HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200106plCC3701-32
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: 01/06/2020
Document dates: 12/25/2019 – 1/1/2020
Set 3
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Michael Korn <makompk@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 1, 2020 3:32 PM
To:Council, City; cityleaders@fcgov.com
Subject:Climate Crisis Tip
Attachments:ELJKl9yUYAAomKG.jpeg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Would city council consider passing a resolution regarding the threat of professional sports to the climate crisis?
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Menachem Mevashir <mevashir@aol.com>
To: carolynkormann <carolynkormann@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 1, 2020 04:28 PM
Subject: Climate Crisis Tip
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/carolyn‐kormann
Dear Carolyn,
I saw your excellent articles in the New Yorker on the environment. I have an idea for you that I have discussed with
other people.
It seems to me that the professional sports industry is a major contributor to The climate crisis because the teams are
constantly flying from one city to another year round generating enormous atmospheric carbon pollution.
I have friends who are liberal climate activists but also rabid sports fans and they have never considered this paradox. I
think it would be worth investigating the contribution to the climate crisis of the NFL, NBA, MLB, professional hockey
and soccer etc etc.
Wishing you a wonderful new year of Hope for humanity, Menachem Mevashir
"Re‐examine all you have been told... Dismiss what insults your Soul." Walt Whitman
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 31, 2019 10:24 PM
To:jd@howardstern.com
Cc:MediaInquiries@kushner.com
Subject:Graves won't be Needed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I can't help People who love Death. The World is Lost in Darkness. Millions will Die. Hiroshima 'Shema Hear' Nagasaki
'Love thy Neighbor' Negative Manhattan Decimate.
Let the False Rabbi's and False Priests never again return to Human Form. Let Eva Braun never Return to Human Form.
Likewise All Cult Scum Sadistic Satanic Sadists.
The History of the United Sadists of Amurdera : "The Country that became Death." Those of you who failed to help this
Generation can live as Homeless Jinn. Indefinitely.
2
3
4
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, December 30, 2019 7:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:preserving the historical record of the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council members,
I have discovered that the City website's "Government" drop-down menu (which can be viewed by going to the City's
home page
http://cityofpaloalto.org/
and placing the cursor over the word "Government" at the top) no longer has a clickable link to the "home page" of the
Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless (CAC). It used to be in the rightmost column, near the top.
I have discovered that the "home page" for this committee now says only that "this page is not active."
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/technology_committee.asp
It used to provide an index to agendas and minutes and presentations for CAC meetings, plus agendas and minutes for
Council's Technology and the Connected City Committee.
The Wayback Machine provides this copy of what this "home page" looked like as of 11-09-19
https://web.archive.org/web/20191109103106/cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/technology_committee.asp
By clicking on a year, you can see an index of clickable links to agendas and minutes and presentations for that
year. Please see, below the "######" line, what the fully-expanded index looks like.
---
On 06-24-19, at Item 36, Council voted to "sunset" the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless (a.k.a. the Fiber
and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee, a.k.a., the Citizen Advisory Committee for the FTTP and Wireless Master
Plans) according to these action minutes (page 8).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=52228.36&BlobID=72794
The staff report recommended "sunsetting" this committee.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72075
I have reviewed my TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS for this item (pages 53-78)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48441.64&BlobID=72569
while listening to the video (1:47:30 to 2:58:20).
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-6242019/
I believe staff did NOT propose to delete the historical record of CAC from the City's website, and Council did not vote to
do that.
I don't know why staff did this, or who did it. And I wish I did. For example, did staff think the rightmost column of the
"Government" drop-down menu was getting too crowded?
The City website's "Government" drop-down menu has a clickable link to "Past Committees, Task Forces, and Working
Groups."
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/past_committees_task_forces_and_working_groups/default.asp
To me, that suggests that the City normally tries to retain online access to the historical records of these kinds of entities
long after they're "sunsetted." But this page doesn't have a clickable link to CAC. Why not?
I think Council should demand that staff fix this problem. Maybe the way to demand that is by writing a Colleagues'
Memo, so that the problem can be agendized. Maybe Council can establish some rules that would prevent this sort of
thing from ever happening again.
2
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: It never made sense to me that CAC had to share a "home page" with the "Technology and the Connected City"
Committee.
##################################################################################
Citizen Advisory Committee for the FTTP and Wireless
Master Plans
In 2013, the City Council decided that an important step in advancing fiber and wireless expansion was to develop
a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan. This Council initiative was titled “Technology and the
Connected City.” These plans were intended to establish a roadmap for future fiber and wireless planning. As part of this
initiative, in 2014 the City Council also directed the City Manager to appoint a Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory
Committee to work with City staff. The Committee’s role was to provide feedback on these plans with objective and
judicious advice from a citizen perspective to the City Manager and the Council. The Committee was structured in a way
for individual citizens to share opinions and perspectives, study issues, and develop recommendations in a focused, small
group structure. The Committee was expanded from 6 to 11 members in 2016.
The Committee’s valuable guidance has been much appreciated; however, given the City’s fundamental design principle
of fully leveraging and expanding the fiber network to support a communications platform for Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems (SCADA), and wireless communications support
for Public Safety and Utilities, staff submitted a report to the City Council on June 24, 2019, recommending the
assignment of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to assume the sole advisory role and serve as the public input
forum for fiber and wireless expansion initiatives, and the sunsetting of the Committee. The Council approved sunsetting
the Committee, along with a recommendation to re-issue the Fiber-to-the-Node Request for Proposals to begin a multi-
phase fiber network expansion to support AMI, SCADA systems and wireless communication technologies for City
staff. Here is the link to the Council staff report:
CMR 9620: Authorize issuance of new RFP for phased fiber expansion with the UAC as a public input forum
(June 24, 2019)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72075
‐ 2019
o January 17, 2019 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 1/25/2019
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o January 17, 2019 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 1/20/2019
3
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o January 17, 2019 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 1/15/2019
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
‐ 2018
o December 20, 2018 - RESCHEDULED Citizens Advisory
Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 12/1/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 25, 2018 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 11/30/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 25, 2018 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 11/29/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 25, 2018 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 10/1/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o September 18, 2018 - CANCELLED Citizens Advisory
Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 9/1/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
4
o August 16, 2018 - RESCHEDULED Citizens Advisory
Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 8/15/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o July 19, 2018 - CANCELLED Citizens Advisory
Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 7/18/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o June 21, 2018 - RESCHEDULED Citizens Advisory
Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 6/20/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 26, 2018 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 5/1/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 26, 2018 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 4/30/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 26, 2018 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 1/25/2018
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
‐ 2017
o December 14, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 12/20/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
5
o December 14, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 12/15/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o December 14, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 12/14/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o November 8, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 11/29/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o November 8, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 11/8/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o November 8, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 9/13/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o September 13, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 8/29/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o September 13, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 8/26/2017
6
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o September 13, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 7/19/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 21, 2017 - City Manager Report #7616
Revision Date: 7/7/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o July 20, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 6/25/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o July 20, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 5/25/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o July 20, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 5/24/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o May 23, 2017 - Policy and Services Report #7735
Presentation
Revision Date: 5/23/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o May 23, 2017 - Policy and Services Report #7735
Revision Date: 5/22/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 13, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 4/28/2017
7
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 13, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 4/27/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 13, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 4/11/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 2, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 3/27/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o Febuary 2, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 2/16/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 2, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 2/1/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o January 19, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 1/21/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o January 19, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 1/20/2017
8
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o January 19, 2017 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 1/18/2017
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
‐ 2016
o December 12, 2016 - City Manager Report #6221
Revision Date: 12/12/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o December 8, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda - RESCHEDULED
Revision Date: 12/8/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 27, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 10/30/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 27, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 10/28/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 27, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 10/13/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 18, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 8/20/2016
9
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 18, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 8/19/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 18, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 8/15/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o June 23, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 8/14/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o June 23, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 6/25/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o June 23, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 6/24/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 14, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 5/15/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 14, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
Presentation
Revision Date: 4/17/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 14, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 4/7/2016
10
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 18, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 4/1/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 18, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Presentation
Revision Date: 2/25/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 18, 2016 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 2/21/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
‐ 2015
o December 17, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 2/22/2016
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o December 17, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 12/15/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o November 30, 2015 - City Manager Report #6301
Revision Date: 12/1/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o November 12, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 11/30/2015
11
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o November 12, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 11/14/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 29, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 11/13/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 29, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 10/26/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o September 28, 2015 - City Manager Report #6104
Revision Date: 9/29/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 20, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 9/15/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 20, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 8/14/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o June 29, 2015 - City Manager Report #5679
Revision Date: 6/30/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o June 25, 2015 - CANCELLED Citizens Advisory
Committee Agenda
12
Revision Date: 6/23/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 30, 2015 - CTC Presentation to the Citizens
Advisory Committee
Revision Date: 5/3/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 30, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 5/1/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 30, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 4/8/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 19, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 2/20/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 19, 2015 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 2/19/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 2, 2015 - City Manager Report #5443
Revision Date: 2/17/2015
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
‐ 2014
o December 18, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes
Revision Date: 12/19/2014
13
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o December 18, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 12/18/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o December 1, 2014 - City Manager Report #5134
Revision Date: 12/11/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o FCC Palo Alto Petition
Revision Date: 11/13/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 9, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 10/10/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o October 9, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 10/9/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 21, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 8/22/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o August 21, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 8/21/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o May 29, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 5/30/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
14
o May 29, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 5/29/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 10, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
Revision Date: 4/11/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o April 10, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee Agenda
Revision Date: 4/10/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o February 25, 2014 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda
Revision Date: 2/25/2014
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
‐ 2013
o September 17, 2013 - Technology and the Connected
City Minutes
Technology and the Connected City Minutes
Revision Date: 9/17/2013
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o September 17, 2013- Technology and the Connected
City Agenda
Technology Agenda Packet
Revision Date: 9/17/2013
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o May 14, 2013 - Technology and the Connected City
Minutes
Technology and the Connected City Minutes
15
Revision Date: 5/14/2013
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider
o May 14, 2013 - Technology and the Connected City
Agenda
Technology and the Connected City Agenda
Revision Date: 5/1/2013
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.divider Last Updated: Jul 29, 2019
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:14 PM
To:schatman@scscourt.org; Fairhousing@usdoj.gov
Cc:Markham Plaza Tenant Association; littlehoover@lhc.ca.gov; 6th.district@jud.ca.gov;
ObieAnthony@gmail.com; galaxy_454@yahoo.com; rua@uglyjudge.com;
editor@siliconvalleyfreepress.com; scottlargent38@gmail.com
Subject:Judge Chatman responsible for Markham Plaza Suicide ( Grand Jury Cover Up of Robert Moss
Homicide)
Attachments:DOJ Response.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Judge Sharon Chatman,
You are responsible for the recent suicide at Markham Plaza , several deaths, injuries and the stalking by Santa Clara
County Sheriff's. department!!!!!
We will not rest or stop until the harrassment and attacks stop!!!! and until you are brought to justice!
Don't even think about attacking my family! If anything happens to them you will never hear the end of it!!
MARKHAM PLAZA HOMICIDE CONCEALED FROM CIVIL GRAND JURY
https://www.docdroid.net/ZcIsZoN/declaration-of-facts-in-support-of-petition-for-habeas-corpus-relief.pdf
http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2014/PublicGuardian.pdf
Every word from 2013 advisory is in full force and effect!
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 at 2:43 PM
From: "FAIRHOUSING, CRT (CRT)" <Fairhousing@usdoj.gov>
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
Subject: DOJ Response to your correspondence
Attached please find the electronic version of a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division,
Housing & Civil Enforcement Section.
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
Sameena Shina Majeed
Chief
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
U.S. Mail: 150 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20530
Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
Electronic: fairhousing@usdoj.gov
Dear Sir/Madam:
Thank you for contacting the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Department of
Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Each day we receive many emails and letters. Unfortunately, we cannot
respond individually to every inquiry or investigate every complaint we receive. We carefully review all
correspondence and we will contact you if we need additional information.
