:Dear Mayor Dubois - Police, Affordable Housing, Education and Health Care CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois,     There is a petition being circulated by Daily Kos; please see below.    I agree with the overall concept of ‘changing’ (not defunding) the police’s job description in Palo Alto and the amount of  funding that they receive for non‐police activities. I hope you are working to fulfill the needs for the majority of Palo  Altoians who want to see mature, thoughtful, progressive, and humanistic policies upgraded.     I hope your move to work with two City Council members, behind Burt and Cormack’s backs, and possibly behind  Tanaka’s back, to cull the 80 applications for the Housing Element Working Group for your small committee’s hand  picked selectees is beneficial for the whole community. Unfortunately we won’t know until 2022, if your play to  disrespect your fellow City Council Representatives and my City Council Representatives will benefit those who provide  campaign funds or those who need affordable housing, health care, fair Policing on our city streets, and exemplar  education for all of our youth. Palo Alto is in a prime position to become a leader in CA for Police Reform, Affordable  Housing, Healthcare, and Education. Our community could become more inclusive instead of what seems like a bubbling  mess under the surface of inappropriate comments by some members of our community and council and/or the silence  of some City Council members. Personally after living in Palo Alto for almost 30 years; I’ve seen more backward change  than forward and hope it reverses during your Mayoral term. After all, I voted for you with confidence to be a ‘real'  Residentialist; someone who advocates for better housing for everyone, to develop a friendlier and more functional,  supportive, and inclusive community; not a single family home advocate.     Best,  Heidi Schwenk  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.      Campaign Action 83 Sign the petition to all U.S. mayors: Defund the police, invest in our communities Right now, our country is reckoning with the embedded history of racist violence by police. For months, millions of people in every state and Washington, DC demonstrated and protested in support of calls to defund police after the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Tony McDade, and countless others. As Derek Chauvin, the officer who killed George Floyd, is on trial and police all over the country continue to surveil and target protestors and communities of color, we must continue to push for divestment in the racist-to-its-core institution that is policing, and focus on investment in our communities. Since the beginning of the George Floyd uprising, organizers in many locales including in Minneapolis, Denver, Oakland, and Washington, DC have made significant campaign wins, decreasing funding to police and removing police officers from schools. Nationwide, communities have won over $840 million in direct budget cuts from U.S. police departments and won over $160 million investment in community services. Police from their very inception were created to surveil, target, and harm Black, brown, and Indigenous people -- this has not changed. Instead of pouring millions of dollars into a violent, racist institution, elected officials must prioritize funding our schools, ensuring healthcare and housing for all, and so much more. It’s time for state and local leaders in the U.S. to hear their communities’ demands to defund the police and invest resources in the wellbeing of all. Sign the petition to all U.S. mayors: The time is now to defund the police and invest money and resources in your communities. 84 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 3:33 PM To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:City of Palo Alto Public Records Request :: W002897-040721 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.            To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.       04/07/2021      Dear Aram:    The City of Palo Alto is dedicated and responsive to our community.  Your request has been  received and is being processed.  Your request was given the reference number W002897‐040721  for tracking purposes.    Records Requested: ʺThe Chief mentioned that there was some higher authority in the city that  ordered the ticketing. I am making a request to know who that person was.ʺ    Your request will be forwarded to the relevant department(s) to locate the information you seek  and to determine the volume and any costs associated with satisfying your request. You will be  contacted about the availability and/or provided with copies of the records in question.     You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and youʹll receive an email  when your request has been completed.     Thank you for using the Public Records Center.    City of Palo Alto          Track the issue status and respond at:  85 https://paloaltoca.mycusthelp.com/webapp//_rs/RequestEdit.aspx?rid=2897      86 Baumb, Nelly From:Frank Flynn <frankflynn@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 2:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Electric power reliability in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council,    On Saturday, Mar 27, 2021, we had an electrical power outage lasting for 2 hours, affections several thousands of  people. It was the second major outage of the year.     Now a week and a half later (perhaps even later by the time you read this) we have no information besides the very  vague statement the there was “trouble at a sub station”.    This council has made a point of encouraging residents to switch to using electric power. This may be a good idea for  environmental reasons but I would like to point out that our electric service appears to be the least reliable utility we  have. And with apparently no follow up towards making it any better ‐ certainly no public examinations of the causes of  outages or published “Root Cause Analysis”.    While the power was out my water and gas stove continued to work. In the 30 years I have lived in my home I cannot  recall even one time when the gas service went off. I can only recall one time that the water service was interrupted (a  broken water pipe down the street).    The electrical service at my home seems to have outages at least once a year — I’d like to have some real data to  examine this claim but the City of Palo Alto Utilities web page does not publish a history of outages.    If we do want to user to switch to electric service then our electric service has to be better. Otherwise residents will  simply buy portable generators and such that are significantly worse for pollution.    There is no (good) reason that our electrical service cannot be more reliable but it will never become more reliable  unless we measure it, analyze each and every failure, and commit to fixing every issue.    Thanks you,  Frank Flynn frankflynn@mac.com 471 Matadero Ave.  87 Baumb, Nelly From:Nigel <Nigeltufnel11@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 12:10 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Police Subject:Abandoned vehicle process CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Who is responsible for the Abandoned Vehicle abatement process?    I reported an abandoned ‘trailer’ which is parked at 488 James Road (without moving) more than ONE YEAR ago.  I know  that I am not the only person who has reported this.    The Abandoned Vehicle reporting system does not provide any ability to receive a reply or an update on the reported  vehicle.  In other words, it is a one‐way system.    Clearly, the last year has been challenging regarding vehicles parked for longer than 72 hours due to the Wuhan Flu.   However, this trailer has not moved for more than 100 TIMES the 72 hour limit.  In addition, this ‘vehicle’ has a license  plate issued in Arkansas.  Seems an easy decision to declare this vehicle abandoned, doesn’t it?    Why do we have an Abandoned Vehicle reporting system if the vehicles are not removed and there is obviously no  accountability?    Sent from my iPad  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Boatwright, Tabatha Sent:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Sp. April 21, 20201 UAC Meeting Materials Attachments:UAC Agenda -April 21, 2021 with timing.pdf; ID 12118 - Item No 1.pdf Honorable Councilmembers,    The UAC will be hosting a special meeting on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 6:00 pm to discuss the Fiber Expansion  Project.     Knowing this topic is of interest to the Council; the City Manager and Director Batchelor felt it best to provide you with  the packet information.     The item is scheduled to go before you on May 24th.     e‐Packet    Respectfully,        TABATHA BOATWRIGHT  Administrative Assistant   City of Palo Alto Utilities Department  250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA  94301  O: 650.329.2326    M: 408.966.0838  E‐mail: Tabatha.Boatwright@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                          City of Palo Alto (ID # 12118) Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report Report Type: New Business Meeting Date: 4/21/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fiber Network Expansion Project Title: Staff Recommends That the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Review and Provide Direction on Fiber Expansion for the City From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff requests that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Council: 1.Develop a community engagement platform including a broadband survey for residents and businesses; 2.Combine Phase 2 and Phase 4 of the Magellan contract to provide detailed engineering design of the City’s fiber backbone and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH); 3.Explore public-private partnership opportunities and models for FTTH; and 4.Evaluate federal and state grant funding options for broadband infrastructure. Executive Summary On October 5, 2020, the City amended the contract with Magellan Advisors to accelerate the Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) business plan as part of the City ‘s Community and Economic Recovery workplan. As a result of the pandemic, the importance of affordable, fast, and reliable broadband service at homes and businesses became more apparent for telework, remote learning, telemedicine, and E-commerce. Magellan has completed the high-level design of the FTTH network and a broadband market assessment by small neighborhoods. Magellan has also developed cost and revenue models and different deployment scenarios ranging in costs from $22 - $28 million for the fiber backbone expansion and an additional $86 - $98 million for FTTH, depending on whether there is a public-private partnership and on the number of premises passed during the initial deployment. Background Since the early 2000s, the City has evaluated various business plans, construction cost estimates and operational models (including public-private partnerships) to expand the City’s dark fiber network for citywide FTTH. Due to numerous factors, the City has been unable to move forward with implementation of citywide FTTH; nevertheless, given the essential need for broadband service and the escalating interest in deploying symmetrical gigabit-speed fiber Staff: Dave Yuan CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 networks across the country, the City believes there may be renewed opportunities to build an all-fiber network in Palo Alto capable of serving both commercial and residential customers. In 2001, the City Council approved a Fiber-to-the-Home (“FTTH”) trial to determine the feasibility of providing citywide FTTH access in Palo Alto. The FTTH trial passed 230 homes and included 66 participants in the Community Center neighborhood. The purpose of the trial was to test the concept of fiber-to-the-home. The FTTH trial proved technical feasibility, but when initial investment and overhead expenditures were included in the calculation to create a business case, it was not profitable for the City and the trial was ended. In 2006, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and negotiated with a consortium of private firms to build FTTH under a public-private partnership model. In 2009, Staff recommended that Council terminate the RFP process and negotiations due to the lack of financial resources of the private firms. In 2013, the City Council decided that an important next step in advancing FTTH in Palo Alto was to develop a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan, which recommended network designs in an engineering study with cost models and business models to deploy fiber and/or wireless networks. The Council initiative was titled “Technology and the Connected City.” These plans were intended to establish a roadmap for either a third-party telecommunications service provider or the City itself building a citywide FTTH network and/or wireless network. The City Council also directed the City Manager to appoint a Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to work with City staff on the Technology and the Connected City initiative. The Committee provided feedback regarding the development of fiber and wireless expansion plans. In September 2015, staff presented a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan to the City Council (Staff Report #6104). Staff and consultant recommended that the City should not directly pursue provision of retail services through FTTH. Instead, the recommendation was to issue a request for information to explore a public-private partnership structure. Under the partnership model, the City would build, own, and maintain the fiber infrastructure and engage with a private Internet Service Provider(s) to manage FTTH enterprise’s operations and provide retail sales. Once again, staff recommended that Council terminate the RFP process due to the lack of financial resources of the private firms. In August 2017, staff presented options to the City Council to pursue a conceptual plan for a municipal Fiber-to the- Node (FTTN) Network for fiber and broadband expansion (Staff Report #7616). Staff issued the FTTN RFP in June 2018 but did not award a contract because there were no viable responses. In September 2019, staff reissued a new RFP for fiber network expansion aligning fiber with other City projects. The fundamental design principle was to fully leverage expansion of the fiber network to support a communications platform for Advanced Metering Infrastructure City of Palo Alto Page 3 (AMI), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, and wireless communication for City Operations. This proposed approach would also become a springboard for FTTH because the City will be adding new telecommunication infrastructure which may reduce the incremental cost to extend fiber to the home. The scope of work for the RFP was broken out into 4 phases as follows: • Phase 1 - High-Level Design and Cost Estimate for AMI, SCADA, and Wireless Communications for City Field Staff and Other City Services • Phase 2 - Detailed Engineering Design and Cost Estimate for AMI, SCADA, and Wireless Communications for City Field Staff and Other City Services • Phase 3 - Business Case and High-Level Design for Fiber-to-the-Premises • Phase 4 - Detailed Engineering Design and Cost Estimate for Fiber-to-the-Premises Discussion For the citywide high-level fiber backbone design, Magellan sought input from internal departments including Utilities, Public Works, Office of Emergency Services, Transportation, Information Technology and Community Services. The new citywide fiber backbone will connect and dedicate fibers to each department under a new high-capacity 432-strand fiber network. There are also fibers dedicated to commercial dark fiber and potential FTTH. The backbone is routed through neighborhoods and business districts to reduce FTTH costs. In addition, Utilities requested cost information for creating a new and separate 144-strand fiber backbone network to support electric substations, AMI, and SCADA for reliability, redundancy, and security reasons. The estimated cost of the two fiber backbone networks is between $22 million and $28 million depending on construction method, including the number and size of the fiber conduit. Pole replacement fees were not included in the estimate because pole loading analysis is not scheduled until phases two and four of the project. Expansion of the fiber backbone will provide the following anticipated benefits: 1. Electric utility modernization for AMI collectors and SCADA switches; 2. Smart City infrastructure supporting Emergency Preparedness, Public Safety, Transportation, Parks, and Parking; 3. Commercial dark fiber leasing; and 4. FTTH Broadband. Business Case The high-level question asked in the business case is: what will it take to make this business sustainable? Financially, the goal of Magellan’s business case models is to determine at what point a business breaks even or becomes profitable. The “take rate” is a measure of how many subscriptions have to be sold and at what price. Obtaining viable market share and acquiring new customers is necessary to sustain a City FTTH offering. Maintaining the viability of the existing dark fiber offering is important to CPAU to avoid erosion of the customer base and existing revenues (approximately $2 million in net revenues per year). City of Palo Alto Page 4 Magellan established the FTTH business case goals by asking key questions such as: what are the minimum sustainable take rates for success citywide? What is the effect of market dynamics? What is the optimal fiber route and construction method to reduce cost of deployment? What is the ongoing impact of competition? The first step in deploying fiber citywide is the Phase 1 project deliverable to identify costs and create a high-level design for a fiber backbone to support electric substations, AMI, SCADA, and wireless communications in the field. The citywide fiber backbone would be constructed to allow for the addition of FTTH deployment at a future date, depending on Council approval of subsequent phases of the project. Magellan provided a high-level analysis of the construction methods and costs for the citywide fiber backbone as follows: • Total fiber backbone project ▪ 65% underground construction ▪ 35% aerial construction ▪ 44 miles of total fiber construction throughout City ▪ 432-count loose-tube fiber cable for City departments, fiber enterprise and broadband expansion ▪ 144-count loose-tube fiber cable for electric, to support reliability, redundancy and future grid modernization growth ▪ Construction sequencing to be determined in detailed engineering design (phases 2 and 4) • Underground Construction ▪ Directional drilling for the vast majority of the project ▪ 24” to 36” depth unless Palo Alto has a greater depth requirement ▪ 12” separation from other utilities unless Palo Alto has a greater separation requirement ▪ Soft and hard surface restoration, erosion control per City standards ▪ Detailed engineering design (phases 2 and 4) will codify all City requirements • Aerial Construction ▪ Strand and lash or installation of fiber in aerial duct • Pros ▪ Aerial duct may protect fiber better from squirrels or other environmental damage • Cons ▪ More difficult to cut into for access along fiber routes ▪ May raise future costs of expanding the network due to additional labor required to cut the aerial duct for new access points City of Palo Alto Page 5 ▪ More visible on pole lines as it is thicker than strand and lash (One inch compared to two inches) • Major Construction Cost Drivers ▪ Total backbone construction between $22M - $28M depending on the conduit size chosen (2” versus 4”) ▪ Recent labor and materials rates from several qualified construction contractors with experience in the Bay Area ▪ Underground directional drill labor – average rates • 2 2” Duct - $78.85/foot • 3 2” Duct - $97.59/foot • 1 4” Duct - $86.35/foot • 2 4” Duct - $131.41/foot ▪ Underground labor accounts for 60%-70% of the total project ▪ Total labor accounts for 85% - 90% of the total project ▪ Final pole analysis and replacement costs need to be solidified to determine any additional costs for aerial The Business Case evaluation for a FTTH deployment reviewed two models available to the City when considering a potential citywide fiber deployment: (1) City Internet Services Provider (ISP) and (2) Partner ISP. Magellan has identified specific advantages and disadvantages for each model as follows: 1. City ISP Advantages • City has total control over how internet services are provided to the community • Control over pricing to residents and business • Ownership of network affords the City a long-term asset to use for other applications • City has access to low cost of capital Disadvantages • High execution risk and a steep learning curve • City culture not accustomed to operating in a competitive environment • Potentially higher operational cost structure • Possible impact to City’s debt rating 2. Partner ISP Advantages • City does not have to provide internet service • No competitive, operational, or regulatory risk • Ownership of network affords the City a long-term asset to use for other applications • City has access to low cost of capital City of Palo Alto Page 6 Disadvantages • City is responsible for most of the capital investment • City has little control over actual services, yet provides most of the investment • Relatively new model without track record • Possible impact to City’s debt rating The financial models for a FTTH deployment were developed with consideration for two different models, City ISP and Partner ISP. The Partner ISP is a model where the City would enter into an agreement with an ISP to provide Internet services to residents. Each model was developed to identify the overall costs, revenue projections, cost projections, debt requirements, renewal and replacement requirements, and a financial analysis determining both cash surplus and break even (in years). Also, Magellan developed a cash balance sensitivity analysis for each model based on varying take rate percentages, construction costs, and operating margins. Multiple construction contractors were contacted for construction bids and an average of these bids was calculated resulting in the following detail and summary table: Key findings for both the City ISP and Partner ISP model were identified and listed by Magellan: ▪ Both models work under different circumstances ▪ Full buildout to 100% of homes in the City ▪ Reuse of existing fiber and deployment of new fiber backbone to serve business customers City ISP Partner ISP Ca ital Ex enditure {32% Take Rate) {43% Take Rate) Fiber Feeder Distribution $65,871,477 $65,871,477 Fiber Drops $9,017,280 $12,116,970 Data Center & Headend $6,880,000 $2,500,000 Home Equipment & Installation $3,870,000 $0 Business Equipment & Installation $333,824 $0 ll'otal Capital Costs $85,972,581 $80,488,447 FTTH Workinq Capital Set Aside $12,500,000 $6,000,000 ll'otal Funding Required $98,472,581 $86,488,447 City of Palo Alto Page 7 ▪ Companion capital projects, abandoned gas, undergrounding provides some value to reduce overall costs over time, but only incremental and not significant ▪ 100% citywide buildout is more achievable under a City ISP model than a Partner ISP model, assuming: • 30-year debt financing at a 3% interest rate • Utilization of the $30M fiber fund for backbone and working capital ▪ Network deployment over 5 years ▪ Retail rates similar to current market rates • 30% - 35% take rates (residential and business subscribers) • Ongoing O&M costs achieve a 55% operating margin • $90M - $100M in funding required ▪ Partner ISP model is also achievable under the following assumptions: • 30-year debt financing at a 3% interest rate • Utilization of the $30M fiber fund for backbone and working capital ▪ Network deployment over 5 years ▪ Wholesale rates to partner at $30 - $45 per subscriber • 35% - 50% take rates (residential and business subscribers) • $80M - $90M in funding required ▪ Financial commitments are similar between the two models ▪ City ISP model is more financially sustainable than Partner ISP model but may come with higher operating and execution risks to the City, which may result in more downside financial risk than the partner model. ▪ However, Partner ISP model requires the City to provide nearly the same amount of capital yet relinquish control over how the network is deployed and operated Although both models would deploy fiber to the entire City, an incremental approach to deployment could allow the City to first target the areas with higher potential take rates to help minimize the amount of funding needed at the beginning of the project. The revenue realized from the initial deployment could then be reinvested each year to build out more of the fiber network in subsequent areas on an incremental basis. This model would eventually cover 100% of the City. The following map illustrates the take rates that would be needed in each area to achieve break even based on Magellan’s analysis. The green areas of the map would provide service to 14,159 households and 1,118 businesses while requiring a less than 30% average take rate. The blue areas would provide service to 10,105 households and 1,685 businesses but require a take rate between 30% and 50% on average. The yellow areas would deploy service to the remaining 3,695 households and 713 businesses in the City but would require an average take rate of over 50% to break even. The brown areas of the map are mostly businesses that are currently being served by the existing dark fiber network (purple lines). Additional fiber would be deployed in these areas on a customer demand basis. City of Palo Alto Page 8 When considering the City ISP, the outsourcing or contracting of specific functions should be considered. Some broadband functions are core competencies and can be easily managed by the City, while other functions are new and can be outsourced where the City doesn’t have the expertise in-house. Subsequently, outsourced functions have the potential to slowly be brought in-house through hiring and as City staff becomes more comfortable with the day-to-day operations of the fiber network. Many cities that have undertaken a FTTH network deployment have outsourced procurement activities, construction management, network inspections and monitoring, network turnup and launch, sales and marketing activities, and customer support and installations. Financing Magellan and the City are exploring various financing options for FTTH. Options include different combinations of the Fiber Fund reserves, ongoing commercial dark fiber revenues, contributions from the Electric Fund and other City Departments for the backbone network related to benefits received from the expanded fiber backbone, Electric Special Project reserve funding, bond financing, special assessment charge, and shared cost with other CIP projects. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Market Assessment To fully inform the FTTH business case, Magellan has undergone an extensive analysis of the existing Palo Alto broadband market. The market is served by two major national providers: Comcast and AT&T. Comcast reports 100% homes passed in Palo Alto using Cable based broadband. “Homes Passed” refers to the carrier’s ability and proximity to serve homes and businesses. This does not mean that these carriers have service to all of these homes and businesses, but it does refer to their ability to do so in an expedient manner. AT&T reports up to 28% FTTH availability within Palo Alto. Both AT&T and Comcast offer up to 1 Gigabytes download speeds and up to 25% upload speeds. Other carriers offer DSL based and fixed wireless service. Notably, AT&T claims 10,000 FTTH homes passed and 900 FTTB businesses. These numbers refer to their ability to serve customers, not necessarily customers currently served. AT&T market advantage is its use of true fiber to the home technology. Comcast’s strong suit is its use of DOCSIS.1, a technology that allows them to serve customers over conventional copper wire at fiber speed, but a reduced operational cost to the carrier. By national standards, Palo Alto is well served by AT&T and Comcast and by a small group of “boutique” providers such as Sonic.net. Pricing for a gigabit service is $95 for Comcast, $83 for AT&T and the City working with a partner is projected at $75/mo. Given the density of carrier services in Palo Alto, percentage of market share of “take rate” for a new entrant into Palo Alto Broadband market may range from 30% to 50%. As with all business ventures, there is risk involved in all stages of development. The provision of telecommunication services comes with a series of risks that may make or break the business. The primary risks for the City arise from competing with a very aggressive private Fundin the FTTH Ex ansion CITY ISP PARTNER ISP Fundina Reauired FTTH Capital Expenditures $85,972,581 $80,488,447 FTTH Workinq Capital Set Aside $12,500,000 $6,000,000 Total Fundinq Required $98,472,581 $86,488,447 Available Fundinq Balance of Fiber Fund for FTTH Expansion $17,500,000 $17,500,000 Loan from Electric Special Projects Reserve $15,000,000 $15,000,000 Total Available Fundinq $32,500,000 $32,500,000 New Fundina Reauired $65,972,581 $53,988,447 City of Palo Alto Page 10 sector industry that will fight to not lose a single customer. Private sector competition plus the City’s ability to host and support a private sector offering are considered the greatest vulnerabilities of City-provided internet services. Three strong incumbents that pose a threat to a City-provided service include: AT&T (full city coverage), Comcast (full city coverage) and various smaller “boutique” carriers. These carriers will defend their market share by temporarily lowering their prices. The risks and liabilities to the City of being an Internet Service Provider are high, plus the startup and ongoing cost are high as well, but the bulk of the revenue would go the City. If the City engaged an outside firm to run the business, the City would have to share the profits with that business partner. Policies The City requested Magellan to perform an analysis of multiple telecommunications-related policies (Attachment A) to ascertain whether changes can be made that reduce construction costs and implementation time associated with fiber network expansion for the City of Palo Alto. Based on market research and input from staff, Magellan proposes the following recommendations. • A Dig Once policy supporting full coordination in compliance with current ordinance provisions in Municipal Code Section 12.10.050 and 12.10.060 should be considered for adoption by the City Manager. Staff should focus on reaching out individually to the relatively few utilities that are not coordinating at present – the wireless companies and infrastructure providers. When the City participates in a project to install conduit it should pay reasonable incremental costs associated with placement of facilities for City use. Magellan recommends that Palo Alto authorize funding approval of $250k annually for future dig once shared excavation projects. • For one touch make ready (OTMR), Magellan recommends that the City not act in advance of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rulemaking determinations for California, because it could expose the City to novel complaints and litigation expense. • Magellan recommends that Palo Alto track micro-trenching efforts in other cities, as this construction methodology may have a further evolution. As broadband infrastructure construction teams evaluate the pitfalls of micro-trenching, improvements are likely to be implemented and may result in successful micro-trenching that could reduce construction costs and implementation time in the future. • For multi-dwelling unit (MDU) housing access, Magellan recommends that CPAU implement a utility requirement that property developers include capacity for additional broadband providers to place additional fiber connections to serve residents of MDUs for new developments. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Next Steps In order to proceed with a project of this magnitude, stakeholder buy-in and collaboration is essential. The City needs to know who the various stakeholders are and what they expect. The City’s primary stakeholders are the residents and businesses. To understand these groups, Magellan will be designing a survey to collect essential data. The survey will seek perspectives and include very specific and detailed questions such a price sensitivity to service offerings. In synch with and beyond the broadband survey, the City will provide educational outreach and launch a community engagement platform regarding costs and benefits of the services offered. Under phases two and four of the Magellan contract, Magellan will create a detailed engineering design to support network construction for both the fiber backbone and FTTH. Low level design will optimize initial routes and phases planned in the initial high-level design for cost, constructability, and complexity. Magellan will provide detailed fielding and walk-out of all routes to validate running lines, existing utilities, and constructability. Magellan will provide full make-ready engineering to determine costs for make-ready and pole replacement where required, as well as estimates on timeframes for these activities. The network design will call out methods of construction, cable sizes, vault locations, splice details, existing infrastructure, and slack locations. It will also identify all laterals, drops, and building entrances. For FTTP, Magellan will include optimal hut locations for fiber distribution and will allocate specific fibers for future broadband usage throughout the City. The design process will assess optimal redundancy modes for both the City’s internal networks and FTTP networks to ensure high redundancy is always planned for in the design. Magellan will assist the City with exploring opportunities for public-private partnerships with incumbent and/or new broadband providers and other local municipalities. Some of the key questions that will be addressed include: • How will joint investment in broadband infrastructure be accomplished between the City and private sector organizations? • What legal and operational structures should be considered by the City and private sector organizations in using the City’s proposed infrastructure? • How will the City balance private sector goals of revenue growth and profitability with public goals of providing affordable and available broadband services across the City? • How will future system expansion be handled between the City and private sector providers, and what contributions will the parties make to this infrastructure? • How will the City maintain neutrality and open interconnection policies with private sector providers, promoting a competitive environment that benefits the City’s broadband user base? • How will an oversight and management board be structured, who will seat the board and what powers and responsibilities will the board have to the project? In addition to the American Rescue Plan, Magellan will assist the City in monitoring and pursuing federal and/or state funding for broadband infrastructure. Potential grants could be City of Palo Alto Page 12 used for broadband infrastructure deployment, affordable broadband programs, distance learning, telehealth, digital inclusion efforts, and broadband adoption activities. Resource Impact Funding for phases 2 and 4 of the detailed engineering design to support network construction for both the fiber backbone and FTTH is approximately $2 million. $500,000 will be funded by the Electric Fund and $1.5 million will be funded by the Fiber Fund. In addition to the detailed engineering design, Magellan will develop a community engagement platform, conduct residential and commercial broadband survey, and search for public-private partnership opportunities as tasks under Council-approved Phase 3. Attachments: • Attachment A: Telecommunications Policy Report • Attachment B: Presentation Magellan .. ADVISORS' NOVEMBER 2020 w, w.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.cm, Attachment A WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background ...................................................................................................................... 4 The Project .................................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of Broadband Communications Infrastructure .................................................................... 4 2. Dig Once/Joint Trench ....................................................................................................... 9 The Dig Once Concept ................................................................................................................... 11 Policies and Practices in Palo Alto .................................................................................................. 12 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 14 3. Pole Attachments and “One Touch Make-Ready” (OTMR) .................................................... 17 Pole Attachment Regulation .......................................................................................................... 18 Policies and Practices in Palo Alto .................................................................................................. 20 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 20 4. Micro-Trenching .............................................................................................................. 21 The Micro-Trenching Concept ........................................................................................................ 21 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 22 5. Building Entry Standards Multi-Unit Housing Access ........................................................... 22 Policy and Practices in Palo Alto .................................................................................................... 22 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 24 6. Federal Policy Review ....................................................................................................... 24 Federal Regulation of Broadband ................................................................................................... 24 Federal Regulation of Wireless Services .......................................................................................... 28 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 32 1. Dig Once ............................................................................................................................... 32 2. One Touch Make Ready .......................................................................................................... 33 3. Microtrenching ...................................................................................................................... 33 4. Multi-Unit Housing Access ...................................................................................................... 34 WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 3 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. How Fiber Connects Communities ..................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2. Physical Bandwidth Capacity Comparisons ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3. Diagram of 5G Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... 9 WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 4 1. Background T HE P ROJECT The City of Palo Alto, through its utilities department, has operated and maintained an existing fiber-optic network for more than twenty years. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) fiber network supports the broadband communications needs of the City and anchor institutions, such as schools and libraries, and some large commercial businesses. The City requested review of certain telecommunications-related policy areas as part of its overall project to prepare design and cost estimates for fiber optic networking expansion options including support for AMI, SCADA and wireless communications for Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works field staff.1 The City’s “long-term goal”2 is to provide for residents a citywide fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) network for broadband communications. The intention is to use existing City-owned fiber optic infrastructure, including aerial and underground support assets, where feasible. This would involve work in public rights-of-way (PROW) and roadways, which in turn involves policy decisions regarding joint trenching (“Dig Once”) and other construction methods (“micro-trenching”), “One-touch Make Ready” for attachment of communications facilities to utility poles, and standards for building entry to connect fiber optic facilities in the public right of away (PROW) to building premises. The ultimate focus of the policy review is to ascertain whether changes can be made that reduce construction costs and implementation time associated with fiber network expansion for the City of Palo Alto. Magellan Advisors performed such an analysis of these policy areas in concert with City Public Works and CPAU management staff, which is the subject of this Report. Magellan greatly appreciates the time devoted to this project by the managers and staff members of Public Works and CPAU. OVERVIEW OF BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE The term “broadband” refers to high-speed internet services that provide users high-speed data access to online content including websites, television shows, videoconferencing, cloud services, or voice conversations. These applications can be accessed and shared through a variety of technologies including personal computers, smartphones, tablets, and other connected devices. Coax cable, DSL, fiber optic cable, WiFi and wireless are the primary broadband delivery systems used to meet these demands by connecting users to the internet. Six years ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considered then- 1 City of Palo Alto Request for Proposal No. 176363, Fiber Network Expansion, Attachment B/Scope of Work, at page 5. 2 Id. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 5 existing demand for high-speed data and defined “broadband” speeds as at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.3 Many consider this definition to be inadequate and outdated. For example, more recently Governor Newsom set a “minimum broadband speed goal of 100 megabits per second download speed”4 for the state which suggests the datedness of the FCC’s definition of broadband speed. The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated the move of all aspects of life to the virtual online world through high-speed broadband connections.5 The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly increased the importance of broadband for work, education and learning, health care, and delivery of government services. Fiber-optic cables (or just “fiber”) are strands of glass the diameter of a human hair that carry waves of light. Unlike other connections that carry electrons across copper wire, fiber supports fast, reliable connections by using photons across glass, giving it the capacity to carry nearly unlimited amounts of data across long distances at spectacularly fast speeds. Because of this speed and reliability, fiber is considered the gold standard for supporting broadband across the full spectrum of devices and applications. Fiber’s usability and resiliency have brought fiber to the forefront of broadband, making it a highly desired asset for all entities, public and private, that own or control it. The availability of a reliable, cost-effective fiber connection is a basic requirement for essential connectivity necessary from the COVID-19 pandemic and creates opportunities for the communities it serves. Generally, broadband is one of many services offered by telecommunications companies on multiple tiers of performance and cost. These services are divided into business and consumer users and are then offered at a subscription fee. The variety of services and technologies are increasing—exemplified by the explosion in smartphone apps —but the networks themselves are converging, so that any device operated by any user can potentially connect with vast amounts of information either inside or outside of the same network. Broadband is deployed throughout communities as wired cables or wireless technologies that carry digital signals to and from users. The content comes into the local community from around the world via global, national and regional networks. The local infrastructure is built, connected and operated by internet and telecommunications companies that own the 3 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment; GN Docket No. 14-126, In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; Federal Communications Commission, Released February 4, 2015. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-10A1.pdf 4 Executive Order N-73-20; signed by Governor Newsom August 14, 2020. 5 See, for example, Broadband for America Now, Jonathan Sallet, Senior Fellow, Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, October 2020, https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/BroadbandAmericaNow_final.pdf and, What COVID-19 Underscores about How Broadband Connectivity Affects Educational Attainment, Johannes Bauer, Director, James H. and Mary B. Quello Center for Media and Information Policy at Michigan State University, Pew Charitable Trusts, December 7, 2020. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/12/08/what-covid-19-underscores-about-how-broadband-connectivity-affects-educational-attainment WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 6 physical wires to each household. This started with telephone companies, which deployed twisted-pair copper telephone lines. The second wire came from television companies in the form of coaxial cable. Later satellite and wireless phone companies provided video and voice, with more flexibility to mobile and remote devices using radio waves. Beginning in the mid-1990s these companies repurposed their infrastructures to connect to the internet and carry digital content. Figure 2-1. How Fiber Connects Communities Infrastructure built on the older technologies described above is aging and results in slower, less reliable access to content. Capacity limits of this infrastructure limit service providers’ ability to reliably provide high speeds, and in turn, the amount of data consumers can use is also limited. Fiber provides the robust infrastructure that connects telephone, cable, and internet infrastructure between communities and around the world. It was originally used by telecommunications for their core infrastructure, to connect their major switching centers, and was only available to their biggest corporate and institutional customers. Today, fiber-optic networks serve homes and businesses throughout the world, providing telephone and television as well as internet access services. With fiber-optic broadband networks, speeds in the billions of bits per second range are possible. The fiber-optic network today operates at nearly 300 Terabits per second, which is so fast that a single fiber could carry all the traffic on the internet. More commonly, fiber-optic networks provide advertised speeds to users ranging from 100 Mbps and 10 Gbps. Fiber-optic networks can be designed to be highly reliable as well as fast. Fiber-optics are used extensively by major corporations and institutions and are beginning to be at the core of every telecom company’s network. Figure 2-2 illustrates the relative difference between common internet connection methods, comparing access technologies from basic dial-up service through DSL, cable, and fiber. Whereas traditional broadband technologies have an upper limit of 300 Mbps, next-generation broadband that utilizes fiber-optic connections surpasses these limitations and can provide data throughputs of 1 Gbps and greater. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 7 Figure 2-2. Physical Bandwidth Capacity Comparisons Dial-Up – 56Kbps • Legacy Technology • Shared Technology ADSL – 10Mbps • First Generation of DSL • Shared Technology ADSL2 – 24Mbps • Second Generation DSL • Shared Technology Cable – 150Mbps • Data Over Cable (DOCSIS 3.0) • Shared Technology Next Generation Fiber – 1Gbps • Passive Optical, Active Ethernet • Shared and Dedicated Technology 5G and Fiber Dependency Fourth Generation or “4G” mobile wireless technology has been widely available for many years. Now “5G”, the latest generation, is emerging, with forecasted commercial availability in 2021 and increasing maturity of the network by 2035 where “the 5G ecosystem will have matured in terms of availability of equipment, deployment costs, and business case viability”6. These new networks are designed to provide increased efficiencies while decreasing latency and are anticipated to improve the performance of connected devices, including the “Internet of Things” (“IoT”) and network architectures with an emphasis on massive multiple input multiple output technologies (MIMO) and device-to-device (D2D) communications such as autonomous vehicles, healthcare technologies (such as blood glucose monitoring), and ultra-high-definition video. 5G networks operate multiple frequencies in three bands using millimeter wavelengths—the highest of which is anticipated to offer download/upload speeds of 1 Gbps. The speed and range the consumer gets depends on a variety of factors, including what spectrum is being used by the service provider:  Low-band frequencies work well across long distances and in rural areas; speeds are greater than 4G but slower than other 5G frequencies.  Mid-band frequencies are currently sought after since they permit greater speeds while covering relatively large areas. 6 Study on Socio-Economic Benefits of 5G Services Provided in mmWave Bands, December 2018, GMSA, prepared for the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference, at p. 5. https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/mmWave-5G-benefits.pdf See Also, The Impact of 5G: Creating New Value Across Industries and Society, White Paper published by the World Economic Forum, January 2020. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/contribution-to-debate/world-economic-forum/the-impact-of-5g.html WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 8  High-band frequencies provide the fastest speeds but in more limited circumstances such as close to the antenna and in areas without physical obstructions (i.e., windows, buildings, walls). Thus high-band frequency will work well in dense areas. This spectrum delivers the high speeds that are commonly associated with 5G in discussions.  It is therefore likely that 5G networking will be a combination of low, mid, and high-band frequencies.  Also, obtaining 5G service requires using a 5G-ready device, of which at present there are only a handful (though trends indicate increasing private consumer adoption). 5G networks are distinguished from the present 4G technology by use of low power transmitters; 5G thus requires the use of wireless technology for maximum usability, meaning close spacing and increased numbers of antennas. These 5G antennas must be connected to and backhauled via fiber due to the vast amounts of data being transmitted and the high speed required to provide low latency and reliability. Therefore, 5G wireless and fiber optics are considered to be complementary, rather than competing technologies. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 9 Figure 2-3. Diagram of 5G Infrastructure7 A recent study and report by Deloitte noted that “Deep deployment of fiber optics into our nation’s network infrastructure might not be as glamorous as the eagerly anticipated launch of fifth-generation mobile networks (5G); however, it is just as important—if not more so. In fact, 5G relies heavily on fiber and will likely fall far short of its potential unless the United States significantly increases its deep fiber investments.”8 The study estimates that the US investments in the range of $130 - $150 billion over the next 5-7 years in fiber infrastructure would be necessary to support the roll out of next generation wireless. 2. Dig Once/Joint Trench The City of Palo Alto has stated a goal of “ubiquitous access to Gigabit-class broadband infrastructure”.9 Magellan Advisors is assisting the City in studying a multi-phase fiber optic network expansion plan which leverages the existing fiber network operated by CPAU. A phased approach to achieving FTTP can leverage the existing CPAU fiber network by adding fiber optic facilities in additional locations to support additional functions such as Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and wireless communication for City field staff and other City services. The more robust fiber optic network can then be further leveraged under an approved business plan to extend FTTP 7 “EMF Explained 2.0”, http://www.emfexplained.info/?ID=25916 , viewed February 28, 2021. 8 https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/consulting/articles/communications-infrastructure-upgrade-deep-fiber-imperative.html 9 City of Palo Alto Request for Proposal No. 176363, Fiber Network Expansion, Attachment B/Scope of Work, at page 5. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 10 access on a citywide basis. To date, fiber has been extended to school district facilities. which brings fiber infrastructure closer to residential areas. Also, rebuild projects are ongoing for new aerial and underground ducts and conduit for fiber optic cables. Fiber optic infrastructure includes conduit and ducts as well as the fiber optic cable and other infrastructure such as vaults, handholes and splice boxes. The fiber optic “glass” cable requires protection from environmental elements, cuts, natural disaster and being crushed. Use of conduits has evolved to provide this protection for fiber optic cables whether aerial or underground. Conduit sizes range from one inch in diameter to six inches or more.10 Conduit facilities have a long life and provide “permanent” pathways for fiber optic cable where fiber optic cable can be easily re-routed or replaced if it becomes damaged or outdated. Placement of these conduits, fiber optic cable and related infrastructure requires excavations and other work in the public rights-of-way (PROW). Such excavation inconveniences the public and damages roads and other infrastructure in the public rights-of-way. “Brownfield” excavations11 to place fiber and conduit have numerous consequences and requirements especially in areas that already are developed with paved roadways and existing underground utilities. Additional “brownfield” excavations require notification of existing occupants of public rights way who must then locate and mark their existing utility infrastructure.12 Excavation then occurs, cutting through existing paving and sidewalks (and hopefully not existing utilities by accident). Barricades, warning signage and covers must be deployed where people or vehicles may encounter the excavation. Every additional excavation creates risks of property damage, service outage, wasted public works resources, traffic disruption and accidents and an overall risk of negative impact on public safety and aesthetics. Without Dig Once coordination, these risks and consequences are worsened with each re-excavation. The object of Dig Once is to incur these risks only once and avoid future costs and risks from re-excavating any time a move, change, addition or upgrade of fiber facilities needs to occur. Coordination among occupants of the PROW does occur today in Palo Alto – including the City’s Public Works and Utilities departments, and jurisdictional utilities13 (primarily through joint trenching agreements between the City and AT&T, Comcast and PG&E in Palo Alto). 10 Conduit infrastructure has been used for copper telecommunications facilities as well and such conduit is significantly larger given the relative size differences of cables consisting of twisted copper pairs versus fiber optic cables. 11 “Brownfield” in the telecommunications context means deployment of upgraded or added telecommunications facilities where network facilities had been previously deployed, i.e., deploying fiber optic facilities where copper lines had previously been deployed. “Greenfield” telecommunications deployment is installation of network facilities where none had existed before, i.e., to serve a new subdivision or office park. 12 Placement of fiber optic facilities in any “Greenfield” environments can be managed through the developer. 13 California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 grants telecommunications companies the right to place facilities in the public rights-of-way as long as they don’t interfere with public use of those rights-of-way. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 11 The City has municipal code provisions which require such coordination. Section 12.10 addresses street cut fees generally and includes requirements for “Coordination with City” (Section 12.10.060) and submission of “Utility Master Plans” (Section 12.10.050). Establishment of underground utilities districts (Section 12.16) also requires coordination and utilizes the joint trenching practices contained in the City’s joint trenching agreements. Magellan Advisors reviewed these ordinance provisions and joint trenching agreements and how they are implemented in practice to assess what further policy steps, if any, could be beneficially taken by the City to extend the practice of coordination of work in the PROW. T HE D IG O NCE C ONCEPT “Dig Once” is defined as policies and/or practices that foster coordination among entities (especially utilities) that occupy public rights-of-way, to minimize the number and scale of excavations when installing infrastructure (especially telecommunications14) in public rights- of-way as well as reduce costs.   The costliest part of construction of fiber optic facilities in the public rights-of-way is the excavation and placement costs for the underground support structures – the material cost of the fiber optic cable and conduit itself is a relatively small percentage of the total cost. Dig Once accomplishes the goal of minimizing costs of constructing separate trenches and facilities – via shared costs of construction.  There are number of estimates of cost savings in different settings, all of which are significant. The Federal Highway Administration estimates it is ten times more expensive to dig up and then repair an existing road to lay fiber, than to install support structure for fiber (e.g., conduit) when the road is being fixed or built. According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, “dig once” policies can save from 25-33% in construction costs in urban areas and approximately 16% in rural areas.15 Several different types of construction costs can be reduced by sharing, including traffic control and personnel, engineering and survey costs associated with location of facilities, environmental studies, and restoration costs. Notably the savings enumerated above are only the initial savings – further savings occur each time additional excavation is avoided so costs are repeatedly saved into the future when spare conduit placed in the initial Dig Once project can be used or reused via innerduct. Dig Once has numerous substantial benefits, including promoting and supporting the placement and expansion of broadband infrastructure (e.g., fiber-optic cable and conduit), reducing the consequences and disruptions of repeated excavations (traffic disruption, road deterioration, service outages, and wasted resources), and enhancing service reliability and aesthetics over aerial construction (which has its own drawbacks).  Repeated cutting of 14 There are a number of telecommunications providers that seek permission to encroach on public rights-of-way, including cable TV companies, incumbent telecommunications companies, competitive telecommunications companies, and wireless communications companies. 15 GAO 12-687R Broadband Conduit Deployment, June 27, 2012, at page 5. https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591928.pdf WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 12 roadways and sidewalks substantially reduces the lifespan, durability and performance of those surfaces and thereby wastes public resources. Furthermore, there is limited space in the public rights-of-way which is further diminished by each separate excavation and trench or facilities placement by the City and the public utilities that serve the residents and businesses. Numerous competitive telecommunications providers are deploying or seek to deploy their own conduit pathways and fiber in the PROW such that it is becoming more congested. As the PROW becomes more crowded the installation costs go up and choices of construction methods are reduced. Gaining efficiencies in use of the PROW becomes even more important as fiber optic cable is more broadly deployed to provide high speed “gigabit” services needed by residents and businesses alike as well as to support the intensive effort underway now to connect “5G” wireless antennas to provide the high speed, high capacity, low latency wireless services for consumers. Finally, development of Dig Once standards and guidelines for deployment of conduit and fiber will facilitate economic development and growth, as it enables cost-effective staged or gradual deployment of broadband infrastructure by local authorities – fiber optic cable can be pulled economically at any time given the existence of conduit infrastructure.    