The Housing Section enforces federally-protected rights in five primary areas:
1) housing;
2) public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants;
3) religious land use;
4) credit; and
5) financial and civil obligations of military personnel.
The Section generally becomes involved in matters that may affect groups of people. We share
responsibility for enforcing certain laws with other government agencies, and those agencies may handle
complaints that affect only one person. For example, if your complaint relates to discrimination in
housing, you may want to file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”): www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/online-complaint. (Please note that
you have one year to file a complaint with HUD.) If your complaint relates to discrimination in lending,
you may want to file complaints with HUD and with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/.
For more information about the Housing Section and our work, please visit our web page:
www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-section. If your question or concern does not relate
to this Section’s area of work, you may wish to review the Civil Rights Division’s web page to consider
whether another section within the Division may be better able to assist you: www.justice.gov/crt.
For your convenience, we have attached a list of resources that you may find helpful. You also
may wish to consult a private attorney to determine what claims, if any, you may have under other
federal and state laws. If you do not have an attorney, you may find your state bar association or local
legal assistance agency helpful in locating an attorney to discuss your complaint:
www.findlegalhelp.org or www.lsc.gov/find-legal-aid.
Sincerely,
/s/
LIST OF RESOURCES
CREDIT
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(discrimination in lending- mortgage foreclosures,
financing, credit cards)
www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
1700 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20552
(855) 411-2372
Credit Bureaus
Equifax
www.equifax.com/home/en_us
(800) 685-1111
Experian
www.experian.com/
(888) 397-3742
Trans Union
www.transunion.com/
(800) 916-8800
DISABILITY
Accessibility/Disability Resources
(complaints, disability & accessibility resources)
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
www.ada.gov
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – NYA
Washington, DC 20530
(800) 514-0301
Accessibility Issues
Fair Housing Accessibility First
(HUD contractor; builder/developer technical
guidance)
www.fairhousingfirst.org
(888) 341-7781
HOUSING
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(discrimination in housing)
www.hud.gov/topics/housing_discrimination
451 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20410
(800) 669-9777
Community Partner Resources
One CPD Resource Exchange
www.hudexchange.info/contact-us/
Homelessness Resources
www.hudexchange.info/housing-and-homeless-
assistance/
Office of Public & Indian Housing
(complaints about a public housing authority or
its employees, housing vouchers, landlord)
www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_ho
using/pha/contacts
(800) 955-2232
Office of Inspector General (OIG) (fraud)
www.hudoig.gov/about/where-were-located
(800) 347-3735
(202) 708-4829 Facsimile
hotline@hudoig.gov
Fair Housing Initiatives Program Agencies
(discrimination in housing- fair housing organizations)
www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/pa
rtners/FHIP
Substantially Equivalent State Agencies
(discrimination in housing- state listings)
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-
rights/state-civil-rights-offices.html
PRIVATE ATTORNEY RESOURCES
American Bar Association
www.findlegalhelp.org
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
(800) 285-2221
Legal Services Corporation
(or Legal Aid Offices)
www.lsc.gov/find-legal-aid
3333 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 295-1500
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
State Attorneys General
(complaints- hotels, restaurants, theaters, public places)
www.usa.gov/state-attorney-general
(844) 872-4681
RELIGIOUS LAND USE
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Place to Worship Initiative
(discrimination in zoning)
www.justice.gov/crt/place-worship-initiative
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4609
SERVICEMEMBERS
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative
(mortgage foreclosures, residential & vehicle leases,
evictions, automobile repossessions, interest rate
reductions)
www.servicemembers.gov
(202) 307-SCRA (7272)
servicemembers@usdoj.gov
Complaint Form:
https://www.justice.gov/servicemembers/webform/welcom
e-servicemembers-and-veterans-initiative-s-complaint-
assistant
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Danielle Dossier <ddossier41@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, December 28, 2019 12:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Leaf Blowers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Monsieur the Mayor,
I am writing to you about an issue that I have regarding the gas Leaf Blowers , and a possible way to a solution.
It is polluting our air. I often notice people starting to wear masks, myself included.
Those Leaf Blowers workers use their Blowers at all hours of the day without considering lunch time hours, when people
are eating outside or in their garden.
Ignoring pedestrians walking by, it takes a lot to get their attention to stop. It is often too late, the polluted dust is
already in the air, we have to breathe it.
Children and adults alike have developed bronchial problems like asthma for quite sometime now.
It concerns us all. We need quality air.
These workers, I also noticed while driving, blow the leaves, rodents dropping and dust towards the middle of the street
from sidewalks and front gardens, this shouldn’t be so, it forces you to drive through it, and the mess is not picked up, so
it stay right there for us to drive over it.
To finalize my concern, Leaf Blowers are really hazardous for everyone health.
Could the city provide an incentive for companies to develop a solution .
Could they develop a vacuum system which could also be used to groom trees.
I represent the voices of many concerned people.
Could you please let me know how the situation Can be improved.
Thank you for your consideration concerning this issue.
Danielle Dossier
Palo Alto resident of many years.
‐ Danielle
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, December 30, 2019 4:16 PM
To:Council, City; UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external)
Subject:my comments re 6-6-12 UAC meeting -- transcript of Item VIII.1 -- fiber optics network
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council members and UAC commissioners,
Recently, I was reminded again that my message to you of 06-26-19 (below) was not published in a Letters From Citizens
document. Let me try again. (I'll reformat the message so that my comments are paragraphs in red beginning with
"###". The text is the same, except that I corrected some misspellings.)
Thanks.
Jeff
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
To: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; "uac@cityofpaloalto.org"
<uac@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "jeff_hoel@yahoo.com" <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 05:08:38 PM PDT
Subject: my comments re 6-6-12 UAC meeting -- transcript of Item VIII.1 -- fiber optics network
Council Members and Commissioners,
Here is a transcript of Item VIII.1 of UAC's 6-6-12 meeting -- the item about the fiber optics network -- with my comments
embedded.
Thanks.
Jeff
------------------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------------------
============================================================================
Transcript of Item VIII.1 of the June, 6, 2012 meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commisson (UAC).
"Request for Feedback Concerning the Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network."
### The title is misleading. Although the staff report mentions continuing to run the dark fiber network as usual, the
controversial items are what to do about fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) and whether to do anything about wireless.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31587
Transcribed from this videotape:
http://www.communitymediacenter.net/watch/pacc_webcast/June/PAUAC_060612.html
2
Attended by:
* UAC Commissioners Jonathan Foster, Asher Waldfogel, John Melton, Steve Eglash, James Cook, Marilyn Keller, and
Garth Hall
* Council Member Nancy Shepherd
* Staff members Valerie Fong, Tomm Marshall, Jim Fleming, Joe Saccio
* Consultant Steve Blum, Tellus Venture Associates
* Others: Bob Harrington, Herb Borock
0:00:00:
UAC Chair Jonathan Foster: OK, let's go to the first item of new business. It's the dark fiber optic backbone
network. Director Fong.
0:00:12:
Valerie Fong: I'm going to introduce Assistant Director Tomm Marshall, and he'll introduce the team that will be
presenting tonight.
0:00:21:
Tomm Marshall: Good evening, commissioners. We're here to give you an update on the studies we've been doing on
telecommunications, and some idea of what we think our recommendations are going to be going forth to Council, and to
get your feedback on those recommendations. Next to me, I have Jim Fleming, who's been leading the study for the
City. And next to him is Steve Blum, who is our consultant. Right now, I'm going to turn it over to Jim. We're going to do
a couple presentations for you. I'm assuming we'll just go through both the presentations and then take your
questions. So, with that, I'll go ahead and get started.
0:01:00:
Jim Fleming: Good evening. My name is Jim Fleming, Management Specialist with Utilities. The purpose of this
evening's presentation is to provide an update concerning the fiber optic backbone network and additional
telecommunications for the community. The staff report makes recommendations regarding the existing commercial dark
fiber business, the citywide ultra-high-speed broadband system project, and a municipal wireless network. An update will
also be provided regarding a letter of intent between the City [and] the Palo Alto Unified School District to provide dark
fiber service connections to seven -- excuse me, to seventeen -- district schools and also to the District office.
Staff's recommendation regarding the commercial dark fiber service is to continue the current business model for licensing
dark fiber to commercial customers. Presently, there are 78 commercial dark fiber customers. Annual net sales for dark
fiber are approximately $2.6 million. 68 percent of net sales come from the commercial customers, and 32 percent of net
sales come from City use of the network. By the end of fiscal year 2012, the fiber optic fund reserve will be approximately
$12.7 million. The reserve is expected to increase to by $2.1 million in the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget.
The recommendation to continue with the current business model is based on the following four factors. The City's fiber
network has high market share and brand awareness within its service niche. It's service niche is licensing dark fiber to
commercial users. This service niche includes customers that have a need for high-bandwidth service connections, and
have or can acquire the resources to light up the fiber and connect it to either the Internet or to a corporate network. City
of Palo Alto Utilities is the only intra-city provider of dark fiber service.
The second factor is that licensing dark fiber is a core competency for utilities.
### Licensing dark fiber is not a core competency of ALL utilities.
And users consider access to dark fiber service connections to be crucial to the operation of their business.
The third factor is that the fiber backbone effectively covers key commercial areas of the town of Palo Alto, especially in
the Stanford Research Park and downtown. The network coverage is an important contributor to economic development
and business attraction.
3
The fourth factor is there is still opportunities to add new customers that need high-bandwidth, dark fiber service
connections. In the last year, new customer growth has come primarily from high-tech start-ups, located in multi-tenant
buildings.
0:03:49:
The next recommendation concerns the citywide ultra-high-speed broadband system project. The Council stated several
goals and objectives for this project, which included building an "open access" fiber-to-the-premise system that would
provide symmetrical 100-megabit-per-second service, capable of delivering voice, video, and data services, at minimal
risk to the City.
Based on these goals and objectives, a two-phased conceptual plan was developed and presented last year.
### I commented on the deficiencies of that conceptual plan last year.
The first phase was to build fiber optic hub sites at the nine electric substations, to establish core distribution points for
fiber optic and wireless transport vendors. The cost for that first phase was approximately 1 million dollars.
The second phase was to expand network access from hub sites to 88 neighborhood nodal access points, as a potential
platform for fiber-to-the-premise, in addition to supporting other uses related to wireless communications. The cost for
phase 2 was approximately 5 million dollars.
The active Ethernet FTTP system staff considered in its 6-6-12 staff report is incompatible with the passive system
proposed for last year's Phase 2. I think active Ethernet is better.
The rationale for this phased approach was to create an economic incentive and a platform for a private-sector company
to build out the "last mile" with an "open access" residential fiber-to-the-premise system. If there was no interest from the
private sector in a fiber-to-the-premise buildout, the infrastructure from phases 1 and phase 2 would possibly be used to
support a wireless network.
### I think it makes no sense to implement a wireless network before implementing citywide FTTP. If staff wants to make
sure the FTTP network we implement is capable of supporting wireless later, fine.
However, the conclusion was that, due to the high level of financial risk and current market conditions for competitive
telecom services, a phased approach for fiber-to-the-premise using the fiber fund reserve did not support a business
case, if the objective was to deploy fiber infrastructure to attract a private-sector fiber-to-the-premise builder and operator.
### I wish Council had considered staff's plan last year, so that they could have weighed in on this "conclusion," which I
think is false. I agreed last year that it doesn't make sense for the City to do these halfway measures. Rather it should do
citywide municipal FTTP by itself.
0:05:36:
After the conceptual plan was developed, staff conducted an analysis of an alternative model for residential fiber-to-the-
premise, based on the homeowner voluntarily paying a one-time fee for some or all of the cost to build out the fiber
network into residential neighborhoods. The name for this model was "user-financed fiber-to-the-premise."
To evaluate the model, a customer survey was conducted by RKS Research and Consulting, and a market analysis report
was prepared by Tellus Venture Associates.
At this point, I'm going to review the survey highlights. And then our consultant, Steve Blum, President of Tellus Venture
Associates, will review the market analysis report for the user-financed model.