There are several installation methods for conduit which include plowing (often used for long hauls and FTTH), directional boring (which is less disruptive of the PROW), trenching (which involves excavating the length of the route for the conduit), and aerial placement on utility poles. Joint trenching can be accomplished by coordination of plans when telecommunications providers open the ground for projects, on either a voluntary basis among PROW occupants or a mandatory basis required by the City. Dig Once implementation requires a planning and coordination process for construction projects in the public rights-of-way. When subsurface utility work occurs, led by any occupant of the PROW, it presents opportunities using dig once policies for the City to install new fiber in the right-of-way at reduced costs via coordination of work. This enables the City to expand its ownership of fiber anytime subsurface utility work occurs, at preferential costs to new construction. The concept can also extend to required placement of conduit for fiber-optic cable whenever the ground is opened, as expressed in recent proposed Congressional legislation. This concept is embodied in the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2019, which requires the inclusion of broadband conduit during construction of any road receiving federal funding.16 P OLICIES AND P RACTICES IN P ALO A LTO 16 The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2019, H.R. 2692, May 14, 2019. It is anticipated that this will be included in the “Moving Forward Act” (H.R. 2 “Infrastructure Bill”) when it is reintroduced in the current Congress. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2692 WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 13 The City has recognized the many potential benefits of Dig Once practices and has maintained an interest in staying current on Dig Once policies to provide for future opportunities. Since 2003 the municipal code has required coordination between the City and public utilities on planned work in the PROW, which has occurred to a certain extent. Also, five years or so ago Google Fiber pressed Palo Alto and other cities on expansion of Dig Once practices but that push has diminished as Google is no longer pursuing large scale fiber builds. However, fiber optic cable remains the “gold standard” for high speed “gigabit” broadband service. In addition, installation of 5G wireless antennas requires fiber backhaul facilities to connect those antennas to the landline network. The City’s municipal code provisions in “Street Cut Fees”, Section 12.10, were adopted to incentivize coordination of work in the PROW in recognition of both the prospective benefits of Dig Once coordination and wasteful costs and degradation of paved streets from excavations. • Section 12.10.050 requires each occupant of the PROW to prepare and submit a “utility master plan” that shows the location of that utility’s equipment and facilities in the PROW that are anticipated to exist in the next five years, with annual updates to show “planned major utility works” that will affect streets and the PROW. These utility master plans are considered to be confidential and used only for purposes of coordination of work. • Section 12.10.060 requires coordination of work between the City and a public utility for work involving construction in streets and the PROW. The intent is to coordinate work under the City’s five-year repaving plan and the utility’s five-year master plan. When two or more parties have a “major excavation” planed in the same block they are to meet and confer to consider the feasibility of a joint operation. Furthermore, the City shall request that sufficient conduit be installed to accommodate “reasonably foreseeable future business growth needs”. • Section 12.10.010 provides the purpose for the “street cut fee”: “Excavations in paved streets owned and maintained by the city degrade and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance, and repair. It is appropriate that entities responsible for excavating into the city's rights-of-way bear this burden rather than the taxpayers of the city. In addition, establishment of a street cut fee will create an incentive for coordination of efforts in excavating the streets to install, repair and replace subsurface facilities and utilities.” Chapter 12.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is necessary for those instances where coordination did not occur for whatever reason. Good coordination of excavation projects has evolved to be regular practice in certain areas, especially internal to the City. City departments have been meeting monthly to coordinate WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 14 activities under these provisions and five-year plans are coordinated between Utilities and Transportation. The City budget process has been helpful for coordination as well. Projects in the PROW also appear to be well coordinated among the City, AT&T and Comcast by virtue of the joint trenching agreement to support undergrounding of utilities. The “Master Agreement for Installation of Underground Facilities in the City of Palo Alto” between the City, AT&T and Comcast provides for joint benefits for each of the parties from joint trenching for defined projects. The “Trenching Agent” performs certain duties on behalf of all participating parties including preparation of all documents for design, construction and installation of facilities, contracting under applicable competitive bidding requirements, merging comments and suggestions regarding the plans and specifications, calculating and allocating costs based on defined formulas, securing all permits, and performing all required trenching activities (excavation, backfill, compaction, disposal and restoration of surfaces). The agreement presently provides that for projects where the City is the Trenching Agent it must secure prior approval of the City Council when the City’s share of costs will exceed $85,000. In sum, coordination of activities in the PROW works reasonably well among City departments and the two main telecommunications providers under an existing master agreement – AT&T and Comcast. Coordination of excavation projects could also extend to other third parties if those third parties received entitlements to install facilities in the right-of-way. Examples of third parties include wireless companies such as Verizon, AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile, as well as the infrastructure providers with whom they contract, such as Crown Castle, Extenet and Mobilitie. However, coordination of excavation practices are not necessarily easy to establish, given the need to receive entitlements prior to construction and also likely due to the inherently competitive nature of wireless telecommunications services. D ISCUSSION AND R ECOMMENDATIONS Magellan Advisors discussed Dig Once and joint trench practices extensively in team meetings including the City’s Public Works and Public Utilities department management and staff. This discussion included review of existing City practices and its ordinance provisions regarding submission of utility master plans and major works, and coordination requirements as compared to Dig Once ordinances and policy documents from other California cities. The meetings were very useful to the understanding of the potential and importance of Dig Once concepts in the current environment where the City is expanding its fiber optic network and wireless carriers are seeking to expand 5G wireless coverage and associated fiber optic backhaul facilities. Also, the meetings helped identify opportunities to consider beneficial aspects of Dig Once coordination within the City, currently cooperating utilities and any additional PROW occupants such as the wireless service providers who need fiber optic facilities for backhaul. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 15 The City’s current ordinance provisions regarding coordination with the City and utility master plan submission compare well with the other city ordinances that were reviewed. Coordination of work in the PROW in Palo Alto is also made easier by the fact that “all” utilities (electric, gas and water, along with fiber optic services) are provided by CPAU, which has been coordinating for some time with the Public Works department street projects. Palo Alto is unique in this regard as most work in the PROW is done by City departments and can be coordinated among these departments. Compared to other cities there are relatively few other external occupants of the PROW to coordinate with – in this case, essentially consisting of telecommunications providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and wireless service providers (or their infrastructure providers). The City can reasonably expect that construction costs and implementation time for fiber network expansion could be reduced with greater coordination of activity in the PROW which would allow conduit placement – especially at the point installation of fiber optic cable occurs to connect 5G wireless antennas for backhaul purposes. There was consensus on the team that a more formalized approach to Dig Once could leverage greater coordination of capital projects. Similarly, there will be opportunity to coordinate with other telecommunications infrastructure owners within Palo Alto. Discussions were held about whether this formalization should be in the form of an adopted ordinance or a more streamlined policy document. The working group determined that a Dig Once policy document rather than an amended ordinance would be the best fit for the City of Palo Alto. The reasons for this are several: 1. The City already has an existing ordinance requiring coordination, an internal Dig Once practice based on that coordination requirement, and relatively few external utilities will be working in the PROW. The City ordinance requires coordination of work in the PROW among all occupants of the PROW and annual submission of master plans for facilities from each utility as well as planned major projects. The work that remains is to ensure that greater coordination happens, especially among the newer telecommunications companies adding fiber optic facilities in the PROW. It is not clear that this coordination would happen sooner or better if the existing ordinance was amended than if City management and staff undertook additional coordination efforts using a policy statement to encourage and offer coordination with the newer entrants such as the wireless providers and their contracted infrastructure providers. 2. A high level of coordination already exists between City Public Works and Public Utilities departments as well as the incumbent providers (AT&T, Comcast and wireless providers including Verizon), although admittedly this coordination could be improved. The City of Palo Alto is unusually well positioned to accomplish this, relative to other cities, since much of the work done in the PROW is by City departments (Public Works and Public Utilities) that are already coordinating their plans and work. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 16 3. It is reasonable to communicate with additional PROW occupants using existing ordinance requirements and new policy guidance to foster greater coordination of excavation projects before seeking to incorporate more mandatory provisions in an amended ordinance. Ordinance amendment is considerably more time consuming and expensive than adoption of a policy by resolution or by the relevant City department under existing authorities, and it is not clear that resulting coordination would be better or faster under an amended ordinance than a policy statement. Policies can be updated and clarified based on experience faster than an ordinance which is important for practices affected by rapidly changing technologies – such as telecommunications technologies. Changes in fiber optic and wireless technologies suggest the likelihood of repeated updates as technologies evolve, which makes reliance on policy the better option. Magellan’s recommendations are: 1. A Dig Once policy supporting full coordination in compliance with current ordinance provisions in Municipal Code Section 12.10.050 and 12.10.060 should be considered for adoption by the City Manager. 2. Staff should focus on reaching out individually to the relatively few utilities that are not coordinating at present – the wireless companies and infrastructure providers. The outreach should attempt to foster greater sharing of plans on a confidential basis recognizing that obtaining a five-year plan is not realistic in the wireless industry. Prospects should be reassessed after fulsome conversations with the providers to begin relationship building. Note that there are other reasons wireless providers should be communicating and cooperating including OTMR considerations at some point, and antenna placement generally. 3. The Public Works Department should continue regular meetings of the coordination committee to plan excavation projects affecting the PROW. All occupants of the PROW should be expected to designate a person knowledgeable in local projects to participate on the coordination committee. Attention should be given as needed to encourage participation of those PROW occupants who have not previously been regular participants in project planning and coordination. The Public Works Department is expected to lead the meeting and present major City projects to the committee and invite participation and coordination. Other participants should not necessarily be expected to share their plans with the coordination committee as some level of confidentiality may be required. However, these participants should share project plans with City staff outside the coordination committee meeting using appropriate confidentiality protections to facilitate City planning and realization of cost efficiencies and public convenience. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 17 4. The City should focus on creation and maintenance of a “coordination database” which will contain GIS data on existing facilities owned or operated by PROW occupants, as well as regular updates with information on upcoming scheduled excavation. It is crucial to verify that good data exists in GIS to support planning activities with data updates where needed to fill in gaps. The City can then use this coordination database for planning excavation projects. Restrictions on access to this data will be appropriate considering “critical infrastructure” requirements as well as competitive concerns that will require some confidentiality at least in some cases. 5. All permits issued for work in the PROW should require submission of final “as-built” drawings in GIS compatible format to keep the coordination database up to date. 6. When the City participates in a project to install conduit it should pay reasonable incremental costs associated with placement of facilities for City use. These reasonable incremental costs should be calculated to provide benefit and cost savings for each party involved in the project to ensure coordination and participation is mutually beneficial. 7. When opportunities are identified, it is important that Palo Alto be prepared to capitalize on them by installing conduit whenever an excavation occurs in a “major” excavation project. Magellan recommends that Palo Alto authorize funding approval of $250k annually for this purpose. Based on current market rates for conduit deployment, this would net 2778 linear feet (about half a mile) of conduit. Alternatively, the City may opt to grant the Utilities Director or other designee the opportunity to use funds from another account and then reimburse it either during budget adjustments or year-end adjustments. It may also be included in the existing fiber budget. The current funding threshold is $85k, expenditures above which require City Council approval. Increasing this threshold to $250k could occur in the future when City policy direction has been established and doing so would require a separate ordinance update. This funding could be drawn from the Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund. 3. Pole Attachments and “One Touch Make- Ready” (OTMR) The great majority of utility poles in the City of Palo Alto (approximately 5400 out of 6000)17 are jointly owned by the City and AT&T and administered under a Joint Pole Agreement. Approximately 150 of the remaining poles are jointly owned by the City, AT&T and PG&E. The remaining poles are owned by the City. In certain areas fiber optic cable owned by CPAU is attached to utility poles in the safety clearance space. Other attachers, such as Comcast or 17 Streetlights and associated poles are owned by the City, and number approximately 6700. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 18 other telecommunications providers, under the terms of an approved MLA also attach communications facilities to these poles or would be eligible to do so under an approved MLA. “Make-ready” work generally consists of moving or rearranging existing wires and attachments to make space for new attachers or attachments. Among other things, make- ready work frequently involves moving wires or other equipment attached to a pole to ensure proper spacing between equipment and compliance with electric and safety codes. The emergence of competition in telecommunications has led to disputes between pole owners and communications companies that desire to use the poles to attach their distribution facilities. Regulations have evolved to address complaints from competitive communications companies which allege excessive time and cost for pole attachments and related make-ready work. P OLE A TTACHMENT R EGULATION18 Section 224 of the Communications Act19 addresses the subject of pole attachments. Although Section 224 was originally aimed at pole attachments by cable companies, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the range of pole attachments covered under Section 224 to include attachments by providers of telecommunications services, which now include broadband internet access providers, and granted cable companies and telecommunications providers an affirmative right of nondiscriminatory access to utility poles. Section 224 confers authority to the Federal Communications Commission to regulate pole attachment rates, terms and conditions, establish regulations, and enforce its rules and decisions. However, Congress provided specific authority to individual states to regulate pole attachments by invoking the provisions of Section 224(c) to opt out of the federal pole-attachment rules. Under what is commonly known as the “reverse-preemption” provision, a state may regulate the rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments by certifying to the FCC that the state’s regulations meet specified criteria. See 47 U.S.C. § 224(c). The State of California does have the full array of pole attachment regulations and has exercised “reverse preemption”. The state regulates pole attachments through rules and regulations administered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The FCC made substantial modifications to its pole attachment regulations in a recent order.20 The FCC revised its rules and regulations on pole attachment “make-ready processes," including establishment of a “one-touch make-ready” process. This process is 18 The following discussion does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be construed as such. Questions about interpretation or applicability of these or other provisions of federal or California law should be referred to legal counsel. 19 47 U.S.C. §224. 20 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Third Report and Order and Moratorium, WC Docket No. 17-84 and WT Docket No. 17-79, released August 3, 2018. (“Third Report and Order”) https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-111A1.pdf WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 19 aimed at removing barriers to broadband deployment. The FCC found that significant savings in time and money can be achieved through the adoption of a one-touch make-ready (OTMR) process that allows the new attaching entity to use a single, qualified contractor to perform all the “simple” make-ready work for wireline attachments in the communications space on the pole. The Commission intends this to eliminate much of the need for the coordination and work of multiple work crews to sequentially perform necessary make-ready work with respect to communications facilities owned by various attaching entities. The distinction between “simple” and “complex” is crucial. The FCC defines “simple” make- ready work as that where “existing attachments in the communications space of a pole could be transferred without any reasonable expectation of a service outage or facility damage and does not require splicing of any existing communication attachment or relocation of an existing wireless attachment.”21 The FCC defines “complex” make-ready, as “[t]ransfers and work within the communications space that would be reasonably likely to cause a service outage(s) or facility damage, including work such as splicing of any communication attachment or relocation of existing wireless attachments.”22 Given this definition, OTMR is not available to be performed above the communications space – in the public safety or electric space. Furthermore, OTMR is not available where the work involves relocation or rearrangement of electric facilities or involves wireless facilities. The OTMR provisions applicable to qualifying “simple” make-ready work include: • Establishment of qualifications for contractors, and encouragement of utilities to create a list of qualified contractors for use by pole attachers – otherwise, attachers may use the FCC qualifications to hire qualified contractors. • Establishment of rules for determination of completeness of pole attachment applications, and related time limits for that determination. • Reducing the role of existing attachers in the make ready process and giving asset owners and new attachers more responsibility for decisions and actions. Existing attachers still must be notified and given the opportunity to have representatives present when the work is done. • Establishment of procedures to be followed if equipment is damaged. OTMR allows the attaching service provider and approved contractors to perform all work needed to install equipment on the pole, including temporarily moving any equipment owned by the utility or other attachers, in a single trip to the pole. OTMR processes can be used when there is no reasonable expectation of a service outage or damage to existing equipment and no splicing and relocation of equipment. OTMR avoids what was in some cases months of waiting for each owner or attacher with equipment on the pole to move 21 Third Report and Order, at paragraph 17. 22 Third Report and Order, at paragraph 18. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 20 their assets individually. Various provisions of the FCC’s OTMR order were appealed, but the Ninth Circuit recently found that the FCC acted within its authority in creating the new OTMR provisions. “Secondary aspects” of the FCC OTMR regulations were challenged by various parties but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC’s actions on this subject.23 The OTMR rules therefore are applicable in the 29 states which do not have pole attachment regulations, but they are not applicable in California or the remaining 20 states which exercise their own authority over pole attachments. As described below, the CPUC is reviewing whether or not to adopt FCC-style OTMR regulations. It appears that some of the early OTMR activity at the CPUC included engagement by Google Fiber but it is not clear that the early level of engagement has continued. P OLICIES AND P RACTICES IN P ALO A LTO Magellan Advisors discussed OTMR extensively with Public Works and Utilities department management and staff, including discussion of FCC and CPUC pole attachment policies and practices. The Pole Attachment Standards of CPS Energy were also reviewed – CPS Energy serves the San Antonio Texas area, and may be the largest municipal electric utility in the US. CPS Energy has documented make-ready processes for “One Touch Transfer” which it developed under Texas law prior to the FCC’s OTMR ruling. These processes closely resemble those adopted by the FCC. Most of the utility poles in Palo Alto (5400 out of 6000) are jointly owned with AT&T under the terms of a Joint Pole Agreement. City of Palo Alto Utilities fiber is attached in the safety clearance zone on these utility poles, in space above other communications attachers. There is a stated process for handling attachment activity under the Joint Pole Agreement and the perception is that cooperation has been good for handling make-ready applications. To date there has not been a high volume of make ready requests for new pole attachments. The volume is in single or double digits, and in clusters traceable to neighborhood activity. This level of activity appears to be well-managed within the Joint Pole Agreement process. There does not appear to be any surge of make-ready applications on the horizon, above current activity levels. D ISCUSSION AND R ECOMMENDATIONS Implementation of the FCC’s OTMR regulations is occurring in the 29 states which have not exercised “reverse preemption” to take jurisdiction over pole attachment regulations. 23 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1049-1053 (9th Cir., 2020). WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 21 However, California is one of the remaining states which has not yet implemented corresponding OTMR regulations — the CPUC has not yet concluded its regulatory process on utility pole matters. The CPUC has an open docket on utility pole issues24 but has not yet reached any conclusions on OTMR. OTMR is a “track 2” issue, the CPUC-sponsored workshops for which have not yet started in earnest.25 In particular, the issue of “should the Commission adopt, and if so in what manner, the FCC’s One-Touch Make Ready rules” is an open issue with no progress to report from the investigation and rulemaking. Magellan Advisors recommends that the City not act in advance of the CPUC rulemaking determinations for several reasons. First, there is not a high level of demand for OTMR in the City, so the benefits of undertaking development of OTMR processes and rules are likely minimal compared to costs. Second, undertaking the development of OTMR processes and rules now would likely expose the City to the costs of dealing with complaints and litigation on which it would be “going it alone” in advance of CPUC fact finding and decisions. OTMR in California is subject to some controversy and opposition that the CPUC is best suited to address, including opposition from unions and others to the FCC’s OTMR based on various concerns including safety. Finally, Magellan Advisors does not see any present likelihood that introduction of a OTMR process would reduce construction costs and implementation time associated with fiber network expansion for the City of Palo Alto and in fact it would likely incur significant additional costs to develop and implement OTMR, without corresponding benefit. 4. Micro-Trenching T HE M ICRO-T RENCHING C ONCEPT In recent years, “micro-trenching” has emerged as a new construction method for deploying fiber infrastructure. Whereas traditional standards call for fiber to be buried at least 24 inches below grade either with directional boring or trenching, micro-trenching uses thinner, shallower cuts averaging 8-10 inches in depth and 1-3 inches in width. Typically, these cuts are made either in the pavement, sidewalk or the joint between the pavement and guttering. Proponents of micro-trenching note that the shallower placement reduces construction cost, 24 Order Instituting Investigation into the Creation of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles and Conduit in California, Investigation 17-06-027; and Related Matters, Rulemaking 17-06-028; Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. 25 Assigned Commissioner’s Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling; Order Instituting Investigation into the Creation of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles and Conduit in California, Investigation 17-06-027; and Related Matters, Rulemaking 17-06-028; Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California; February 6, 2020, pages 4-5. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 22 time, and disruption to the PROW, as well as limiting the potential for striking other utility lines that are buried deeper. While micro-trenching has been used for some years, its success is as yet unproven, and there are instances of failure including a high-profile failure in Louisville, Kentucky26. Furthermore, the City did allow use of micro-trenching some years back and those locations are still causing problems currently. Many cities are rightly concerned about the use of micro-trenching because of the potential damage it can do to streets and sidewalks. D ISCUSSION AND R ECOMMENDATIONS Micro-trenching construction methods used in other cities were evaluated in consultation with Palo Alto’s Public Works and Utilities departments. Due to concerns about potential for improper restoration of the public right-of-way and examples of failed micro-trenching approaches, Palo Alto and Magellan agree that the City’s current reasons for disfavoring use of micro-trenching are reasonable and consistent with practices in other California cities. Specifically, although micro-trenching may result in reduced construction costs and implementation time, experience elsewhere suggests risks of damage to streets and other infrastructure in the PROW, vulnerability to damage to the fiber optic cable itself from repaving or other activity given its shallow depth, and varied experiences with micro-trenching projects suggests these costs may outweigh the benefits. Magellan recommends that Palo Alto track micro-trenching efforts in other cities as this construction methodology may have a further evolution. As broadband infrastructure construction teams evaluate the pitfalls of micro-trenching, improvements are likely to be implemented and may result in successful micro-trenching that could reduce construction costs and implementation time in the future. 5. Building Entry Standards Multi-Unit Housing Access P OLICY AND P RACTICES IN P ALO A LTO CPAU has specified requirements for service connections for each type of utility service that it offers. The basic service connection requirements27 may be summarized as follows: 26 https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/google-fiber-exits-louisville-after-shoddy-installs-left-exposed-wires-in-roads/ 27 CPAU Rules and Regulations No. 18 Utility Services and Facilities on Customer Premises, effective 10-21-2019. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 23 1. The property to be connected has suitable access for appropriate CPAU infrastructure in public rights of way, easement, etc. 2. CPAU has approved the customer’s application and plans. 3. The Applicant is compliant with all permit and inspection requirements and has installed the required facilities to receive service according to plan. 4. The Applicant has paid in full all required connection charges and fees. 5. CPAU retains ownership of all installed facilities and equipment, and the customer must exercise reasonable care to prevent damage to them. 6. Only CPAU employees or agents are allowed to connect or disconnect service. Furthermore, there are special requirements that apply in addition to the general requirements, for connection of fiber optic services28. These requirements may be summarized as follows: 1. Engineering studies to determine routing and installation costs must be completed, paid for in advance by the Applicant. Applicable agreements must then be executed upon acceptance of the study and proposal. 2. CPAU will construct the connection upon payment of service connection fees and customer completion of all private property construction required to receive the fiber optic service. 3. Performance testing upon completion of the construction will be provided by CPAU. 4. The Applicant may request specific location of the demarcation point, to which CPAU service will be terminated. This location must be approved by CPAU and service to any other buildings on the parcel shall emanate from the demarcation point. 5. The basic protocol is for the landlord to meet CPAU in the PROW, customer side. Discretion is exercised whether CPAU will pull the fiber into the building or just hand it off. In the former case, conduit has to be in place with a functioning pull-rope. 6. The Applicant is prohibited from accessing any portion of the fiber backbone with the exception of the ends of the CPAU fiber which is extended into the demarcation point. 7. All equipment on the customer side of the demarcation point is to be installed and maintained by the Applicant. CPAU will install, own and maintain facilities in the PROW on condition that the Applicant maintains clear pathways from the property line to the demarcation point. 8. The Applicant will provide a suitable means for CPAU to place its seal on equipment installed on the Applicant’s premises. However, these requirements do not necessarily provide Multi-Dwelling Unit (MDU) residents with a choice of communications/broadband providers as up to this point property 28 CPAUs Rules and Regulations No. 26, Special Fiber Optic Regulation, effective 7-1-2012. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 24 developers have not been required to provide infrastructure that will support additional broadband providers. D ISCUSSION AND R ECOMMENDATIONS Magellan Advisors has considered CPAU’s requirements for connecting its facilities to a customer premise or MDU at which the Applicant desires CPAU’s fiber optic services. The ultimate focus of Magellan’s review is to ascertain whether changes can be made that reduce construction costs and implementation time associated with fiber network expansion for the City of Palo Alto. Similar to Dig Once the question arises whether it can be required that property developers include capacity for additional broadband providers to place additional fiber connections to serve residents of MDUs, by providing for appropriately sized conduit which includes innerduct. While it may not be economical to retrofit existing MDUs or office buildings with additional conduit/innerduct it is reasonable to consider such a requirement for new development. This could be implemented as a utility requirement for new construction such that the property developer is required to install sufficiently sized conduit (e.g., 4 inch) and quantity of four (4) one (1) inch innerducts, along with additional backboard space for terminating equipment for multiple broadband providers. Access to that conduit would be granted on a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral basis. This requirement as applied to new development and construction would have reasonable additional cost as it could be accomplished within construction plans before construction starts. Magellan has compared CPAU’s requirements to its knowledge of building entry standards in the industry. Magellan concludes that CPAU’s requirements for existing and single-occupant premises comport with best practices observable elsewhere in the industry and therefore it is not necessary to change these requirements. CPAU’s requirements already include the ability to work with the Applicant to meet requirements associated with at specific customer location. 6. Federal Policy Review29 F EDERAL R EGULATION OF B ROADBAND 29 The following discussion does not constitute a legal opinion and should not be construed as such. Questions about interpretation or applicability of these or other provisions of federal or California law should be referred to legal counsel. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 25 Due to federal preemption, 30 the FCC’s approach to regulating broadband often determines the extent that state and local governments may also regulate broadband. However, the FCC has less ability to use its preemption powers to invalidate state laws which govern municipalities. Because municipalities are considered a creation of state law and agencies of the state, stricter rules apply which limit when federal law can preempt a state’s ability to regulate its municipalities.31 Accordingly, while it is important for a municipal provider to understand the interplay between federal and state law in governing broadband, state laws which apply specifically to municipal broadband are likely valid and not preempted by contradictory federal policy.32 Besides contradictory state laws which apply specifically to municipal broadband, FCC orders and regulations do have considerable ability to limit and determine state law in the area of communications, and a federal policy of deregulation generally limits state and local laws which would limit deployment of broadband infrastructure or have an anticompetitive effect. As discussed above in the introductory paragraph, in 2018, the FCC reclassified “broadband internet access service”—including both fixed and mobile service—as an “information service” instead of “telecommunications service,” as each are defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”).33 This was a reversal of its 2015 Open Internet Order34 in which the FCC initially classified broadband internet access service (both fixed and mobile) as a telecommunications service. The FCC described the effect of this reclassification as ending “utility-style regulation of the internet . . . .”35 As classified as a “telecommunications service,” broadband internet service was subject to many of the regulatory obligations of Title II of the Communications Act, and broadband internet service providers were generally subject to common carrier requirements.36 In ending this utility-style regulation in favor of deregulation, the FCC announced its preemption of any state or local laws which would contradict this approach.37 30 When commercial activities primarily occur interstate, as opposed to intrastate, Congress has the ability to regulate these commercial activities and invalidate state or municipal regulations which contradict or oppose the federal regulations. See In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom (In Re: Internet Freedom), 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 311, ¶¶ 194-204 (2018). 31 Tennessee v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 832 F.3d 597, 610 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Nixon v. Missouri Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 140 (2004)). 32 See id. at 613. 33 See In Re: Internet Freedom (interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 153(24), (53)). 34 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601 (2015) (Title II Order). 35 Id. at ¶ 2. 36 Id. at ¶¶ 37 – 57. 