0:06:19:
The customer survey had three goals. The first was to measure customer willingness to invest in a fiber connection. The
second was to measure price sensitivity for the one-time fiber service connection fee and the monthly service fee. And
the third objective was to develop a general assessment of the competitive telecom market in Palo Alto in terms of
willingness to switch broadband service providers, and to provide information about how consumers rate services from
AT&T, Comcast, and other ISPs.
4
The methodology used for the survey was -- 401 residential telephone interviews -- homeowners only -- and the City was
identified as the survey's sponsor. The interviews were conducted last December.
### It's REALLY unfortunate that results did not become public until June. Even now, we have only a summary of the
results. Council should demand to see the exact wording of all questions, and all of the results data, not just a summary.
Key survey findings indicate the following. 76 percent of total respondents support residential fiber-to-the-premise from
the City. 61 percent believe the City should compete against broadband providers. When told that the cost to build a
fiber-to-the-premise system was between 40 and 60 million dollars, support dropped to 38 percent.
### Exactly how were participants asked this question? Was it made clear that the goal of a FTTP system would be to
be a utility -- paid for by those that use it -- like Palo Alto's other utilities?
An equal percentage said they were unsure of their support based on the cost estimate. 23 percent support the idea of
user financing; 68 percent do not. 69 percent of the supporters of user financing would be even more supportive if an
installment payment plan was available for the one-time service connection fee. However, supporters pushed back
significantly on price expectations for the one-time fiber service connection fee. 30 percent are not willing to pay more
than one thousand dollars. 35 percent would pay no more than two thousand. And just 4 percent of homeowners would
fall in the three thousand or more investment range. Supporters of the user-financed model are generally younger and
more affluent homeowners.
A snapshot of the broadband market in Palo Alto confirms that AT&T and Comcast share the residential consumer
market. If the City moved forward with a user-financed model, a fiber connection would need to be marketed as an
investment that provides long-term value to the homeowner, and a good return. Customer-switching behavior -- in other
words, how often a customer moves from one provider to the other -- is minimal, and generally price-driven. Overall
customer willingness to invest in a fiber customer is very low.
### The staff report said (PDF page 22) that 36% of survey participants were willing to "invest" in a municipal FTTP
network, by paying an up-front connection fee. 36% is NOT "very low." On the contrary, it's so high that FTTP should be
feasible citywide even with NO up-front connect fee. In other words, it shows that studying the "user-financed" approach
was unnecessary.
### The survey found that more people were willing to "invest" in a municipal FTTP network than were willing to "support"
it. To me, that's a sure sign that the survey questions were confusing. Council MUST require that staff publish the exact
wording of all survey questions.
At this point, I'm going to introduce Steve Blum. Steve is the President of Tellus Venture Associates. It's a management
and consulting firm that specializes in developing new broadband systems. Steve will review the market analysis report
that was included as an attachment to the staff report. (Escape, there, and get into....)
0:09:20:
Steve Blum: Thank you, Jim. Commissioners. The purpose of this study was to determine if a user-financed option -- a
user-financed FTTP system -- is feasible for the City of Palo Alto -- whether or not it could work. To determine that --
whether it could work financially. To determine that, we went and built the model -- actually several models -- of how it
would work financially, and how the costs would be allocated, and what the costs would be, and what the system could
look like. In doing that, we made several assumptions -- or used several assumptions. Those are primarily based on
research that has been done previously for the City. There are a total of five studies that I pulled from,
What five studies exactly? Are all of these studies available to the public?
that have been prepared specifically for the City of Palo Alto regarding fiber-to-the-home, and -- as well as experience
from other cities around the Bay Area and elsewhere, in operating actual systems, and studies that have been done in
other cities in the Bay Area and elsewhere, for the purpose of evaluating fiber-to-the-home systems.
The assumptions used in the analysis -- First off, we assumed that the City would be providing wholesale transport
services to Internet service providers. In other words, the "open access" model, where the City would be providing the
basic "pipes," and then other companies would come in, offer service through those "pipes" to consumers, and consumers
would choose their service providers as they individually saw fit.
5
We assumed that the technology -- the base technology -- would be an active Ethernet system. A passive system could
work, as well. The cost parameters on them are basically in the same ballpark. But if you're building a system -- if you're
looking at a user-financed model -- it involves building a system fairly piecemeal. And an "open access" system, you
need to have a lot of flexibility in terms or provisioning. So, for the purpose of this study, we picked the active
architecture. But again, we could have run the numbers using a passive architecture and I looked at -- I did look at the --
at some bottom-line numbers, and there was not a huge difference, given the analysis we were doing.
The staff report (PDF page 60) doesn't show how the architecture choice affects the quantitative assumptions
listed. Council should demand it.
In terms of the costs the capabilities of the technology, we started out with optimistic assumptions -- lower costs, higher-
performing technology. We made those assumptions because we were trying to find a model that worked. And if you
start out with good assumptions, you can at least see what it's going to take to get to a working model.
In terms of the take rates, the consumer demand, that's an absolute key to the whole exercise. We relied primarily on the
research that was done by RKS. Jim talked about that survey. They explored price points with customers, and they gave
us a fair view of what people's attitudes towards different pricing is -- pricing combinations of monthly service and up-front
costs.
I wouldn't characterize the study -- and the -- RKS certainly wouldn't characterize the study -- as a hard demand
analysis. In other words, it's not something that you would crank into a model and come out with anything like exact or --
anything like exact demand numbers. There are methodologies for doing that. This wasn't the methodology of the
study. It wasn't the purpose.
### That's certainly too bad. What methodology should be used instead? Why did staff think that Council wouldn't be
interested in this?
But it did give us some good feel for what the numbers would be. The numbers that came out of the study, again, are
likely to be higher than you'll find in a more rigorous demand study -- a targeted demand study -- but they were -- as you'll
see, they sufficed -- these numbers sufficed well for the analysis.
We did not factor in the effect of competition. Again, we were using optimistic assumptions. Factoring in the effect of
competition is basically going to either drive down revenue or your subscriber count -- or both -- and, as you'll see when
you start doing that, the business case just gets worse.
0:14:15:
We started out in the analysis with what we're calling the "perfect" case.
### Obviously, this is silly. What the analysis should have done is to figure out what the cost-per-premises-passed and
cost-per-premises-connected would be. It should have done this for a) aerial, b) undergrounded where FTTP is
undergrounded at the same time as the other utilities, c) undergrounded where conduit for FTTP fiber is already in place,
and d) undergrounded where you'd have to dig up the street just to install conduit and fiber for FTTP. It should then have
reported how many premises fall into each of these four categories. I'd even like to see how many homes fall into each of
the four categories and how many businesses fall into each of the four categories.
And this, in a lot of ways, is what people sometimes envision when they talk about user-financed fiber-to-the-home
systems -- fiber-to-the-premise systems. In other words, you have a tight cluster of homes that are interested in the
service. They want to -- they are interested in paying the up-front cost. They want to subscribe on an ongoing basis. So
you have a tight cluster of homes. And you assume that it's near your existing network. And it's right on top of where
you're going to put a node. And that gives you basically the best possible conditions that you can imagine for the
system. And so that was how we started out building the model.
In this best case scenario, if you have 8 subscribers, it will cost you about 24 -- 23 -- thousand dollars to build out that
infrastructure to them. And it's -- at 3 thousand dollars each -- it's about break-even. Under perfect conditions.
### This just follows from the cost estimate assumptions in the staff report (PDF page 60), which I think are ridiculously
high. Council should ask staff to justify these assumptions.
But perfect conditions are rarely found in the real world. If you have 8 subscribers in an average block -- and we took an
average block to be about 33 homes in the City of Palo Alto -- if you took an average block -- 8 subscribers -- they're likely
6
to be spread at random over those 33 homes -- your cost of construction goes up. You're also not going to assume that
it's going to be sitting, necessarily, right on a node or even right on your existing fiber backbone. Your existing dark fiber
network does a great job of reaching commercial areas of the City. But when you look at the map, it -- in order to reach
residential areas, you'd have to build considerable -- considerably -- a considerable amount of new dark fiber, to reach out
and provide the backbone service to all the neighborhoods of the City. At 3 thousand dollars, 8 subscribers, in this case,
wouldn't even pay half the cost.
So if you say, well, what would -- how many subscribers would it take to fully pay the up-front cost of a user-financed
system on an average block? And you get to about 26 subscribers, at 3 thousand dollars each, and construction costs of
about 78 thousand dollars to reach them.
Now, the 78 thousand dollars, and the other costs -- (And can I go backwards? Will this take me backwards? ** Hang
on. There we go.) Take the other construction costs, that -- and here these are all based on certain assumptions. One of
the key drivers in the cost is the per-foot fiber cost -- installed cost of fiber -- and we used a figure of 28 dollars for
that. That is -- was taken from the 180 Connect proposal that was prepared by a company that was actually interested in
coming in and building the system.
### The only report from the 180 Connect Consortium that I know about is this one:
http://www.ipaloalto.org/html/Overview_2008June16.pdf
It does NOT have the $28.48-per-foot figure per se. It has a cost-per-premises-passed of $1835 and a cost-per-premises-
connected of $622, but it doesn't explain how they were derived. It assumes that only 40% of premises are aerial. But we
know that 85% of homes are aerial.
There are other -- you can use other numbers. I don't think you're going to find plausibly a lower number than that, on
average, for the City of Palo Alto.
### Uptown Services' FTTH Business Plan, Phase 1 (2003), estimated far lower costs for fiber installation.
We also assumed that it was going to require an average of about 50 feet -- just over 50 feet of construction -- to reach
each home. That includes not just the cost of running down the street -- or running down the back yards -- but also the
additional fiber that would be required to extend the dark fiber network to the neighborhood, and to run from the nodes to
the -- to the -- into the neighborhoods. So you're talking about 50 feet of fiber per home, and about 28 dollars a foot. And
that's a major driver.
### Uptown Services' FTTH Business Plan, Phase I, didn't just assume an average number of feet per premises but did
a complex analysis of three different neighborhood layouts. Why just ignore this data?
I want to make a point here. We can -- you can assume -- or you can assume for the sake of discussion, well, it would
cost less to build. You could do it for fewer dollars a foot. Maybe you don't need as many feet. 67 thousand dollars for 8
subscribers -- well, maybe you could do it for 30 or 40 thousand dollars. What I want to make -- the point I want to make
here is -- even under the "perfect" case, when it's only 23 thousand dollars and you're breaking even -- you need 8
subscribers in a 33-home block -- 8 homes out of 33 -- that's a 24 percent subscription rate. The maximum rate that the
study turned up -- the maximum positive rate when you crank through it -- was about 9 percent, at 3 thousand
dollars. And that's assuming that there's no monthly fee. If people were guaranteed service for life for free, about 9
percent of the City was interested in paying 3 thousand dollars up-front to get it.
### I very much doubt that survey participants were asked this question exactly!! Well, Council should find out. Demand
to see the exact wording of all the survey questions. At one point, the staff report suggests that it be possible for
customers to pay the $3,000 up-front connection fee off by paying $25/month for 10 years. If there were no monthly fee
besides this, then you could get Internet service (presumably at relatively high bandwidth) for $25/month for the first 10
years and absolutely free after that. Would people sign up for that? You'd better believe it. (I'm not saying it's a viable
option for the City to do this, just that Blum's claim is absolutely false.)
If you're starting to add monthly fees into it, it drops quickly.
### Is this just an assumption, or is there data to back it up?
In other words, even at just needing 24 percent, the likelihood of getting that subscri- -- those subscriber numbers are
low. And to -- if you take it up to 78 thousand dollars and 26 subscribers, 79 percent is beyond really any system
anywhere has been able to achieve -- any fiber system. So, in terms of the -- of a system being able to pay for itself up-
front -- it's not feasible. It's not going to happen.