37 We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order. Among other things, we thereby preempt any so-called WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 26 In addition to defining what communication technologies are designated “telecommunications services” and “information services,” the FCC otherwise interprets other provisions and definitions of the TA96, including defining different types of broadband services and infrastructure. Providers of broadband should familiarize themselves with the FCC’s interpretations and guidance, as its classifications can determine which federal rules apply to specified broadband services, and the applicability of certain federal requirements can influence which state and local rules apply, to the extent such federal rules preempt the state or local law. As the FCC considers “broadband internet access service” an “information service,” and thus deregulated (as opposed to “telecommunications service” – i.e., basic telephone service – which are regulated as common carriers), it is important to note the FCC’s current definition of “broadband internet access service,” which it defines as: . . . mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. The term “broadband Internet access service” includes services provided over any technology platform, including but not limited to wire, terrestrial wireless (including fixed and mobile wireless services using licensed or unlicensed spectrum), and satellite. For purposes of our discussion, we divide the various forms of broadband Internet access service into the two categories of “fixed” and “mobile.” With these two categories of services—fixed and mobile—we intend to cover the entire universe of Internet access services at issue in the Commission's prior broadband classification decisions, as well as all other broadband Internet access services offered over other technology platforms that were not addressed by prior classification orders. We also make clear that our classification finding applies to all providers of broadband Internet access service, as we delineate them here, regardless of whether they lease or own the facilities used to provide the service. “Fixed” broadband Internet access service refers to a broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily at fixed endpoints using stationary equipment, such as the modem that connects an end user's home router, computer, or other Internet access ““economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including common-carriage requirements akin to those found in Title II of the Act and its implementing rules, as well as other rules or requirements that we repeal or refrain from imposing today because they could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden on the provision of broadband Internet access service and conflict with the deregulatory approach we adopt today. Id. at ¶195. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 27 device to the Internet. The term encompasses the delivery of fixed broadband over any medium, including various forms of wired broadband services (e.g., cable, DSL, fiber), fixed wireless broadband services (including fixed services using unlicensed spectrum), and fixed satellite broadband services. “Mobile” broadband Internet access service refers to a broadband Internet access service that serves end users primarily using mobile stations. Mobile broadband Internet access includes, among other things, services that use smartphones or mobile-network-enabled tablets as the primary endpoints for connection to the Internet. The term also encompasses mobile satellite broadband services.38 The FCC has also listed certain services it does not consider “broadband internet access service,” including: (i) data services which provide connectivity to a limited number of internet endpoints in conjunction with the offering of certain products or services such as “e-readers, heart monitors, or energy consumption sensors;” (ii) video or voice services provided by internet service providers, as these services are otherwise regulated; (iii) virtual private network (VPN) services; (iv) content delivery networks (CDNs); (v) hosting or data storage services; (vi) Internet backbone services (if those services are separate from broadband Internet access service, as these services have historically not been considered “mass market,” because they usually do not provide the capability to transmit data to and receive data from substantially all Internet endpoints); (vii) premise owners such as coffee shops, bookstores, and airlines and providers of private end-user networks such as libraries and universities, and other businesses which acquire broadband Internet access service from an internet service provider in order to provide their guests and invitees Internet access on location; and (viii) personal Wi-Fi networks created by users of broadband internet access service who do not intentionally offer the benefit to others. Each of these are not considered service providers because they do not market and sell the broadband internet access to residential customers, small businesses, or other end-users such as schools and libraries.39 A municipality which markets broadband internet access on a retail basis to its residents, businesses, and schools and libraries is likely to be considered a broadband internet access service provider by the FCC and subject to FCC regulations; therefore, any municipal provider of telecommunications services on a retail basis will need to familiarize themselves with the various FCC reporting, filing and other requirements regarding fees, reports and data. While the FCC’s current regime supports deregulation and free-market principals in relation to these services, the agency is limited in its authority to preempt state laws related to municipalities, even if those state laws create greater restrictions than the federal regulations. 38 Id. at ¶¶ 21-22. 39 Id. at ¶¶23-25. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 28 F EDERAL R EGULATION OF W IRELESS S ERVICES Wireless services and technology has been largely unregulated since its inception in the late 1980’s – from a rate and tariff standpoint. However local authorities and the Federal Communications Commission have been in an ongoing jurisdictional battle over siting practices and zoning requirements for wireless facilities for some time, which will be discussed further below. At the center of the jurisdictional battle today is 5G wireless service. The placement of wireless facilities is governed by an interrelated legal framework characterized by shared jurisdiction between state/local authorities and federal authority (the Federal Communications Commission or FCC). The past two decades have seen increasing federal preemption of state and local authority by the Federal Communications Commission (and Congress), most recently in its “Small Cell Order”.40 The U.S. Code provides the basis for federal preemption where it allows local authorities to regulate the “placement, construction, and modification” of wireless communications facilities but subject to certain limitations.41 Those limitations include: • City regulations may not “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services”42; • City regulations may not “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”43; • Any denial of an application to place, construct, or modify a personal wireless facility must be based on “substantial evidence contained in a written record”44; and, • City regulations may not “regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.”45 In one specific area – radio frequency (RF) emissions – the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been assigned complete regulatory jurisdiction, under the 1996 Telecommunications Act which preempted local regulation of RF safety standards in favor of 40 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order; In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; WT Docket No. 17-79; In the Matter of Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to infrastructure Investment; WC Docket No. 17-84; Released by the Federal Communications Commission, September 27, 2018. (“Small Cell Order” or “Order”.) 41 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). 42 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 43 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). 44 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). 45 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 29 a uniform national RF safety standard under FCC jurisdiction.46 “The FCC’s limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to RF emissions depend on the frequency or frequencies that a person is exposed to. Different frequencies may have different MPE levels.”47 Local authorities can require compliance with FCC RF standards be demonstrated in evaluating 5G siting applications. Applicants often make this demonstration part of the application package. Local authorities may not however deny wireless communications facilities siting applications based on RF emissions – Congress has preempted local authority on this subject and placed jurisdiction in the hands of the FCC. The FCC’s Small Cell Order The FCC’s Small Cell Order limits local authority in many areas including fees (most notably the annual fee limit of $270 per pole), requirements and criteria that may be used, time frames, and provisions of some state laws. The Order permits fees only to the extent they are non-discriminatory (“no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations”) and are a “reasonable approximation” the government entity’s “objectively reasonable costs” specifically related to the deployment.48 The Order sets out fee levels which are “presumptively reasonable” are $270 per small wireless facility per year, $500 application fee for up to five facilities, plus $100 for each facility beyond five.49 Higher fees can be charged if the state or local government entity can show the higher fees are a reasonable approximation of cost and the costs themselves are reasonable and being assessed in an non-discriminatory manner.50 Beyond fees, the Small Cell Order also addressed state and local requirements in the areas of aesthetic requirements, undergrounding requirements, and minimum spacing requirements using the “materially inhibits” standard created by the FCC in its Small Cell Order. The Small Cell Order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently issued its Opinion51 largely upholding the Small Cell Order but with one exception: The exception is the Small Cell Order provision dealing with the authority of local governments in the area of aesthetic regulations. We hold that to the extent that provision requires small cell facilities to be treated in the same manner as other types of communications services, the regulation is contrary to the congressional directive 46 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). 47 A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance; Local and State Government Advisory Committee, Federal Communications Commission, June 2, 2000, at page 3. 48 Small Cell Order, at paragraph 50. 49 Id., at paragraphs 78-79. 50 Id., at paragraph 80. 51 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1049-1053 (9th Cir., 2020). WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 30 that allows different regulatory treatment among types of providers, so long as such treatment does not “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services.” 47 U.S.C § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). We also hold that the FCC’s requirement that all aesthetic criteria must be “objective” lacks a reasoned explanation.52 And: In sum, the requirement that aesthetic regulations be “no more burdensome” than those imposed on other technologies is not consistent with the more lenient statutory standard that regulations not “unreasonably discriminate.” The requirement that local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is neither adequately defined nor its purpose adequately explained. On its face, it preempts too broadly. We therefore hold those provisions of Paragraph 86 of the Small Cell Order must be vacated.53 52 Id. 53 Id. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 31 The FCC Rules under the Spectrum Act Prior to the Small Cell Order, the “Spectrum Act” 54 enacted by Congress in 2012 added new requirements and directives to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for processing and approval of wireless deployments. To implement the Spectrum Act, the FCC issued new regulations to interpreting the Section 6409(a) requirements and directives of the Act related to local authorities processing of applications for wireless communications facilities. In brief, the Act tightens the application of “shot clock” timelines, and requires local jurisdictions to approve certain collocations and modifications to existing wireless communications facilities under shortened explicit deadlines, if it is an “eligible facilities request” – which is defined as any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving (1) collocation of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment; or (3) replacement of transmission equipment. The new FCC regulations established defined standards for what is “substantial change” and implemented the statutory changes to “shot clock” regulations. The FCC’s “Clarification” Ruling The FCC recently made another ruling which attempts to preempt local authority regarding placement of wireless facilities by “clarifying” “the meaning of our rules implementing Congress’ decisions in section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012” 55. The Declaratory Ruling on June 10, 2020 has been appealed by numerous parties including state and local government organizations and entities.56 Among other things the Declaratory Ruling purports to “clarify” existing FCC rules originally adopted in 2014 to implement the Spectrum Act. The cities challenge the FCC’s ruling on the basis that it violates federal requirements for rulemakings, and is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion in seeking to change existing FCC rules regarding applicability of “eligible facilities requests”. 54 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, § 6409(a) (2012) (“Spectrum Act”), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). 55 In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 19-250 and RM-11849, FCC 20-75 (released Jun. 10, 2020) (“Declaratory Ruling”) 56 Appeals include The League of California Cities, the League of Oregon Cities, and the cities of Glendora, Rancho Palos Verdes and Torrance in California, Texas Municipal League, Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues, Michigan Municipal League, the US Conference of Mayors and many other cities. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 32 Recommendations 1. DIG ONCE 1. A Dig Once policy supporting full coordination in compliance with current ordinance provisions in Municipal Code Section 12.10.050 and 12.10.060 should be considered for adoption by the City Manager. 2. Staff should focus on reaching out individually to the relatively few utilities that are not coordinating at present – the wireless companies and infrastructure providers. The outreach should attempt to foster greater sharing of plans on a confidential basis recognizing that obtaining a five-year plan is not realistic in the wireless industry. Prospects should be reassessed after fulsome conversations with the providers to begin relationship building. Note that there are other reasons wireless providers should be communicating and cooperating including OTMR considerations at some point, and antenna placement generally. 3. The Public Works Department should continue regular meetings of the coordination committee to plan excavation projects affecting the PROW. All occupants of the PROW should be expected to designate a person knowledgeable in local projects to participate on the coordination committee. Attention should be given as needed to encourage participation of those PROW occupants who have not previously been regular participants in project planning and coordination. The Public Works Department is expected to lead the meeting and present major City projects to the committee and invite participation and coordination. Other participants should not necessarily be expected to share their plans with the coordination committee as some level of confidentiality may be required. However, these participants should share project plans with City staff outside the coordination committee meeting using appropriate confidentiality protections to facilitate City planning and realization of cost efficiencies and public convenience. 4. The City should focus on creation and maintenance of a “coordination database” which will contain GIS data on existing facilities owned or operated by PROW occupants, as well as regular updated with information on upcoming scheduled excavation. It is crucial to verify that good data exists in GIS to support planning activities with data updates where needed to fill in gaps. The City can then use this coordination database for planning excavation projects. Restrictions on access to this data will be appropriate considering “critical infrastructure” requirements as well as competitive concerns that will require some confidentiality at least in some cases. 5. All permits issued for work in the PROW should require submission of final “as-built” drawings in GIS compatible format to keep the coordination database up to date. WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 33 6. When the City participates in a project to install conduit it should pay reasonable incremental costs associated with placement of facilities for City use. These reasonable incremental costs should be calculated to provide benefit and cost savings for each party involved in the project to ensure coordination and participation is mutually beneficial. 7. When opportunities are identified, it is important that Palo Alto be prepared to capitalize on them by installing conduit whenever an excavation occurs in a “major” excavation project. Magellan recommends that Palo Alto authorize funding approval of $250k annually for this purpose. Based on current market rates for conduit deployment, this would net 2778 linear feet (about half a mile) of conduit. Alternatively, the City may opt to grant the Utilities Director or other designee the opportunity to use funds from another account and then reimburse it either during budget adjustments or year-end adjustments. It may also be included in the existing fiber budget. The current funding threshold is $85k, expenditures above which require City Council approval. Increasing this threshold to $250k could occur in the future when City policy direction has been established and doing so would require a separate ordinance update. This funding could be drawn from the Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund. 2. ONE TOUCH MAKE READY Magellan Advisors recommends that the City not act in advance of the CPUC rulemaking determinations for several reasons. First, there is not a high level of demand for OTMR in the City, so the benefits of undertaking development of OTMR processes and rules are likely minimal compared to costs. Second, undertaking the development of OTMR processes and rules now would likely expose the City to the costs of dealing with complaints and litigation on which it would be “going it alone” in advance of CPUC fact finding and decisions. OTMR in California is subject to some controversy and opposition that the CPUC is best suited to address, including opposition from unions and others to the FCC’s OTMR based on various concerns including safety. Finally, Magellan Advisors does not see any present likelihood that introduction of a OTMR process would reduce construction costs and implementation time associated with fiber network expansion for the City of Palo Alto and in fact it would likely incur significant additional costs to develop and implement OTMR, without corresponding benefit. 3. MICROTRENCHING Magellan recommends that Palo Alto track micro-trenching efforts in other cities as this construction methodology may have a further evolution. As broadband infrastructure construction teams evaluate the pitfalls of micro-trenching, improvements are likely to be WWW.MAGELLAN-ADVISORS.COM 34 implemented and may result in successful micro-trenching that could reduce construction costs and implementation time in the future. 4. MULTI-UNIT HOUSING ACCESS Magellan recommends that CPAU implement a utility requirement that property developers include capacity for additional broadband providers to place additional fiber connections to serve residents of MDUs, by providing for appropriately sized conduit which includes innerduct. While it may not be economical to retrofit existing MDUs or office buildings with additional conduit/innerduct it is reasonable to consider such a requirement for new development. This could be implemented as a utility requirement for new construction such that the property developer is required to install sufficiently sized conduit (e.g., 4 inch) and quantity four (4) one (1) inch innerducts, along with additional backboard space for terminating equipment for multiple broadband providers. Access to that conduit would be granted on a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral basis. This requirement as applied to new development and construction would have minimal additional cost as it could be accomplished within construction plans before construction starts. Magellan Advisors has considered CPAU’s requirements for connecting its facilities to a customer premise at which the Applicant desires CPAU’s fiber optic services. The ultimate focus of Magellan’s policy review is to ascertain whether changes can be made that reduce construction costs and implementation time associated with fiber network expansion for the City of Palo Alto. Magellan has compared CPAU’s requirements to its knowledge of building entry standards in the industry. Magellan concludes that CPAU’s requirements for existing and single-occupant premises comport with best practices observable elsewhere in the industry and therefore it is not necessary to change these requirements. CPAU’s requirements already include the ability to work with the Applicant to meet requirements associated with at specific customer location. 