7
### Garbage in, garbage out. Blum's analysis is worthless.
0:19:56:
So then the question becomes -- can you do it with a combination of operating revenue over time and an up-front
fee? And we ran those numbers, using, again, the same assumptions, and a broad range of cases -- optimistic subscriber
numbers, pessimistic subscriber numbers, steady -- no-growth, constant growth, subsidies from the dark fiber network, no
subsidies from the dark fiber network. If you look at -- kinda -- the brackets here -- and there's the complete -- all the
charts and graphs and spreadsheets are in the actual report. But it you look at the brackets, and just take the base case -
- where you're assuming flat subscriber numbers, based on the research, and no subsidies -- you're looking at ongoing --
you're looking positive operating revenue in some cases, if you price it low enough, But over time -- even over 20 years --
it won't come close to paying for the system
If you improve the case about as much as you can, and push it to its theoretical limits -- in other words, you assume that
it's going to grow at a steady rate of 5 percent over 20 years -- and get up over 50 percent penetration of the marketplace
-- and if you assume that you're going to put the existing 12-million dollar kitty -- dark fiber kitty -- into it, and subsidize it
for 20 years at the rate of 2 million dollars a year -- if you assume that, then the base case of 3 thousand dollars up-front
cost gets you to almost break-even in 20 years.
### The purpose of the Fiber Optic Fund is to create infrastructure for the fiber optic utility. I claim that FTTP should be
considered a part of the fiber optic utility. So I object to the use of the term "subsidy" to describe using Fiber Optic Fund
funds to build out FTTP.
If you assume lower up-front costs and higher penetration rates, then you can get to -- at the best, you can get to a break-
even point in about 11 years. But that's pushing the model about as far as you can push it. And it's before you start
factoring in things like competition, higher costs, and other things that we didn't take into account in building the initial
model.
The bottom line is that, in a real-world -- under any kind of real-world assumptions, a fully-financed citywide system -- a
fully user-financed citywide system -- is not possible. It's not possible based on up-front costs, or if you factor in operating
revenue over time. You can build it, and finance it, and subsidize it, but it's not going to be paid for our of operating
revenue either -- from the subscribers themselves or the subscribers plus the existing dark fiber revenue. Ongoing
subsidies would be required -- almost certainly in excess of the surpluses that are generated by the dark fiber system.
This, when you look at it, isn't a completely surprising conclusion. Telecommunications networks are based on a -- are
usually based on economies of scale. They're based on the ability to build out and serve a wide number of people. It's a
high-fixed-cost business. And if you want to recover the fixed cost, you need a lot of subscribers. It doesn't cost a lot less
to serve a handful of subscribers than it does to serve the entire City. And it's that basic high fixed cost that -- and
economies of scale -- that drive telecommunications networks. And that's really what you're seeing here in these
models. The bottom line is, user financing -- requiring people to pay up-front -- does not work. So, I'll just turn it over to
Jim.
0:23:59:
Jim Fleming: Getting back to the staff recommendation -- Staff is recommending discontinuing the pursuit of residential
fiber-to-the-premise and, instead, recommends initiating an evaluation of using the Fiber Fund to build a dedicated
municipal wireless network.
### To me, a wireless network should NOT be considered part of Palo Alto's fiber optic utility, and the Fiber Optic Fund
should not be raided to implement one.
As telecom technology evolves, and high data rate mobile broadband access becomes essential, many cities that built
fiber networks have leveraged and augmented those networks by also building dedicated municipal wireless networks.
Wireless networks have become critical infrastructure for municipal governments. Examples of networks -- uses -- include
mobile field personnel, who need access to a wide variety of mobile applications via a tablet, a laptop, or a smart
phone. Various public safety uses, for example, a wireless disaster and recovery network. Communication platforms for
smart grid applications.
8
### If someone wants to implement a wireless network that is a *customer* of the City's fiber optic utility, fine. But it
needs to get funded from its customers.
And, in addition to using excess network capacity, provide amenity-grade or subscription-based Wi-Fi access to the
general public.
With appropriate technology, and a sufficient budget, wireless facilities can supplant and extend the reach of the City data
networks to field staff virtually anywhere.
To fully evaluate the Fiber Fund reserve -- excuse me -- To fully evaluate whether the Fiber Fund Reserve should be used
to build a wireless network, staff recommends the following next steps. Perform a needs assessment with City
departments, to determine operational requirements for potential user groups, and the various applications that would be
enhanced with improved mobile broadband access over a City network.
### The purpose of the City's utilities is to serve the public, not to serve City government.
Two would be to identify network design priorities and technology choices.
And three would be to identify business models to build and operate a municipal wireless network.
And there are a number of different models that cities have used to implement wireless networks. (Thank you.) And
those models include: A City-owned-and-operated network. Or a privately-owned wireless network, where the City would
become an anchor tenant. Or a hybrid of that, where a wireless is owned by the City, but the City outsources operation
and maintenance of -- to a service provider.
The last slide here -- switching gears -- you -- in the report, we provided a summary of a proposal to the Palo Alto Unified
School District -- and we have a letter of intent that was signed on March 19, 2012 -- that would provide dark fiber service
connections to 17 schools and the district office. The target date for service activation is on or after July, 2013. The City
provided the school district with a preliminary quote of approximately 425 thousand dollars for the one-time
interconnection fee for all those facilities. In the letter of intent, the City agreed to pay one half of the one-time
interconnection fee, based on a justification that the project is a significant capital improvement to the fiber network
throughout the City. The other one half of the one-time interconnection fee would be paid by the district, over a 10-year
period. The district would pay 100 percent of the monthly fee for licensing dark fiber from the City. The advanced
engineering work is underway to develop an actual cost for the project, so a final proposal can be submitted to the
district. We expect to have that work completed in the next 2 to 3 months. Thank you.
### Council should demand an accounting of how implementing the proposed connections to schools will increase the
value of the City's dark fiber network by $212,500 (or half of whatever the total cost turns out to be).
### I have said many times before that before anyone starts making capital improvements to the City's dark fiber
network, there should be a plan in place that shows how the City's dark fiber network needs to be improved to support
citywide municipal FTTP.
0:27:40:
Chair Foster: I have no public speaker cards, although, Bob, seeing you sitting back there, I can't imagine you don't have
comments. Would you like to comment or not?
0:27:49:
Bob Harrington: Sure. I'm Bob Harrington, a Palo Alto resident and an advisor to the Mayor on broadband, along with
two others. The only -- to come to the headline comments I would have, is that Staff has been diligently working on this
for about a year, and all of us have had the 125-page report for 3 days. So -- and there has been no open study --
or back-and-forth commentary at all -- on this for this past year. So I would certainly welcome a little bit more open
disclosure and open back-and-forth discussion before, you know, anything gets set in concrete.
### I absolutely agree. In August 2002, UAC asked staff to post the FTTH Business Case document online 2 weeks
before UAC's meeting to consider it. When staff failed to do that, UAC told staff at its October 2002 meeting they hadn't
had enough time to read it.
9
There are a number of things I like about the staff work on this. And there are a few things that I don't. I sent a note to the
UAC about a couple of flaws, I think, that are kind of fundamental -- that felt to me like -- in my first reading of the 125-
page report -- felt to me like they were a little bit off. And maybe some of the fundamental thinking was a little off. But,
again, I haven't had a chance to test this, and so -- and I'm going on short notice. So that's really kind of my overall sense
of things. I'd really kind of urge a little bit longer consideration before we, you know, drop this and go on to a municipal
wireless network.
0:29:21:
Chair Foster: Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to address this issue?
0:29:32:
Herb Borock: Herb Borock. Thank you, Chair Foster. I believe that staff has essentially been presenting you and your
predecessors over the years reports that seem biased against doing fiber-to-the-home. As I recall, the last time that the
staff was here, with the subject, and describing the idea of building out hubs at the substations, they were talking about
providing enough fiber for a passive optical network. And yet here the consultant is talking about doing a study for an
active network.
The same thing happened in the original reports, where -- with the previous Utility Director -- where what was studied was
a Trial in a neighborhood for a passive system, that was not something that could be scaled up to the City. And that --
never study the kind of system that might be attractive to the residents.
Also, here -- we're talking about wireless -- staff is on a path, from the beginning, of a wireless smart grid system. I
suspect that if the current staff and the current City Council were here when the decisions were being made about
whether to have municipal utilities, we would have never had them. That is, the bias seems to be about how to help
existing businesses be profitable, rather than how to serve the residents. A smart grid could be a user of an active fiber
system. The advantage of that is that you'd have a system that goes to all residences, and would provide an attractive
system that someone else could expand.
We're talking now again about helping -- once again -- helping out the school district. And I was just wondering -- how
much fiber would be built out, and how much would the school district use? Because you get back in the situation where
we're having something that is expanded to 17 school districts which are in neighborhoods, whereas the current
businesses are not there -- that's not where the system would be expanded to.
So, I think, as Mr. Harrington said, that you should spend more time on this before committing to something. And I'm
surprised that there's been already a letter-of-intent with the school district without authorization from the Council. Thank
you.
0:32:09:
Chair Foster: Thank you for your comments. OK, let's get started with started with questions. And then I'm sure we'll
have a robust discussion. OK, fire away.
0:32:23:
UAC Commissioner Asher Waldfogel: Thank you for the report and the analysis. I mean, it's a great model, that, I think,
builds out -- throws every possible cost into the hopper.
So, I just want to start out with a comment -- that I -- we have -- I think the number was -- 12.7 million dollars in the Fiber
Optic Reserve Fund -- or we will at the end of the year. I asked our City Attorney's office, Mr. Kolling, for a judgment on
what can we do with this Reserve Fund. And I'll just read part of his response. Which is -- he said -- "The legal principle
for any utility fund would be to use those reserve funds for the business purposes associated with the utility creating the
fund. So for the Fiber Optic Fund, the reserve must be used for dark fiber backbone related purposes." Now, he -- later in
the day, he sent me an email backpedaling on this response, but he didn't tell me what the backpedal amounts to.
### In 2004, UAC asked several times that someone from the City Attorney's office attend a UAC meeting so that UAC
could interrogate that person (in public) about the legal options for FTTP, but it didn't happen. If UAC now can't get a
straight answer from legal staff, maybe UAC should ask the Council do it. (If Council can think of a good reason to do this
in closed session, fine; but then it should summarize the result to UAC -- and to the public. UAC should be satisfied that
the questions it would have asked legal staff were, in fact, asked.)
10
So I think it's very difficult for us to have a conversation about this today, because we have 12 million dollars in the
reserve. And, if his initial response -- which is consistent with every prior ruling we've gotten on what we can do with the
reserve -- is true, then I honestly don't know what else we would do with that money except spend the 5 million dollars
building the 88 nodes.
### The idea, proposed in staff's June 2011 report, of building out the 88 nodes, hoping that a private-sector entity would
be enticed to build out citywide FTTP from there, was really bad. If the City had built out the 88 passive nodes and then
realized that it wanted an active architecture (as the June 2012 staff report now says), most of that build-out would have
been useless.
### I think the Fiber Optics Fund should be used to help the City build out a citywide municipal FTTP network.
So, I'm curious -- I mean, do we have a sense of what we can and can't do with the reserve, and with the income that we
continue to generate from this fund? Because I think, absent that, we really can't have a meaningful discussion today.
0:34:19:
Chair Foster: Director Fong, do you want to comment on that?
0:34:28:
Tomm Marshall: Yeah. We've had some discussion with the Attorney's office. And they're still under review on what it
can be used for. So I think your question is valid -- in what it is. I think there's several opinions on this, so -- at this point
in time.
0:34:46:
Chair Foster: Well, is it safe to assume that all your analysis did not include the possibility of using the 12 million dollars
from the reserve for this kind of a project?
0:34:57
Steve Blum: No. The -- one of the -- actually, several scenerios were run assuming that the 12 million dollars was used
to subsidize the user-financed FTTP system.
0:35:09
Chair Foster: OK. So you're saying that even with the 12 million dollars, it is your opinion that there is no user-financed
model that works.
0:35:16:
Steve Blum: Correct. 12 million dollars up-front -- and even with 2 million a year ongoing -- it doesn't pencil out.