1 CITY OF PALO ALTOFiber Expansion ProjectPresentation to the UAC April 21, 2021 A c1rv OF ~PALO ALTO Magellan. ADVISORS Attachment B - 2 AGENDA RECAP FROM OUR LAST MEETING SECTION 1 –FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION •Why Should the City expand its fiber backbone •How should the City do so? SECTION 2 –FTTH EXPANSION •What Broadband Opportunities Exist for the City? •What would it take for the City to provide broadband? RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS •Community Engagement •Partnership Investigation •Detailed Engineering (Phases 2 and 4) •Explore Federal Grant Options A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS - 3 RECAP FROM LAST MEETING Phase 4 Fiber To The Premise Engineering Design Aerial & Underground Design, Standards & Construction Package Phase 3b Community Engagement & Crowdsourcing Broadband Survey Partnership Investigation Phase 1 Fiber Backbone Business Case Planning & High-Level Design for AMI, SCADA, Wireless Phase 3a Fiber To The Home Business Case Assessment of Possible Alternatives for FTTH Phase 2 Detailed Backbone Engineering Design Aerial & Underground Design, Standards & Construction Package Today’s Presentation Next Steps A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS I A I ______ !,__ _____ ----\\ I - 4 FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS - 5 FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION WHY SHOULD THE CITY EXPAND ITS FIBER BACKBONE? Fiber is essential infrastructure for everything that cities do… •Essential utilities (electric, gas, water, wastewater, storm drain, fiber) •Energy management •Public safety •Traffic management •Smart parking •Climate management •Electrification •Economic development •Planning & permitting •Smart city and the Internet of things And support external stakeholders too… •Local schools •Libraries •Regional collaboration •Residents and businesses By reducing cost and improving capabilities A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS - 6 FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION THE ORIGINAL FIBER BACKBONE Original Fiber Backbone Built to Connect City Facilities 1996 25 Years Later 2021 •$4M+ Annual Revenues •$30M Reserve Fund •Connects All City Facilities •Connects CPAU Substations •Connects Water Facilities •Connects Traffic Signals •Connects PAUSD School Facilities •Well connected business parks •220+ Business Customers Served the City’s needs well beyond its original purpose A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS - 7 FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION SMART CITY INFRASTRUCTURE •City IT •Parks •Emergency Preparedness •Education •Public Safety •Transportation •Smart Parking COMMERCIAL FIBER LEASING •Support economic development goals •Lower the cost of doing business in Palo Alto •Expand choice for local businesses BROADBAND FTTH •The foundation to support any FTTH •Backbone costs are put towards FTTH •Scalable platform to meet long term needs of the community UTILITY MODERNIZATION •Support more reliability and resiliency •Support robust AMI •Efficient management of plant resources BENEFITS OF THE NEW FIBER BACKBONE A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS - 8 FTTH BUSINESS CASE $ Prerequisite for Broadband NEW FIBER BACKBONE IncrementalFTTH CitywideFTTH Expand DarkFiber Leasing PARTNER ISP CITY ISP Gr e a t e r F u n d i n g R e q u i r e d Greater Risk, Reward & Control A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS - 9 FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION NEW FIBER BACKBONE DESIGN •432 strand fiber for City departments, fiber enterprise and broadband •144 strand fiber for electric to maximize reliability and security •43 miles of total fiber backbone •Dedicated fibers for every department •Dedicated fibers for commercial fiber leasing •Dedicated fibers for future FTTH •Routing through neighborhoods and business districts to reduce FTTH costs •Utilizes abandoned gas infrastructure where feasible FoothillsFiber Backbone New City BackboneNew Electric Backbone A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -10 FIBER BACKBONE EXPANSION FIBER BACKBONE COSTS Low Estimate High Estimate Total Construction Costs $22,219,561 $28,059,212 (Includes 20% Contingency on Labor & Materials)(Pole loading & replacement fees not included, currently under review) A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -11 FTTH BUSINESS CASE FTTH BUSINESS CASE A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -12 FTTH BUSINESS CASE HOW WE GOT HERE...THE PROBLEM •Do residents and businesses have equal access to high-speed internet? •Services are not evenly distributed throughout the City for all providers •“Your mileage may vary” based on where you live in the City •Do residents and businesses have choice? •In some cases, more than one option exists •In other cases, only a single provider is available •Are prices affordable given the monopoly/duopoly market? •When consumers have alternatives, providers must compete on price A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -13 FTTH BUSINESS CASE BEYOND JUST BROADBAND Like the fiber backbone, FTTH provides a platform more than just high-speed internet •Grid/AMI modernization •Energy management •Public safety •Traffic management •Smart parking •Climate management •Work from home •Learn from home •Electrification •Economic development •Planning & permitting •Smart city and the Internet of things FTTH NETWORK PROVIDES THE CONNECTIVITY FOR THESE APPLICATIONS A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -14 FTTH BUSINESS CASE WHAT ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES DOING ABOUT IT? Citywide Municipal FTTH Networks Citywide Municipal Dark Fiber Networks Municipal Dark Fiber Networks –Less than Citywide CALI •.,', IDAH C ~VADA WYOMING UTAH ,-------------~--- ' -. olas Vegas : ' ' ' NA : , NEW MEX ICO ,0 K Houston Ac1rv OF • PALO ALTO ' . .. Magellan • ADVISORS ONTARIO QUEBEC ' NB NOVA SCOTIA -15 FTTH BUSINESS CASE WHAT ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES DOING ABOUT IT? 63 City ISP 286 City Provides Wholesale or Dark Fiber 71 Partner ISP A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -16 FTTH BUSINESS CASE QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY THE BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS •What benefits could be achieved? •What are the market dynamics and how do they impact the business case? •What are the costs and what advantages/disadvantages drive costs? •Are there ways to reduce costs? •What are the minimum take rates needed? •What scenarios result in a feasible business case? •What variables must hold true in these scenarios? A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -17 FTTH BUSINESS CASE TWO BUSINESS MODEL OPTIONS FOR FTTH CITY FIBER TO THE HOME NETWORK CITY ISP PARTNER ISP A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -18 FTTH BUSINESS CASE TWO BUSINESS MODEL OPTIONS FOR FTTH Business Case Advantages Disadvantages City ISP •City has total control over how internet services are provided to the community •Control over pricing to residents and business •Ownership of network affords the City a long-term asset to use for other applications •City has access to low cost of capital •Contract services with key vendors to lower costs •High execution risk and a steep learning curve •City culture not accustomed to operating in a competitive environment •Potentially higher operational cost structure •Possible impact to debt rating Partner ISP •City does not have to provide internet service •No competitive, operational or regulatory risk •Ownership of network affords the City a long-term asset to use for other applications •City has access to low cost of capital •City is responsible for most of the capital investment •City has little control over actual services, yet provides most of the investment •Relatively new model without track record •Possible impact to debt rating A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -19 FTTH BUSINESS CASE FINDINGS Could the City Provide Competitive Rates? Yes. Speed Tier Competitor 1 Competitor 2 City Proposed Rate (Or through Partner) 1 Gigabit $95 $83 $85 600 Megabit $85 N/A $75 100 Megabit $45 $59 $45 MARKET ASSESSMENT –COMPETITIVE RATES A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -20 FTTH BUSINESS CASE FINDINGS TAKE RATES NEEDED TO ACHIEVE BREAK EVEN < 30% Take Rate 14,159 Household1,118 Businesses > 30% and < 50% Take Rate 10,105 Households1,685 Businesses > 50% Take Rate 3,695 Households713 Businesses Commercial-Only AreasDeploy incrementallyDark fiber already existsAbout 1,000 businesses Purple lines show existing fiber in commercial areas FoothillsHome Coverage 180% 49% A c1rv OF • PALO ALTO Magellan • ADVISORS -21 FTTH BUSINESS CASE SAMPLE TIMELINE FOR FTTH Engineering Design/Marketing June 2021 – Dec 2022 Operations Staffing & Data Center Jan 2022 –Dec 2022 Construction June 2022 –May 2026 Customer Activation - Phase 1: Jan 2023 - Phase 2: Jan 2024 - Phase 3: Jan 2025 - Phase 4: Jan 2026 A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -22 CAPITAL SUMMARY –CITY ISP & PARTNER ISP Capital Expenditure CITY ISP(32% Take Rate)PARTNER ISP(43% Take Rate) Fiber Feeder Distribution $70,348,302 $70,348,302 Less: Use of New Fiber Backbone for FTTH $4,476,825 $4,476,825 Revised Fiber Feeder Distribution $65,871,477 $65,871,477 Fiber Drops $9,017,280 $12,116,970 Data Center & Headend $6,880,000 $2,500,000 Home Equipment & Installation $3,870,000 $0 Business Equipment & Installation $333,824 $0 Total Capital Costs $85,972,581 $80,488,447 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -23 FUNDING SUMMARY–CITY ISP VERSUS PARTNER ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW Funding the FTTH Expansion CITY ISP PARTNER ISP Funding Required FTTH Capital Expenditures $85,972,581 $80,488,447 FTTH Working Capital Set Aside $12,500,000 $6,000,000 Total Funding Required $98,472,581 $86,488,447 Available Funding Balance of Fiber Fund for FTTH Expansion $17,500,000 $17,500,000 Loan from Electric Special Projects Reserve $15,000,000 $15,000,000 Total Available Funding $32,500,000 $32,500,000 New Funding Required $65,972,581 $53,988,447 •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -24 FINANCIAL SUMMARY EXISTING COMMERCIAL DARK FIBER BUSINESS PROJECTED REVENUES FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •cirv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS $60 $50 $48.6 $45.7 $42.8 $40.0 $40 en z 0 $30 :J ...J -:ii: $20 $10 $6.1 $2.0 $4.0 I ■ $0 - $37.3 $34.6 $31.9 $29.4 $26.8 $24.3 $21.9 $19.5 $ $17.2 $ 14.9 $i $i4 i6 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 YEAR -25 FINANCIAL SUMMARY FTTH BUSINESS NET REVENUES –CITY ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •cirv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS $45 $40 $38.7 $35.8 $35 $32.9 $30.0 $30 $27.2 $25 $24.4 $21.6 $20 $16.1 en $13.4 z $15 0 $10.8 $18.8 ::::i $10 $8.2 $8.1 I ..J $5.5 :E $5 I $1.5 $2.9 I I 0.4 ■ $0 -■ ■ --$5 $2.6 $3.6 $2.1 -$10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 YEAR -26 FINANCIAL SUMMARY FTTH BUSINESS NET REVENUES –PARTNER ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •cirv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS $18 $16 $15.2 $13.9 $14 $12.7 $12 $11.4 $10.2 $10 $9.0 $8 $7.8 $6.6 $6 $4.7 $5.5 en 43 z 0 $4 J ...J $2 :ii: $0 -$2 $0.0 $1.6 $1.0 $2.5 $2.0 -$4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 YEAR -27 FINANCIAL SUMMARY FTTH & EXISITNG COMMERCIAL DARK FIBER –CITY ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •cirv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS ■ Fiber To The Home ■ Existing Commercial Dark Fiber $100 $80 $71 $59 $65 111 $60 $53 C $48 0 $42 ·- ~ $40 $31 $37 $23 $26 $19 $20 $13 $16 $10 $9 $6 $2 $1 $3 $6 $0 II •• fl ($20) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -28 FINANCIAL SUMMARY FTTH & EXISITNG COMMERCIAL DARK FIBER –PARTNER ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •cirv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS ■ Fiber To The Home ■ Existing Commercial Dark Fiber $100 $80 Ill $60 C 0 $47 ·- ~ $39 $43 $40 $35 $31 $27 I $23 I $19 $20 $12 $14 $16 $8 $10 • $7 $5 $3 $2 $3 $5 $7 " l! " I I $0 ($20) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -29 FTTH BUSINESS CASE IDENTIFICATION OF KEY RISKS Variable Base Case Risk Risk Mitigation Retail Prices Within 5% of market rates Competitive forces force reduction to retail rate -10% max reduction Reduce Price to match competitors(AT&T, Comcast) Take Rates 32% -Very Conservative Compared to Other muni-owned and Operated Systems Major construction delays, operational or competitive issues -Reduces take rate to 25% Work to Increase take rate to 45% through efficient execution (outsourcing staff), sales and marketing, great customer experiences, increase bandwidth to 2G or higher Operating Costs 45% of gross revenues, commensurate with other muni-owned and operated systems Increase to 60% due to higher costs of labor Consider outsourcing to offset high labor costs Construction Costs Construction costs at $15 / foot aerial (higher than comparable projects in the Bay Area) Construction costs at $100 / foot underground Construction costs increase to $120/foot underground Construction costs increase to $20/foot Ariel -significant pole replacement required Consider modifying City construction policies to enable contractors to build more productively. Blanket permitting, increase permitting and locate resources, increase construction workday hours, outsourcing to reduce costs.Consider managing materials directly if the City has available resources. A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -30 FINANCIAL SUMMARY NET REVENUES AT DIFFERENT TAKE RATES –CITY ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW "' C: 0 ·---·-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -31 FINANCIAL SUMMARY NET REVENUES AT DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS –CITY ISP FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW en C 0 ·---·-~ 1 --200/4 Lower 2 3 4 5 6 7 --Expected 8 9 10 11 12 .CITY OF . PALO ALTO Magel/a ADVISOR'!. --20% Higher 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -32 FTTH BUSINESS CASE TWO BUSINESS MODEL OPTIONS FOR FTTH CITY-OWNED FIBER TO THE HOME NETWORK CITY ISP $66M IN NEW FUNDING PARTNER ISP $54M IN NEW FUNDING BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -33 INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW Could the City deploy FTTH without taking on new bonding? •Incremental buildout over a longer period •Reinvest excess revenues back into expansion •Utilize companion projects wherever possible to reduce costs •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -34 FTTH BUSINESS CASE FINDINGS INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT FIRST 3 YEARS 12,412 Households558 Businesses YEARS 4-10 7,092 Households537 Businesses ALTERNATIVE DEPLOYMENT 7,000 Households209 Businesses Commercial-Only AreasDeploy incrementallyDark fiber already existsAbout 1,000 businesses 180% 49% FoothillsHome Coverage A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -35 INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT Funding Strategy (Sources & Uses) First Phase of Incremental Build –Years 1 -3 Residential Premises with Access 12,412 Homes Total Business Premises with Access 558 Capital Expenditures $29,234,145 Working Capital Set Aside $2,000,000 Total Funding Required $31,234,145 Funded By: Balance of Fiber Fund for FTTH Expansion $17,500,000 Loan from Electric Special Projects Reserve $15,000,000 Total Funding Available $32,500,000 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -36 INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT Funding Strategy (Sources & Uses) Future Phases of Incremental Build –Years 4-10 Residential Premises with Access 7,092; 19,504 Total Total Business Premises with Access 537, 1,095 Total Capital Expenditures $21,781,512 Working Capital Set Aside $0 Total Funding Required $21,781,512 Funded By: Annual Free Cash Starting in Year 3 $3,000,000 Total Funding in Years 4-10 $21,000,000 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -37 INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW Results •City could provide FTTH to 70% of homes and businesses without any bonding •Initial deployment to about 46% of homes and businesses •Services available within the first 3 years •$32M in total funding •Incremental deployments totaling 25% of homes and businesses •About 1,000 homes per year in years 4-10 •Funded by $3 million a year in free cash in years 4-10 ($21M total) •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -38 INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW Results •About 7,000 homes and 209 businesses remaining •Most expensive to build to and lowest density •Requires another $38 million in capital expenditures •Look for opportunities for: •Undergrounding, companion projects, abandoned infrastructure •New technologies, partners •Grant opportunities, other incremental funding sources •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -39 FTTH BUSINESS CASE 1.Bond •Buildout to 100% of homes & businesses in 5 Years 2. No Bond •Buildout to 13,000 homes & businesses in 3 years •Buildout to another 7,500 homes & businesses in 10 years •Alternative strategies to fund the remaining 7,500 homes & businesses BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -40 FTTH NEXT STEPS •NEXT STEPS -APPROVED •Community Engagement •Broadband Survey for Residents & Businesses •Explore Partnerships •NEXT STEPS –RECOMMENDED •Detailed Engineering (combine Phase 2 & Phase 4) •Explore Federal Grant Options •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS 41 QUESTIONS?Fiber Expansion ProjectUpdate to UAC April 21, 2021 DRAFT INFORMATION A c1rv OF ~PALO ALTO Magellan. ADVISORS SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -43 FTTH BUSINESS CASE PROCESS Develop Base Case Refine Costs Minimize New Borrowing Consider Options with No New Borrowing Create Final Scenarios Citywide FTTH DeploymentRetail or Partnership Eliminate areas where existing dark fiber existsReuse of existing infrastructureCost reductions from new fiber backbone Incorporate existing fiber fundUtilize existing dark fiber revenuesAdd electric special projects reserve Citywide deployment with new debtIncremental deployment without debt Develop the most feasible optionsComprehensive financial models $120M $90M $65M $53M Final ScenariosNE W F U N D I N G R E Q U I R E D A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -44 FTTH BUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING NON-CORE FUNCTIONS FUNCTION INSOURCE OUTSOURCE Project Implementation (Construction mgmt, inspections, integration)X Sales & Marketing X Customer Management (Account service, billing, help desk)X Technical Support X Network Operations X Outside Plant Maintenance X Finance & Accounting X Billing X Engineering X A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -45 FTTH BUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING NON-CORE FUNCTIONS •Some broadband functions are core and can be easily managed by the City •Others are new and can be outsourced where the City doesn’t have the expertise •Over time, outsourced functions can be brought in-house •Many cities outsource the implementation as a turnkey project •Procurements •Construction management •Inspections •Network turnup and launch •Sales and marketing ramp up A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -46 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW FIBER TO THE HOME FINANCIAL REVIEW What we’ll cover today •Detailed costs for the construction of the FTTH network •Detailed costs for