### Again, TVA's erroneous conclusions are based on its erroneous cost assumptions. The staff report has to be vetted!
0:35:25:
Commissioner Waldfogel: So what I missed from that analysis is that if the -- if the nodes are pre-built out of that 12
million dollars, then doesn't that move the per-block cost? I mean, basically, serving 33 houses is closer to 23 thousand
dollars, not 80 thousand dollars. Because we don't have to allocate backhaul from the node, we don't have to allocate a
piece of the node, we don't have to allocate -- I mean, basically, there's a whole bunch of expenses that are built into that
model that are wiped clean if the node -- all the backhaul to the node --
### Good point. But the staff report doesn't provide enough detail to know quantitatively how much cost there is in
infrastructure above the nodes and how much is in infrastructure below the nodes.
You know, I don't really care whether it's active or passive.
11
### Someone who vets the plan should care. By the time the plan is vetted, the reasons for choosing active (or passive)
should be known and explained.
I mean, I think you made a judgment call, which I think is valid. But haven't we wiped all that expense out? And the only
expense we have to deal with is the fiber run out to the neighborhood, which is serving -- which is, you know, basically
800 feet of fiber at 20 dollars a foot.
0:36:21
Steve Blum: The -- It doesn't really matter how you allocate the cost.
### This is an evasion. The point is that the report doesn't have enough detail.
if you crank an extra 12 million dollars up-front and 2 million dollars a year into the model, you can spend it -- you can
allocate it to whatever line items you want to allocate it to. But the bottom line comes out the same. So building -- if you
say, well, the 12 million dollars goes towards the nodes and the backbone, that's fine. Those are costs you're going to
have to incur regardless. So, it's -- if you're saying -- well, on top of -- if you spend the 12 million dollars and ongoing 2
million dollars a year for certain items, and you're not accounting for that, that's fine. And then the policy decision is made
that you're going to look at just the other costs, you can do that. But it's not going to change the numbers. It's not going
to change the bottom line. It's -- the total amount of cost is going to be the same. And the total amount of revenue is
going to be the same.
0:37:31:
Chair Foster: Any other comments?
0:37:35:
UAC Commissioner Garth Hall: I have a question, Mr. Fleming. When you begin to look at the possibility of a municipal
wireless network, I think you made a comment, and I think there's a vague reference in the recommendations for next
steps, that you might look at a network that's also available to residents or consumers in the City -- as an adjunct to
that. Is that correct?
0:37:58:
Jim Fleming: That's correct.
0:37:59:
Commissioner Hall: Yeah. So, I was wondering if there's anything to be learned from what Google did? I'm assuming
the spectrum that you would use would be the same type of spectrum that would be available to iPhones and laptops
generally?
### This question is not specific enough to be meaningful.
0:38:10:
Jim Fleming: That's true.
0:38:12
Commissioner Hall: So, I'm wondering if there's anything to be learned from what Google did in Mountain View?
### Google didn't even provide a phone number that people could call to complain about the service. Do we want to
learn that?
### Google's Karl Garcia told Council that it would cost Palo Alto about $1 million/year to operate a Wi-Fi network in Palo
Alto.
0:38:17:
12
Jim Fleming: I think all the municipal Wi-Fi deployments that occurred over the last several years -- there's lessons to be
learned from all of them. Our consultant, Steve Blum, has actually been involved in one significant project, in Lompoc,
and could tell you the different approaches, some of the problems that were encountered.
### In Lompoc, implementing the Wi-Fi network cost about four times what TVA said it would cost and took a lot longer to
implement correctly than TVA said.
Probably six to seven years ago, some of the municipal Wi-Fi projects were built out under the premise that they would be
subscription-based. And it -- as it turned out -- that wasn't necessarily the best model to pursue.
### Lompoc's Wi-Fi is subscription-based. As of 2009, revenues were only about 35% of operating costs.
http://www.muniwireless.com/2009/02/05/update-on-lompoc-network/
And quite often the communities that went that direction were displeased with broadband services from the incumbent
providers -- the wired services from incumbent providers -- and thought that Wi-Fi would fill a gap, so to speak. But, you
know, a lot of those projects were based on an advertising model and subscription-based.
### An advertising model is different from a subscription-based model.
And Mr. Blum could probably expand on what I've said. But there's a lot of different models. But most communities have
moved away from that. And now wireless is -- particularly if a fiber asset is in place -- wireless is more focused on
municipal needs that can be improved.
### In other words, it's City government serving City government, not the public.
You know, as you've got mobile workers out in the field, and so forth, there's a need for a dedicated network of some
sort. There's a public safety aspect. And also potentially in the smart grid area, too.
0:39:58:
Commissioner Hall: OK. Thank you.
0:40:04:
UAC Commissioner John Melton: The -- I guess I think that we're a little bit premature -- as Commissioner Waldfogel
does -- in considering this. I've got -- I've sort of got a bunch of things that, it seems to me, have not been done that ought
to be done -- that need to completed at the staff level before we can proceed forward. First of all, I'm kind of disappointed
that this has not been reviewed with the Citizen Advisors to the Mayor.
### Mayor Yeh told me that he appointed no Citizen Advisors this year, because UAC had been given oversight of
FTTP. So UAC shouldn't be counting on Citizen Advisors to do UAC's job. If former Citizen Advisors want to comment as
members of the public, I think that's great.
It seems to me that those people are in place exactly for the purpose of reviewing things like this. So I'm not sure that the
City Manager's office has really -- you know, is up to speed on this -- lacking their involvement.
### Does Commissioner Melton infer this from the lack of the City Manager's signature on the staff report?
I'm referring to Mr. Harrington's letter as -- the Citizen Advisors to the Mayor who were appointed to be part of this whole
process, and they haven't been involved. So I think we're a little -- that's one reason I think we're premature.
The second is -- we're a long way from having the legal answers that we need. This question of what can we use the fiber
optic revenue for. I'm even a little concerned that -- with this proposal -- that we could -- that we might be able to use it to
build a CLOSED network for the City. That's not serving the customers. Well, the City is one of the customers, but it's not
all of the customers. I'm not sure that we can use the -- that it's wise to use the money for a closed network for municipal
operations only. I thi- -- We're not doing anything for the other businesses or for the citizens of the City. I think we've
gotta think in -- If we're going to talk a Wi-Fi or a WiMax network,
### I wouldn't waste money considering WiMax.
http://www.muniwireless.com/category/wimax/
13
we need to be thinking -- we can THINK about a closed network for municipal operations, but we also need to be thinking
about an open network for citizen- -- you know, that's available for citizens. So I think we need some answers -- staff
answers -- from the legal department.
0:42:46:
Tomm Marshall: Yeah. John, I don't think we're -- we're not proposing a closed Wi-Fi network. Actually, what we're
proposing is to go do a study, to look at those different ways that a Wi-Fi network could be used. One of them is for
municipal operations -- but also to provide wireless to the public -- service to the public. So, we're not -- What we are
suggesting is to go back and do the study on that, and see whether there's a business plan there that makes sense.
0:43:17:
Chair Foster: Any other comments? I've got -- Let me do a little thinking out loud, which is a little dangerous here -- but -
- We're talking about user-financed mechanisms. Has, at any point -- have we considered -- I know this has been going
on in some form or other for many years, and certainly before my service on the Utilities Advisory Commission -- and, of
course, before the Utilities Advisory Commission studied this issue -- Have we contemplated a model in which fiber-to-the-
premises is provided to ALL residents of Palo Alto? In other words, not on an uptake type of basis, but -- everybody gets
it, in one way or another -- through some sort of -- and financed through, say, a bond measure, something like that?
### In 1999, the City issued an RFP for a "universal telecommunication system," which wasn't required to be FTTP. In
fact, the performance demanded was only 9600 bps! The City got no bids, which was a blessing.
### In 2002-2004, the City considered implementing a FTTP network in which (almost) all premises (both residences and
businesses) could get services if they subscribed to them. (It wasn't completely clear whether residences west of
Highway 280 would be able to get service.) Financing would have required a bond (i.e., borrowing money) but not
necessarily a bond measure (a vote of the people).
### In 2005-2009, the City issued an RFP and then negotiated with the "winning" bidder to have the 180 Connect
Consortium build and operate a FTTP network in which all premises could get services if they subscribed to
them. According to the RFP, the consortium should have done the financing.
### In 2009, the City thought about pursuing federal stimulus funds for FTTP. One option considered was a FTTP
network that actually provided a service, e.g., a smart-grid service, to all premises. (That's where the upper limit of $60
million for the network comes from.) But it turned out that Palo Alto probably couldn't have met the criteria for getting
stimulus funds.
### In 2010, the City hoped that Google would give the City a FTTP network in which all premises could get services if
they subscribed to them.
Has that been contemplated at any point along the way? I'll look at all four of you for this one.
43:58:
Tomm Marshall: Yes. Several times. I mean, we've looked at doing partnerships to construct a network like that in the
City. In fact, we've done that TWICE.
### As far as I know, the 180 Connect Consortium deal was the only time the City considered a partnership for
implementing a FTTP network.
And both times, it got to a certain point. And both times, they fell through because of, you know, various things, that
eventually ended up to do with the financing of the network, and how much the City is going to participate in financing
those networks, and sort of the limits that we had placed upon us about limiting the City's risk in investing in this
network. So...
0:44:33
Chair Foster: I do recall that. So there's a private-sector player involved. It would be a City public-private type of
partnership, and it fell through for whatever reason. OK. Have we -- Council Member Shepherd, has the City Council -- if
you have thoughts on this -- from the point of view of the City Council -- and is the City -- has the City Council examined
14
this recently? Is there appetite at the City Council in looking at a bond measure to finance something like this? Or -- and
if the City Council hasn't looked at this lately, that's OK, too.
### As the organization that has official oversight of FTTP, UAC should know this.
0:45:07:
Council Member Nancy Shepherd: That -- Well, I'm sure they can answer this almost as well as I can. The Policy &
Services Committee has deci- -- has recommended to Council -- and we just did vote on it -- that we're not going to put
anything on the ballot this year. That we are looking to 2014. And so, you've got two years. And you know what it's like
to run a bond...
### As Commissioner Melton knows well -- because he served on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) --
IBRC decided that anything that looked like a utility -- including electric undergrounding, redundant transmission lines, and
FTTP -- was not within the scope of its jurisdiction. So if Council wants to go to the voters with a bond measure for
infrastructure improvements, it will have to decide which utility-like things to add to IBRC's list of infrastructure
improvements.
### Note that it doesn't necessarily take a vote of the people for the City to issue a bond.
0:45:25:
Chair Foster: Yes it do.
0:45:25:
Council Member Shepherd: ... because I've worked with you on one.
0:45:28:
Valerie Fong: We have with us tonight -- very fortunately, because he's here on a different item -- but somebody who has
a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge about some of the past -- more recent studies, in doing partnerships with
this. And we have Administrative Services Assistant Director Joe Saccio. He will probably be able to speak somewhat to
some of the Council actions that have been taken over the many years we've been looking at this. Joe, thank you.
### I don't understand why Director Fong pointed out that Saccio was present for a different item. Was she trying to
say that he hadn't been told in advance that he might be required to testify about FTTP?
0:45:59:
Joe Saccio: Well, I -- As the Director said, it has been a while since I've worked on this. We received, through a memo --
a Council member memo -- a directive to try to find -- this goes back to probably 2007 -- a memo to explore with a
potential private partner, to build out the network.
### On 7-25-05, Council voted to initiate this approach,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-meetings/documents/050725minutes.pdf
as recommended by a Colleagues Memo from Council Members Kishimoto and Beecham.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cityclerk-reports/documents/Fiber-to-the-Home.pdf
The RFP was issued on 9-25-06, and bids were required by 11-28-06.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cityclerk-reports/documents/060914rfpbroadbandno15.pdf
Council accepted the 180 Connect Consortium bid on 3-5-07.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7576
Citizen Advisors Harrington and Poggio were appointed on 4-9-07; Citizen Advisor Beecham was added on 5-5-08.
We spent -- and there was a subcommittee of the Council, as well as a Citizens Advisory Committee, of which Bob was a
part -- that kind of oversaw this effort, that we would report to. Grant Kolling was a member of the group, myself, and one
other person -- talking with, if you remember, Axia Networks.
### Officially, the winning bid was by the 180 Connect Consortium. Originally, Axia wasn't a member of the consortium,
but it joined later.
15
And I was just Googling that a minute ago.
So we spent two years talking with them. And what came out of it is that they wanted a fairly substantial contribution from
the City to build out the network, and wanted some backup, in case there wasn't a success. And they expected a certain
amount of return on their investment. And, just to keep it simple, one of the parameters in the Council memorandum was
that the City wouldn't spend any money from the General Fund, for instance, to support this. So, we spent a long time
talking, and it just didn't materialize. I think the potential investors felt like there was a certain amount -- a fair amount of
risk involved.
### The consortium should have thought of that before they bid.
They -- you know, and so they really wanted the City to guarantee a certain financial ret- -- a certain return to them, if
things didn't pan out the way they wanted to. And so the discussion basically ended, and we mutually agreed to end
this. Bob was very much a part of that, so I'd be interesting to hear what, you know, what he has to say.
We tried many, many different angles on this. At the time, the reserve was around, I think, 5 or 6 million, if my memory
serves me right -- it was much lower than what it is now. And we didn't get a clear absolute business model from the firm,
with take rates that were established through the kind of research that Jim and the consultant have done.
### On 7-14-08, Council refused the consortium's request that the City pay the consortium to create a business plan.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13622
Council refused, because, according to the RFP, it wasn't part of the deal. Perhaps Council thought that since the
consortium was taking all the risk (per the RFP), it was the consortium, not the City, that needed a business plan. (So I'd
really like to know what business plan from the consortium says that installing fiber costs $28.48 per foot.)
It was -- So -- so there were a lot of questions surrounding it, to make a long story short. But we did explore that route. It
wasn't successful. The Council gave us instructions to -- I mean, we brought it to them that we recommended terminating
the discussion. It was a -- And the Council went along with that at the time. It's a -- obviously, it was, I think, a different
Council. Council Member Klein, as I remember, was one of the main members who proposed moving forward with this
private entity.
0:49:18:
Chair Foster: Is it safe to assume, then, that all the conversations in the past involved doing this in some way with a
private entity, as opposed to the City of Palo Alto doing it on its own?
### NO!
0:49:31:
Joe Saccio: Well, I wasn't part of that effort. But I, you know -- Back in the early '90s, basically, there was a very long
study that looked at doing it within the City, having -- just using City resources.
### The 2002-2004 effort proposed that the City finance the network, contract to have it built, operate the TV and Internet
services, subcontract the phone service, and *maybe* permit a few Internet retail service providers.
And, again, there was a legal question as to -- borrow -- one of the premises in the study was that a large amount of
money would be borrowed from the -- or used from the Electric Fund to be able to support the buildout. And, you
know, the only way that could be done is if there was a BORROWING from the Electric Fund. You just couldn't use the
reserves -- this goes back to your comment, Commissioner Foster, about what Grant was opining about -- that one fund
can't subsidize another fund. But even if you have borrowed the money from the Electric Fund, you have to pay it
back. So you still have the borrowing costs....
### As I remember it, the financing plan was initially assumed to be that the City would finance the FTTP network with a
bond, backed primarily by anticipated FTTP revenues, and secondarily by something else, such as electric utility
revenues. Relatively late in the process, it occurred to someone that this might be a problem legally. That's when UAC
started asking that a member of legal staff attend a UAC meeting, to discuss options, but legal staff refused to show up. It
would have been legal to back the bond secondarily with the General Fund, but City Manager Benest recommended
against it, and Council went along with that. Staff's assessment was that, without secondary backing, the bond interest
rate would be too high.
16
0:50:30:
Chair Foster: So, let me ask two follow-up questions. Has anyone ever looked at the idea of the City floating a bond --
not borrowing from one -- but floating a bond -- that's the first point --
### YES.
and then operating the network on its own?
### YES.
And -- I guess I'll add a third one -- is -- is that feasible, in theory?
### YES.
0:50:49:
Tomm Marshall: I think the answer is -- yes, we did. And....
0:50:51:
Commissioner Melton: That was -- that was sort of the Proposal Number One. This is, like, my first meeting of the
UAC. We're that far back -- eight years, or something like that. And that was the proposal Joe was talking about: spend
35 or 40 million dollars of City money to build out fiber-to-the-premise citywide. No questions asked -- just everybody gets
it.
### That is, the FTTP network would be accessible to most premises, but only the premises willing to pay for services
would be connected. The question of whether premises west of Highway 280 would have access wasn't answered
definitively.
And then operate -- or the City would -- wouldn't actually do programming, but the City would contract with providers to
get onto the network.
### Again, the plan was that the City would be the sole provider of the TV service, would subcontract the phone service
to just one provider, and would be one of at most a few providers of Internet services.
So, in effect, the City was even involved in some operations. That was the first proposal -- that ultimately crashed and
burned....
0:51:48:
Chair Foster: And -- I'm sorry -- why did that one crash and burn?
0:51:51:
Commissioner Melton: Financing. Because it was this thing -- you had to use Electric Fund money to do it....
### Again, the old plan was that the City would commit to using Electric Fund money -- or something like it -- to pay back
the bond, but only if FTTP revenues proved insufficient.
0:51:57:
Chair Foster: So, I'm going to change -- so my point is, don't use Electric Fund money. Go out and float a bond. In other
words,
0:52:04:
Tomm Marshall: Yeah -- I think it's ....
0:52:04:
17
Chair Foster: ... get the voters to approve a X-dollar bond.
### Note that the bond financing proposed in the 2002-2004 plan did not require a vote of the people.
### If, hypothetically, the people voted to approve a X-dollar bond, how would that bond be paid back?
### By the way, if a FTTP-specific bond were put to the people, it would have to pass by a 2/3 margin. But a take rate of,
say, 35% is more than adequate to make the FTTP network viable financially. Why not let the people vote by signing up
for service, rather than at the ballot box?
0:52:07:
Tomm Marshall: It's more than that. I think it's generating enough revenue to pay all your operating costs going forward.
0:52:14:
Chair Foster: Do we have a legal opinion that you can only pay those bonds off from operating funds?
0:52:19:
Tomm Marshall: No. You still have to operate the network. And to operate the network costs you money. And you have
to generate enough revenue from the ...
0:52:26:
Chair Foster: And you don't you can generate enough revenue to simply op- -- I'm not talking about paying off the bonds -
- just to operate the network?
0:52:34:
Tomm Marshall: Well, you can. But you still got -- In fact, you have to pay off the bonds, though, too.
0:52:38:
Chair Foster: But hold on. That's a really important distinction. I want to draw a distinction. There's -- operating the
system is cost A. Paying off the bonds is cost B. I'm inclined to agree -- from what I've heard -- it would be hard to
generate enough revenue to pay off the bonds.
### What you "hear" from staff is just BS. What the City needs is to have staff's reports thoroughly vetted.
### Other communities have implemented FTTP networks successfully. That's an existence proof that Palo Alto can,
too.
But I don't think it would be hard to pay the operating costs. You look like you may have some thoughts on that. Can
you....
0:53:09:
Steve Blum: I'm just going from, you know, past systems that I've worked on, and other business models I've seen and
evaluated. And it goes back to the fundamental nature of telecommunications networks. They're high-fixed-cost oper- --
they're high-fixed-cost propositions. And once you've invested that money, operating costs are relatively easy to
recover. Not -- It's not necessarily a slam-dunk, but it's -- the cost of telecommunications networks are weighted in favor
of capital costs. So, yes, you could probably generate enough money -- or you, you know, depending on your
assumptions, depending on the market -- you could generate enough money to keep the lights lit. But you -- most of your
cost is building the network.
0:54:03:
[Commissioner Cook arrives.]
0:54:01:
18
Chair Foster: OK. So, just to clarify -- If we think that there's two costs -- assuming we float a bond -- not -- in other
words, we're not getting the money out of the Electric Fund or some other fund -- we go to the voters -- the City of Palo
Alto goes to its voters and says, would you like a bond to pay for this? -- and the voters say yes, in theory -- and there's a
source of money to pay off those funds that is not the fiber optic network -- let's just assume that for the moment -- so your
only concern is paying the operating costs on an ongoing basis of the network. Would it be your opinion that it is at least
plausible that there's a scenario where the revenues could cover those costs?
0:54:40
Steve Blum: Sure. There's plausibly -- There are plausible scenarios where you could cover the -- just the annual ins and
outs of the costs, if you're not considering the costs of paying for the bonds. I mean, basically -- I mean, if you're asking,
with sufficient subsidies, will it work, the answer is yes.
0:54:59
Chair Foster: OK. Bob, you've been involved in this for a long time. Do you want to comment? And I'd also love to hear
from you, in your long involvement with this, has there been a look, from your perspective, at a bond to pay the capital
costs?
0:55:15:
Bob Harrington: Yes, there was. And I agree that it's the -- fiber projects are very capital-intensive, in its up-front capital
costs. And that's where your -- it's the cost of money. And the -- that's where your risk is. Because, when you have that
sunk capital, and you've got competitors that will do predatory pricing, you are subject to be, really, badly damaged. And
this has happened now. We have some history. It happened in a couple of significant fiber networks -- municipal
networks here in the United States -- in Utah particularly. So, it -- the risk goes way up when it's City capital -- that --
where a bond is involved, and there's interest to be paid on that bond on a certain payback schedule. I agree that
operating costs for fiber networks are pretty small. I mean, as the build-up of the Fiber Fund would indicate.
### This isn't the best "proof." Operating a FTTP network would take more effort than operating a dark fiber
network. Still, I agree with the point that operating costs are relatively small.
I mean, we're providing at least fibers -- we're not having to do much other than maintenance, and it's growing at 2.1
million dollars a year. So it's been a very successful enterprise.
0:56:35
Chair Foster: OK. So here's what I would say on this. I've heard two of my colleagues suggest that we're a little
premature in discussing this, and we can discuss that point further. My gut feeling here is that I -- The consultant has said
that there is not a user-financed model.
### It would be a big mistake to believe what the consultant says without vetting the report.
And so if we do want to do fiber-to-the-premise in Palo Alto, it strikes me that it has to be -- and we've tried the private-
public partnership and that hasn't worked --
### I agree that we shouldn't try this approach again. But the City's one experience isn't exactly "proof" that no public-
private partnership could possibly work.
so it strikes me that the way to do it -- IF we want to do it -- and this is a big IF -- would be to go and float a bond to get it
done.
### How would the bond be paid back? The General Fund?
With the fundamental theory, to the Palo Alto residents and businesses being -- it will increase the value of being in Palo
Alto, in some ways. I think, Bob, you alluded to this. You know, a world-class hub of the Silicon Valley should have
world-class broadband. I'm sorry. Asher?
0:57:29:
19
Commissioner Waldfogel: Just before we accept that there's no user-financed model, I think that the Mayor's advisors
should also be in the loop, reviewing that model.
### I agree that *somebody* should vet the staff report. I believe that Mayor Yeh appointed no Citizen Advisors this year.
0:57:39:
Chair Foster: OK. Let me circle back to that. Because it gets back to the issue of delaying consideration on this. But, in
other words, some sort of premise that there is value to all members of the community. And I would be inclined -- from
what I've heard -- to recommend to the City Council that they evaluate whether they would want to float a bond. That's my
gut feeling. But before we address that, let's go to Commissioner Waldfogel and Melton's comments that they feel we're a
little premature. So, Commissioner -- let's start with you, Commissioner Waldfogel. What is your recommendation?
0:58:10:
Chair Waldfogel: Well, my recommendation is that we do need to hear from the City Attorney on what the legal uses of
reserve and the fiber revenue are.
### That would be ideal. But apparently UAC can't compel the City Attorney to make a public pronouncement. I agree
that it's hard for UAC to do its job without this information.
I mean, if there are no legal use of it, then I'd call this an abject failure, not a success, because we're generating a pot of
cash we can't do anything with.