operations and management of broadband •Retail and partnership options •Factors that impact financial sustainability •Retail and partnership options •Review of the live working financial models •Questions and clarifications •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -47 CITY ISP Residential & Business Rates Distribution Monthly Rate 1 Gigabit 20%$85.00 500 Megabit 60%$75.00 100 Megabit 5%$45.00 Average Business Monthly Rate 15%$200.00 Take Rates Residential Take Rate 32% Business Take Rate 32% Ramp Up Over Years Ramp Up Take Rate Ramp Year 1 0% Take Rate Ramp Year 2 20% Take Rate Ramp Year 3 50% Take Rate Ramp Year 4 80% Take Rate Ramp Year 5 100% Revenue Drivers FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -48 CITY ISP Cost Drivers –Operations (Insourced) FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW Annual Operating Costs Values Percent of Costs Staffing $ 2,060,361 48% Plant Operations & Maintenance $ 351,742 8% Equipment Maintenance $ 172,000 4% Software Maintenance $ 120,000 3% Facilities Maintenance $ 125,000 3% Vehicle Maintenance $ 35,000 1% Pole Rental (50% of Pole Rental Paid by Fiber Business)$ 500,000 12% Utilities & Office Expenses $ 101,985 2% Legal & Professional Services $ 152,978 4% Reporting & Compliance $ 101,985 2% Wholesale Internet Access $ 185,000 4% Sales & Marketing $ 203,971 5% Promotions & Discounts $ 101,985 2% Miscellaneous $ 101,985 2% Total Operating Costs $ 4,313,993 100% •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -49 CITY ISP Cost Drivers –Staffing (Insourced) Staff Person Quantity Fully Loaded Cost Total Cost Customer Service Rep 2.00 $ 120,003 $ 240,006 Service Techs 2.00 $ 111,539 $ 223,077 Customer Service Supervisor 0.50 $ 121,550 $ 60,775 Billing Tech 1.00 $ 110,500 $ 110,500 Financial Controller 0.50 $ 139,230 $ 69,615 Network Designer 1.00 $ 132,600 $ 132,600 Network Engineer 2.00 $ 155,363 $ 310,726 Install Tech 1.50 $ 113,152 $ 169,728 Maintenance Tech 1.50 $ 107,185 $ 160,778 Field Services Manager 1.00 $ 186,303 $ 186,303 Sales & Marketing Manager 1.00 $ 186,303 $ 186,303 Engineering Manager 1.00 $ 209,950 $ 209,950 15.00 $ 2,060,361 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -50 CITY ISP Insource & Outsource -Functions Staff Person Insource Outsource Customer Service Rep X Service Techs X Customer Service Supervisor X Billing Tech X Financial Controller X Network Designer X Network Engineer X Install Tech X Maintenance Tech X Field Services Manager X Sales & Marketing Manager X Engineering Manager X FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -51 CITY ISP Insource & Outsource –Impact on Operating Costs Insource Outsource Savings Annual Operating Costs $4,313,993 $3,451,195 $862,798 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -52 FTTH BUSINESS CASE RISK MATRIX COST TIME SERVICE QUALITY LOW Controllable operating costs are higher than anticipated Competitors use delay tactics to slow the City’s project Competitors step up their game to improve customer service MEDIUM Long-term cost escalation is higher than anticipated Construction delays result in longer lead times for service Competitors increase speeds without increasing prices HIGH Construction cost overruns require more capital from the City Significant construction delays impact lead times substantially, impacting customer perceptions and lowering take rates Operational challenges result in lower service quality resulting in less subscribers and lower revenues A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS -53 PARTNER ISP ECONOMICS Retail Customer Partner ISP City Customer Pays $75 Partner Pays $35 $35 Covers Partner’s Operating Expenses & Profit Margin $35 Covers City’s Debt Services and Limited Operating Costs Higher wholesale rates squeeze partner’s profit margin and/or raise retail rates Higher retail rates make partner less competitive and reduce take rates, lowering City revenues FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW -54 COST COMPARISON Cost Drivers –Operating Costs City ISP Partner ISP Operating Costs Total Cost (Mature Operation)Percent of Total Costs Total Cost (Mature Operation)Percent of Total Costs Staffing $2,060,361 45%$440,000 33% Plant Operations & Maintenance $351,742 8%$351,742 27% Equipment Maintenance $172,000 4% Software Maintenance $120,000 3% Facilities Maintenance $125,000 3% Vehicle Maintenance $35,000 1%$35,000 3% Pole Rental $744,000 16%$500,000 38% Utilities & Office Expenses $101,985 2% Legal & Professional Services $152,978 3% Reporting & Compliance $101,985 2% Wholesale Internet Access $185,000 4% Sales & Marketing $203,971 4% Promotions & Discounts $101,985 2% Miscellaneous $101,985 2% Total Operating Costs $4,557,993 100%$1,326,863 100% FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -55 COST COMPARISON Cost Drivers -Staffing City ISP Partner ISPStaff Person Quantity Fully Loaded Cost Total Cost Quantity Fully Loaded Cost Total Cost Customer Service Rep 2.00 $ 120,003 $ 240,006 Service Techs 2.00 $ 111,539 $ 223,077 Customer Service Supervisor 0.50 $ 121,550 $ 60,775 Billing Tech 1.00 $ 110,500 $ 110,500 Financial Controller 0.50 $ 139,230 $ 69,615 Network Designer 1.00 $ 132,600 $ 132,600 1.00 $ 132,600 $ 132,600 Network Engineer 2.00 $ 155,363 $ 310,726 Install Tech 1.50 $ 113,152 $ 169,728 Maintenance Tech 1.50 $ 107,185 $ 160,778 1.50 $ 107,185 $ 160,778 Field Services Manager 1.00 $ 186,303 $ 186,303 1.00 $ 186,303 $ 93,152 Sales & Marketing Manager 1.00 $ 186,303 $ 186,303 Engineering Manager 1.00 $ 209,950 $ 209,950 TOTAL STAFFING COSTS 15.00 $ 2,060,361 3.5 $ 440,122 FTTH FINANCIAL REVIEW •c1rv oF Magellan. PALO ALTO ADVISORS -56 FTTH BUSINESS CASE SAMPLE TIMELINE FOR FTTH –INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT Engineering Design/Marketing June 2021 – Dec 2022 Operations Staffing & Data Center Jan 2022 – Dec 2022 Construction June 2022 –May 2032 Customer Activation -Phase 1: Jan 2023 -Phase 2: Jan 2024 -Phase 3: Jan 2025 Customer Activation -Phases 4-10: 2026 -2032 A c1Tv oF Magellan,. • PALO ALTO ADVISORS MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION WEBPAGE. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR 54956 Supporting materials are available online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/default.asp on Thursday, 5 days preceding the meeting. ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY**** Join Zoom Webinar Here MEETING ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone: 1 (669) 900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. I.ROLL CALL II.AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS III.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public are invited to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. State law generally precludes the UAC from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during oral communication. IV.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None VI.UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT VII.NEW BUSINESS 6:10 p.m. – 8:40 p.m. Action 1.Staff Recommends That the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Review and Provide Direction on the Fiber Expansion for the City VIII.COMMISSIONER COMMENTS and REPORTS from MEETINGS/EVENTS IX.FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS: May 12, 2021 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(3)). Informational Reports 12-Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, April 21, 2021 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM Webinar Chairman: Lisa Forssell  Vice Chair: Lauren Segal  Commissioners: Michael Danaher, Donald Jackson, A.C. Johnston, Greg Scharff, and Loren Smith  Council Liaison: Eric Filseth MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION WEBPAGE. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to UACPublicMeetings@CityofPaloAlto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand.” The Attendant will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 966-9129-7246 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Neil Murphy <wnmurphy@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 10, 2021 9:04 AM To:Lisa Becks Cc:Council, City; agilbert@aclunc.org; sagarwal@aclunc.org; info@avnaacp.org; naacpla@sbcglobal.net; info@sanjosenaacp.org; naacp@richmond.org Subject:Re: Fw: DA Rosen proves officer used excessive force but refuses to prosecute Attachments:r3.PNG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Take me off of your spam list. Thanks.    On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:36 PM Lisa Becks <lisabecksa@yahoo.com> wrote:  Alejo dog settlement amount Given that the unlawful assault and battery committed upon Alejo is 10 times more egregious than what occurred to Alvarez I would imagine Alejo will be awarded at least $6 million by a jury. In fact probably more knowing that Palo Alto Police Chief Robert Jonsen was condemned by the DOJ for employing unlawful practices as the chief of Lancaster Sheriff Station and that the City of Palo Alto hired him with this knowledge and that the dog bit another innocent citizen previously. 3 Dog Attack Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_oX1W6T4Bc https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=53850.13&BlobID=80882 https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/03/17/video-body-cam-footage-shows-police-k9-attack-mount-view-man-sleeping-on-his-own- property/ Windshield Smash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtuIzpMohyA https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/questions-surround-palo-alto-police-officers-use-of-force/153019/ 4 5 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6-28-13.pdf https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/28/37967/doj-deputies-at-la-county-sheriff-s-stations-in-la/ https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/chief-jonsen.html Palo Alto officer whose dog attacked man was named in earlier lawsuit over a police K9 attack The student, Tajae Murray, and his family were paid $250,000 by the city to drop their lawsuit over the April 7, 2016 attack. https://padailypost.com/2021/03/18/palo-alto-officer-whose-dog-attacked-man-was-named-in-earlier-lawsuit-over-a- police-k9-attack/ ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lisa Becks <lisabecksa@yahoo.com> To: Viviana.Becerra@asm.ca.gov <viviana.becerra@asm.ca.gov>; maheen.ahmed@asm.ca.gov <maheen.ahmed@asm.ca.gov>; leandra.mekata@asm.ca.gov <leandra.mekata@asm.ca.gov>; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>; jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>; Cc: districtattorney@sfgov.org <districtattorney@sfgov.org>; info@da.lacounty.gov <info@da.lacounty.gov>; Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021, 10:41:56 PM PDT Subject: Fw: DA Rosen proves officer used excessive force but refuses to prosecute DA Rosen proves officer used excessive force but refuses to prosecute   Rob Bunta  California Assemblyman and Attorney General Nominee   6 Mr. Bunta,  DA Jeff Rosen has stated that Palo Alto Police Offirer Enberg did not violate the law when Enberg ordered his dog to attack Alejo. California PC states that “Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person,” has violated the law. Yes or No was it a necessity that Officer Enberg order his dog to attack a sleeping suspect in order to apprehend the suspect? Keep in mind the actual suspect was apprehended later without incident, without the use of force The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=53850.13&BlobID=80882 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_oX1W6T4Bc California P.O.S.T. standards for officers 7 The Dog was waging its tail hovering over the sleeping suspect when Enberg found the suspect and issued the order to bite. Rosen cannot deny this fact. If Rosen says yes everyone will call him a liar. If Rosen says no then he has to prosecute. Rosen attempts to justify the use of force by stating that Alejo kicked the Dog which justified the use of force. Fact One: Alejo was sleeping when Enberg ordered the dog to attack and bite. Alejo did not kick the dog before being attacked before being given an opportunity to follow an order. Fact Two: it is a crime to kick a police dog, PC 600. 8 Fact Three: kicking the dog would be resisting arrest/obstruction a violation of PC 148 DA Rosen is obligated to charge and prosecute Alejo for the crimes of battery on a police dog and resisting arrest. Rosen wants it both ways. The Rule of Law does not allow for having it both ways. Either Enberg violated the law or Alejo violated the law. Pursuant to the Rule of Law Rosen must charge one or the other with a crime. An assault and battery took place, this is not an accident. The reason why Rosen will not prosecute Alejo is because everyone knows from the video that Alejo was acting is lawful self-defense. Rosen knows Alejo did not commit a crime and therefore knows that officer Enberg must have committed a crime. The reason why Rosen will not prosecute officer Enberg is because he believes the use of force would have been justified against the actual suspect, hence Rosen does not enforce the Rule of Law or uphold the Constitution because even if it were the actual suspect the use of force would have been excessive. The officer ordered his dog to "bite" over 40 times for a duration of 50 seconds. 9 According to DA Rosen's legal logic had George Floyd rolled over and kicked the officers off of him after Ofc. Chauvin kneeled on his neck for 5 minutes Floyd would have been guilty of resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. 10 ==================== AB 886 Criminal Justice Reform to Viviana.Becerra, maheen.ahmed, leandra.mekata, Edwin.Saucedo, Jordan.Panana-Carbajal, Freddie.Quintana, Christine.Aurre, Brandy.Chappell, cynthia.alvarez, Jim.Evans, Jessica.Bartholow, Richard.Stapler, Annie.Chou, Gustavo.Arroyo, Krista.Pfefferkorn, sue.      So long as those entrusted with the most authority to enforce the law allow their personal bias and prejudice to influence their decisions to deny equal protection of the law to some people some of the time, then all criminal justice reform is meaningless. 11 Dog Attack Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_oX1W6T4Bc https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/03/17/video-body-cam-footage-shows-police-k9-attack-mount-view- man-sleeping-on-his-own-property/ Windshield Smash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtuIzpMohyA https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/questions-surround-palo-alto-police-officers-use-of-force/153019/ 12 Santa Clara county district attorney Jeff Rosen has stated he's not going to prosecute the officers who assaulted and battered Joel Domingo Alejo even though Rosen is prosecuting Sergeant Wayne benitez for assaulting and battering Alvarez. DA Rosen stated that former sgt. Benitez violated victim Gustavo Alvarez’s civil rights. If you place the videos of the Alvarez and the Alejo attacks side by side it's clear that the Alejo attack is 10 times more egregious in violating the law and the Constitution than the Alvarez attack. Even if the officers had encountered the actual suspect they were looking for its still excessive force according to the law and according to Rosen's own standard, which is proof that DA Rosen’s judgment is being influenced by his personal bias and prejudice. 13 How does DA Rosen justify not prosecuting the officers in the dog mauling attack? Alejo was not fleeing or resisting when the dog found him, in fact Alejo wasn't even moving and therefore not a threat to the dog or the officers and the dog was wagging his tail in a docile manner until the order to bite was given. 14 Alejo was not given an opportunity to obey any commands by the officer and did not threaten or resist or delay the officer in his official capacity yet the officer decided to attack him with a police dog without ever giving him an opportunity to comply with an order to surrender. If there was no police dog and the officer decided to start hitting the subject with a baton while the subject was still sleeping without giving any opportunity to surrender would you justify the initial strike by the police officer? The cop attacked a man who was sleeping, what is DA Rosen’s legal justification for not prosecuting the officer? At the very least the dog mauling is criminal negligence by attacking and causing harm to an unidentified target, the equivalent of firing a gun into a house hoping to hit a suspect even though there are other people in the house that could be hit who are not the suspect. California PC 149. 15 Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 263. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=149. ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE [SECTION 1 - SEC. 14] ( Article 5 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess. ) SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney. When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that office. (Sec. 13 amended Nov. 5, 1974, by Prop. 11. Res.Ch. 96, 1974.) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC. %2013.&article=V Rosen will not prosecute Benitez https://padailypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/padailypost.com/2020/06/14/da-wont-charge-ex- cop-in-videotaped- beating/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16161075544 888&amp_ct=1616107565298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251 %24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fpadailypost.com%2F2020%2F06%2F14%2Fda-wont-charge-ex- cop-in-videotaped-beating%2F Rosen will prosecute Benitez https://padailypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/padailypost.com/2020/10/06/retired-palo-alto- police-sergeant-wayne-benitez-charged-with- 16 assault/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16161083500 911&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3 A%2F%2Fpadailypost.com%2F2020%2F10%2F06%2Fretired-palo-alto-police-sergeant-wayne- benitez-charged-with-assault%2F 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Jill Sturm <jill@tax-aid.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 3:26 PM To:Jill Sturm Subject:Last Tax Curbside Document Drop Off event this Saturday! Attachments:CNC Curbside Flyer 04 11 21.pdf; CNC Curbside Spanish 04 11 21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, Tax-Aid, the nonprofit organization that offers free income tax preparation for families and individuals earning less than $57,000 a year, will have one last Curbside Tax Document Drop Off event this Saturday, April 10th at the Columbia Neighborhood Center at 785 Morse Avenue in Sunnyvale. Please share this information with your constituents, communities and networks! People with low income need help with their taxes now more than ever. Please make sure they don't miss out on receiving the federal and Golden State stimulus. I have attached flyers for the event to this email. Here is the link for the event we posted on Facebook: https://fb.me/e/2d5U7HL5N You can also find our post on our Instagram page #Tax-Aid. Thank you! Best,    Jill Sturm   Executive Director  Tax-Aid  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155, San Francisco, CA 94104  Phone and Fax: 415-229-9239  jill@tax-aid.org  www.tax-aid.org/  Visit us on Facebook!  www.instagram.com/taxaidfotos/      Curbside Tax Document Drop Off! Saturday, April 10, 2021 3:00 –5:00 pm Columbia Neighborhood Center* 785 Morse Avenue Sunnyvale *If you attend this event you must wear a face mask Visit www.tax-aid.org/need-tax-help for a list of tax documents we need. Or you can safely complete our tax questionnaire on our website and our expert volunteers will prepare your tax return. For FREE. Visit www.tax-aid.org/need-tax-help or call 415-229-9240. Already filed your taxes? Good for you! Please tell a friend about Tax-Aid. Dejar los Documentos Fiscales para Tener sus Impuestos Bien Preparados! Sabado, 10 de abril, desde 3 pm hasta 5 pm Columbia Neighborhood Center* 785 Morse Avenue Sunnyvale *Si asiste este evento es obligatorio que lleva mascara Visite www.tax-aid.org/necesita-ayuda-con-los-impuestos por una lista de documentos que necesitamos O puede llenar un formulario en nuestro siteo de internet y nuestros expertos voluntarios prepararán su declaración de impuestos. Gratis. Visite www.tax-aid.org/necesita-ayuda-con-los-impuestos o llámenos al 415-229-9240. ¿Ya ha presentado sus impuestos? ¡Bien por usted! Por favor, cuéntele a un amigo sobre Tax-Aid.