### The legal use for the Fiber Fund is to build out a FTTP network. Staff is dead wrong when it claims that such a
network is infeasible. UAC's job is to vet staff's reports and show that staff is dead wrong. But that didn't happen. So
now it's Council's job.
So we gotta figure out what we can do with the pot of cash. So, we need to answer that question.
And then we need to get the -- we need to get Bob and Andy's eyes on the -- on -- Steve -- on your report, and on the
spreadsheet, and on the analysis, so that we've just got some independent vetting of what you guys have done. I'm not
questioning it, but more eyes are always better.
0:59:01:
Chair Foster: Commissioner Melton.
0:59:02:
Commissioner Melton: Ah. I just have a question. I'm, you know, going back to old, old -- old, old data and old, old
memories, but I'm -- my recollection is that, in the extensive market analysis that was done eight years ago --
### I don't know whether this refers to the phone survey, done by DataCycles, or the FTTH Business Plan, Phase 2,
done by Uptown Services.
let's say -- whenever we were first considering that the City build out the thing -- that the market analysis showed that a 35
percent take rate was probably about where it would come out. Does the -- does this -- I know that you caveated that this
latest study didn't -- wasn't really focused on an in-depth look at take rate -- but is 35 percent cons- -- is the latest data
consistent with that? Or is it -- does it say that that's maybe too optimistic?
1:00:05:
Steve Blum: If you just look at the data that was done in this latest study, it doesn't come close to supporting a 35% take
rate. The big difference between the studies that talked about a 35% take rate and this latest research -- is that you were
looking -- eight -- nine years ago -- you were looking at a full -- at that time -- triple-play network, where you would be
providing video, voice, and data service. And that's a different selling proposition to people than an Internet-only
service. So that -- to a large degree, you're talking about apples and oranges there.
1:00:51
20
Chair Foster: Any other comments? Questions? At some point here, we have to actually have a motion. (Laughs.) And
I'm struggling....
1:00:58:
Xx: [unamplified, inaudible]
1:00:59:
Chair Foster: Well, I don't know. Anyone can make a motion on anything. We can agree with the staff
recommendation. We can request a delay. Um....
1:01:09:
Commissioner Melton: I -- I am -- While I am not -- I think it's premature to make a recommendation regarding giving up
on a fiber-to-the-premises -- 'cause I think we just need more information -- I am intrigued with the wireless network part of
it.
### I would urge UAC not to be distracted by wireless. FTTP is the meat and potatoes. Wireless is just dessert.
And I would -- for my own person -- my own consideration -- I would encourage staff to proceed, as they have proposed,
to begin looking at a wireless network, for City use and for cons- -- customer use. And -- but I think we need more
information before we can make a determination that the fiber-to-the-premises is a dead issure -- or a non-starter, I guess,
is the right way to put it.
1:02:23:
Chair Foster: Council Member Shepherd, were you going to say something?
1:02:25
Council Member Shepherd: Well, I just wanted to clarify two things. One, I thing that there is -- Joe, can help me with this
-- there's two outstanding pieces that I know Lalo is waiting for, for the Finance Committee to consider. Fiber-to-the- -- the
fiber conversation is one of them. The other is, I believe, undergrounding. Just that we do want this to come forward to
Finance, so that we can start to explain to the community what we're up to, and where we're going. So -- because we do
feel that there's an obligation to keep the community linked in to what we're trying to do. So....
### It's fine to try to coordinate FTTP and undergrounding. But it's unreasonable roll out FTTP on the same schedule as
undergrounding. (Staff's last report on undergrounding said that it would take 70 years, at the current pace, or 30 years if
accelerated. At a Finance Committee meeting, Council Member Scharff asked whether it could be done in 5 years, and
staff said that would result in major disruption.)
1:03:00:
Chair Foster: Commissioner Cook, were you going to say something.
1:03:03:
UAC Commissioner James Cook: Yes. First of all, I apologize for being late. I'm sorry I missed your presentation. But I
have seen it in the memo. So thank you very much. I would just say two things quickly. One is -- I am also intrigued, as
Commissioner Melton is, by the wireless concept. And, secondly, Council Member Shepherd triggered my memory, in
thinking -- is there any possible savings, or efficiencies, or -- I can't think of the word I want to use, but -- in doing the fiber-
to-the-premises at the same time as doing undergrounding. Because they involve putting wires in the ground -- maybe
there are no...
1:03:56
Xx: [unamplified] Synergies.
1:03:57
21
Commissioner Cook: Synergies! But that -- I was just wondering whether there would be synergies between the two of
those. Thank you.
### Good point. Staff should tell UAC, Council, and the public what the cost-per-premises-passed and cost-per-
premises-connected would be if the fiber for passing premises were installed underground at the same time as existing
aerial utilities were undergrounded. (See also my comment at 0:14:15.)
1:04:15:
Tomm Marshall: I mean, it's possible. I mean, the undergrounding is going to take a while, even under the most
optimistic scenario. So, you know, obviously, when we do undergrounding, we will put in facilities to allow the fiber-to-the-
home to be put in place when we do the undergrounding.
### I hope this remains obvious! But it seems a little inconsistent with staff's recommendation to stop hoping for FTTP.
1:04:35
Commissioner Waldfogel: Ah -- just a quick question about the wireless study. What are we proposing to spend? I
mean, how comprehensive a study are we proposing to undertake?
1:04:48:
Jim Fleming: I don't have a figure at this point. I mean, we need to sit down and really look at what the evaluation
process would be. And I just gave a very brief outline in the report. But, you know, I imagine it would be anywhere
from 25 an 50 thousand dollars to put together a study of what it would take to put together a network. And what the
actual users would be and -- both internally and externally -- if you were to consider a Wi-Fi network as part of it. But I
think the main thing is to provide a real definition of what type of wireless network that you would build.
It might make sense to postpone this study until the issue of how to write an RFP for having a third party install wireless
towers in town at its own expense is resolved.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=31804
1:05:30:
Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah. I would support it, if it were at the lower end of that range. Because if feels a little bit
like, you know, an application in search of a user. You know, I haven't heard anybody saying that there's existing internal
or external user demand for a wireless network. So, I just -- I mean, I wouldn't want to spend a ton of money to go turn
over every rock and find -- to find the user. I don't know. What does -- how does -- how do my colleagues feel about
that?
1:06:00:
UAC Commissioner Steve Eglash: Yeah, I think that's right. I think that -- at least as it was presented tonight -- this was
proposed because we're sitting on 12 million dollars, wondering what we can spend it on. And I think that's entirely
backwards -- especially given the ambiguity over how we can spend the 12 million dollars. I think -- I would much rather
proceed in a more deliberate and systematic way, where we first figure out what we can and ought to spend the 12 million
dollars on, and then we focus on things that we really want to do -- as opposed to starting from the fact that we have 12
million dollars and answer the question how can we spend it.
1:06:40:
Valerie Fong: I guess we didn't quite look at it like that. We're not looking at it as -- we got a pot of money and we gotta
get rid of it. I think we're trying to be very thoughtful about what would be a good thing to do right now for the City -- and
what is doable within a fairly short amount of timeframe. And, you know, we've missed the boat on a lot of this stuff
already. I mean, the market's moved on us. We've missed the boat. And we're going to miss the boat again if we don't
act at some point. But we've talked about this for many, many years. And, literally, every time we think -- OK, there's a
great idea -- we're already too late. It's already gone. It would be silly for us to pursue it, because there are other
competitors in that space. And we can't make a go of this.
22
### If Director Fong is trying to say that the City could have and should have implemented citywide municipal FTTP much
earlier, because it would have been successful then, I don't disagree. Perhaps Council could ask for a clarification on this
point. But if she's claiming that it's no longer possible to be successful, I certainly don't agree with that.
So, you know, for me, when I sit here -- I'm happy to study this more -- I'm happy to go back and bring this back in a
couple of months -- fine, we'll do that. But, you know, it seems like we ought to have a bit more propensity for some
action here, and a little bit more knowledge about what we need to do -- and what we CAN do.
### If Director Fong wanted to facilitate action, she could have published the RKS survey data months ago.
1:07:39
Commissioner Eglash: The Director and I don't disagree on anything that she just said. I mean, with respect to the
current fiber network, we have this situation that we're generating revenue in excess of the cost of operating it. That's not
a situation that we would allow to persist for any other utility that we operate.
### Not true. We save up electric revenues for the purpose of future undergrounding. Around the time of electric
deregulation, we saved up electric revenues for the purpose of paying for potentially-stranded assets. We saved up water
revenues for the purpose of creating underground storage facilities. We're saving wastewater revenues for the purpose of
improving wastewater treatment.
### When the City was building its electric, water, and gas utilities, I'll bet that some areas of town got service before
other parts of town, and revenues were saved up for the purpose of building out citywide.
### The City hasn't yet finished creating its fiber optic utility. Dark fiber was just the first stage. FTTP is the logical next
step.
And so if the fiber network is supposed to be managed the way we manage other utilities, then we need to think about that
surplus from that point of view.
With respect to the fiber-to-the-premises network that we've mostly been discussing this evening -- I mean, we've
discussed this several times over the last -- well -- few years, and prior to my tenure here. And every time we discuss it,
we do conclude that it's too expensive for the number of -- too expensive and helping too few people -- too expensive to
the City and serving too few people in the City.
### I believe that the reason for this is that the staff reports have been wrong and inadequately vetted.
So it's not clear to me why we continue to revisit that same issue either. Um... So, you know -- yeah -- we can continue
to examine some of the additional things that have been proposed tonight. I think I share some of the Director's
frustration -- that maybe it's not the best use of staff's time to continue to do these things. But, in fact, it's entirely out of
respect for that process, that I do think that there's a sequence that says, first of all, what is appropriate to do with the
money, and, second of all, if we do have some money, what are the highest and best uses of it?
1:09:39:
Commissioner Waldfogel: Let me just ask you a follow-on question to that, which is -- After -- what is it now? -- ten years
with the Fiber Fund -- something like that -- we have 78 customers.
### The City's website has minutes of UAC meetings going back to February 2002 -- and UAC was getting fiber updates
then. (There's no excuse for not having more history online.)
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/uac-meetings.html
This 2004 document says:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/3305.pdf
"The City of Palo Alto established the dark fiber-optic system in 1996 (CMR:361:96) 'as an extension of the City’s long-
standing policy of providing utilities infrastructure for the citizens and businesses of Palo Alto,' and 'for accelerating the
pace at which high-quality, low-cost, advanced telecommunications services are delivered throughout Palo Alto while
limiting any negative impacts on Palo Alto’s physical environment.'"
### This fiber optic utility probably had the usual sorts of funds from the beginning.
23
So, on this point of serving a relatively small number of users, I think you're raising a really interesting question. I mean, if
our total available market for this -- I mean, if we're dominating our market -- we're serving 78 customers -- we're
struggling to find other places to attach this network to -- then it really raises the question of why we're doing this at all. If
we -- and we don't have any other viable use for the funds. If we can't transfer the surpluses to the General Fund, then
why are we doing this at all? I mean, do you have a viewpoint on that?
### Good point. But then Director Fong -- although not recognized by the Chair -- interrupts and changes the subject.
1:10:36:
Valerie Fong: Can I just clarify one point? I mean, I think that as an outstanding question, that clearly the City Attorney's
office understands that this is an outstanding question. And, although I believe one commissioner here was pressing the
City Attorney for sort of some on-the-spot opinions, I do believe the City Attorney's office does want to look a bit more at
what the various uses for these reserves might be, and find out what the restrictions might be on those uses.
1:10:08
Commissioner Hall: So, if there was a crying need by residents in the City for more bandwidth or more opportunity to -
- for their home use of the Internet, et cetera -- streaming video -- then I think that I would be more interested in what we
could do next. But I'm very satisfied that there's enough commercial competition out there.
### Commissioner Hall ignores the survey data, which says that a significant fraction of survey participants would take
service from a municipal FTTP network (rather than from what's already "out there") even if they had to pay a substantial
up-front connect fee.
The pricing is competitive.
### On what data -- if any -- is this based? If I were in Lafayette, LA, I could get FTTP-based Internet service, 15 Mbps
symmetric, for $34.95/month -- the everyday, unbundled price.
http://lusfiber.com/index.php/internet/pricing-guide
(And transfers that stay within Lafayette's network are much faster.) In Palo Alto, the incumbents can't provide this
service at any price.
It's progressive.
### I don't think Commissioner Hall means to say the pricing is progressive. Our water utility's pricing is
progressive. Each month, the first 7 CCF cost less per CCF than subsequent CCFs.
I'm not surprised at your conclusion. And I don't particularly think that we need to study it any more -- just my view -- on
the fiber-to-the-premises.
I am interested in the customer access -- or resident access -- to a municipal wireless network, simply for the reason that -
- not that people don't have their own ** of the service -- but I think, if you proceed with municipal wireless service, the
question will be asked, over and over again, as -- how did you look at the possibility of offering free or subsidized service
to the residents -- and I think you need to have an answer. So, it's a study that I support -- at the high end of the range
you indicated -- I think it's going to take that. You may have to do some customer surveys on that -- and maybe not very
pervasive -- but you need to find out what people would really -- if people would really use it, or they don't care. If they're
going to have enough access through AT&T already on their iPhones, then perhaps you could note that as, perhaps, not
need for the Wi-Fi. But I think you need to find out. Thank you.
1:12:34:
Chair Foster: Director Fong, ...
1:12:37:
Joe Saccio: Just a little perspective on this. When we had ended the discussion with Axia Networks -- on them coming in
and building out -- and realized that -- told Council that that was going nowhere -- we did propose at the time, to the
Council, doing a wireless effort. And the Council said to us, no.
### I think that was wise.
24
And at that time, there was money from the Obama administration -- we thought -- coming out for, you know, potential
fiber expansion. And then we decided we really didn't have a chance on that. And Jim knows a lot about that.
But we did come back with this idea of how to use the money. And that's what has been brought up tonight, in terms of a
wireless network. How can we use the money? Well, as Jim elaborated before, you know, we realized -- staff realized --
this reserve is growing by leaps and bounds. And how do we use the money? And we thought, well, the wireless was a
good component. And you build out the nodes. You do a service for the school, for example. So there were some
opportunities to be able to use those monies. And I just want to leave you with that thought.
1:14:03:
Chair Foster: Yup. Go ahead.
1:14:05:
Commissioner Eglash: Jim, when you presented the idea of the wireless network tonight, you didn't say that its primary
intended purpose was to provide broadband service to all the residents and businesses of the City. Was that because
that was so obvious it was implied? Or was that because, in fact, the primary uses are the other things that you
mentioned explicitly?
1:14:26:
Jim Fleming: Well, if I understand your question, the primary use is for internal City use, to improve mobile access.
1:14:32:
Commissioner Eglash: Exactly. So we're all getting a bit carried away -- and we've moved pretty far from what Jim
proposed earlier this evening -- to talk about the broadband wireless network as a solution for providing broadband
service to the residents and businesses of the City. That would be something separate, that could also be proposed and
investigated. But that's not what Jim proposed tonight. Jim proposed something to be used for a variety -- for providing a
variety of municipal services. And only secondarily...
1:15:05:
Valerie Fong: Could we clarify? Um. If you look at slide 10 -- I mean -- the four uses that we pre-identified -- certainly the
amenity-grade or subscription-based public Internet access is in there. It might -- whether or not it's a primary use or a
secondary use, I do think the study would bear out what really makes sense. I mean, that's what we're asking to look
at. So I do think that we include it purposefully here. I do think that's the recommendation -- to look at it.
1:15:40:
Chair Foster: OK, Director Fong. Reading your memo here -- or, the memo, I should say -- at the end of the summary
section, it says, staff is seeking feedback from the UAC regarding the following recommendations. And there are three
recommendations. Are you seeking a UAC motion, or are you truly seeking simply feedback from each member? Do you
want a motion from us?
### UAC does not exist for the purpose of humoring staff. The item was agendized as an action item, meaning that UAC
was permitted to vote if it wanted to.
1:16:02:
Valerie Fong: I would like a motion.
1:16:04:
Chair Foster: OK. So, in that case, colleagues, I think there are basically -- well, first of all, we've got three different items
here. And there may be some logic to addressing them one at a time. But with respect to the fiber-to-the-premises, I
think we have three fundamental choices: we can agree with the staff recommendation, we can propose something else,
or we can request a delay -- or to bring this item back after these other items are considered.
25
So I will make a motion as follows. On item -- I would agree with -- my motion is -- and we can figure out the exact
wording -- but my motion is to agree with the staff's recommendation on Item Number 1, which is continuation of the
current business model for licensing dark fiber service. On Item Number 2, I would recommend that we bring this item
back for further discussion at the September meeting -- although I'm open to saying we should do it at the July meeting, if
we think that's enough time -- with the delay to allow the Mayor's Advisors on fiber to look into it further, and to allow the
City Attorney's office to weigh in on the legal issues. And then on Item 3, I would -- my motion would say to agree with the
staff recommendation -- with two caveats -- One: that it would be certainly interesting to hear what costs we're talking
about before anyone moves forward -- I guess the Finance Committee would probably be interested in that -- and number
Two, my -- that I would say that it would be the sense of the UAC -- and this is my motion -- you can disagree with me --
that a municipal wireless network is of the greatest interest if it is open to all members of the community.
1:17:42:
Xx: **
1:17:44:
Commissioner Eglash: I would second that. I think that's right ...
1:17:46:
Valerie Fong: Can I just ask for some clarification? First off, staff appreciates that you would target a specific date for
us. And we will endeavor to meet that date. But we may not. Um. And that would be for the Item 2. On Item 3, when
you say you need to understand the cost before we move forward with the study -- We're not talking about doing the
network, right? We're talking about figuring out what it costs to do it. So...
1:18:10:
Chair Foster: Yes, but even the cost -- like what -- how much are we talking about putting into a study? I mean, are we
talking ...
1:18:17:
Valerie Fong: Yuh, OK....
1:18:18:
Chair Foster: ... enormous scope of effort, an initial -- there's studies, and then there's studies.
1:18:23:
Commissioner Eglash: I don't think -- I didn't hear staff ask for any funds for this study. I assumed they were going to use
their own internal resources.
1:18:29:
Valerie Fong: No, we would probably hire a consultant for this sort of thing. This would be my assessment.
1:18:33:
Commissioner Eglash: So -- so are you prepared to tell us tonight approximately -- I mean, are we....
1:18:36:
Valerie Fong: Well, Jim threw out a figure, but we could be way off. Jim threw out a figure of 25 thousand to 50
thousand.
1:18:42
Commissioner Eglash: Uh huh
26
1:18:43
Valerie Fong: I don't know....
1:18:44:
Commissoner Eglash: So should we....
1:18:45:
Valerie Fong: You asked us for a ....
1:18:45:
Commissioner Eglash: ...proceed tonight assuming that's correct? Or do you want to come back
to us with a number, in response to the Chair's concern about the cost of the study?
1:18:53:
Valerie Fong: We can do EITHER. Are you -- I mean -- can I just say that we just -- I mean, right now, we're going
through an organizational assessment that's 250 thousand dollars. I just want to be clear on the cost of consultant help.
1:19:04:
Chair Foster: Well, I'll slightly revise the third part of my motion to say that -- assuming that my colleagues agree -- that
the UAC would support the staff's recommendation, assuming the cost is in line with what Jim thinks it is. And again with
the caveat that a municipal wireless network is of much greater interest if it serves the entire community.
1:19:25:
Commissioner Eglash: So let me propose a friendly amendment to that. We have all the checks and balances that we
need for determining when staff needs to go to us or the Finance Committee to do a study of a certain dollar amount. My
friendly amendment -- if you'd accept it -- would be to just remove the words about the cost of the study being in line with
anything. I suggest we just approve staff's Request Number 3, as written by staff, and just let the systems and checks
and balances in place determine what costs are OK.
1:19:57:
Chair Foster: OK, I have a comment on that, but -- Commissioner Cook, do you want to comment on that or -- OK -- So,
I'm fine with removing the financial part. I would like to keep in the part about it being -- a municipal wireless network
being of greater interest if it serves the entire community. Are you OK with that part?
1:20:12:
Xx: [unamplified] --- I think they're look at it anyway -- ** -- I'm OK.
1:20:18:
Chair Foster: OK. Any other comments on my motion, in any particular way?
1:20:22:
Commissioner Cook: Yeah. I have an unformed -- what I think is a friendly amendment, which is -- On the second part,
where you wanted to delay -- I would say, go ahead and move this forward, with the note that we are concerned about
these items, and have the staff work as quickly as possible. And then we can let the Finance Committee and the City
Council Council decide if they want to delay it themselves.
1:20:53:
Chair Foster: But, wait. When you say move it forward, meaning, move it ....
27
1:20:55:
Valerie Fong: I think you're talking about Item 2 here.
1:20:56:
Chair Foster: Wait, what -- I'm sorry -- Item 2 -- yes, of course, Item 2 -- So are you saying -- But to move it forward
means we either have to agree with their recommendation or not. Which one would you propose? (Laughs.)
1:21:11:
Commissioner Eglash: Well, see -- Right -- Well, I think that the preponderance of the evidence tonight -- and over the
last few years -- is that we cannot afford to do this. So I would support a motion, with respect to Item 2, that says that we
support staff's recommendation -- which is to discontinue efforts to evaluate and implement -- while recognizing that the
analysis isn't quite complete -- as Commissioner Cook was indicating. But that, given what's in front of us, we would
support staff's recommendation.
1:21:52:
Commissioner Hall (?): I like that.
1:21:56:
Chair Foster: Hah. OK.
1:22:57:
Commissioner Waldfogel: [unamplified] Do we have a second on **?
1:22:00:
Commissioner Melton: [unamplified] Yeah, Steve seconded, but I think that [inaudible] ... [general laughter]
1:22:05
Chair Foster: I'm sort of -- absorbing this. Hmm. I mean, I will say, from what I've heard, it d- -- I agree, it does not sound
there's a -- well, there's not a -- from what I've heard -- a user-financed mechanism. On the other hand, as Bob
Harrington pointed out, there may be some other pieces. Does someone want to make it the -- I don't know -- the
sponsor-our-network-naming-rights and so on and so forth -- other sorts of things?
Colleagues, do you -- Commissioner Waldfogel, do you want to move forward on this? Are you --
1:22:45
Commissioner Waldfogel: I think we need to get the other eyes on it, and we need to get a ruling from the City Attorney. I
don't think we can push this forward until we get those questions answered. And we -- In fact, I feel -- To be honest, I feel
insulted that we're having a discussion while the City Attorney is reflecting on what the proper use of the funds are. You
guys are withholding information. If there's a discussion going on, where you're not telling us what's going on, that's
wrong.
### Good point.
1:23:15:
Chair Foster: OK, here, I have an idea here...
1;23:16:
Valerie Fong: Can I be a little bit clear here...
1:23:17:
28
Chair Foster: Director Fong, just say how long ...
1:23:20
Valerie Fong: Can I just be a little bit clear, here? The City Attorney has indicated that a municipal wireless network is a
legitimate use of the Fiber Funds. The other question -- about what can you give to other entities out there -- be it the
general fund -- that's the one that's outstanding. The fact that you can fund the municipal wireless network is not in
question. Just to be clear.
### UAC would be foolish to take Director Fong's word for this. If UAC cannot compel the City Attorney to communicate
directly about it, at least Council can.
1:23:46:
Chair Foster: Director Fong, how long has the fiber -- or anybody who wants to comment on this -- how long has the fiber
issue been in front of Palo Alto? How many years has this been going on?
1:23:56:
Xx: [unamplified] Ten.
1:23:57:
Chair Foster: Ten?
1:23:57:
Joe Saccio: And I looked at -- I Googled up our discussions with Axia. In the news article, it said we had been discussing
it 15 years....
### Council initiated building the dark fiber network in 1996.
1:24:05:
Chair Foster: 15 years.
1:24:05:
Joe Saccio: ... and so, it's more likely ....
1:24:08:
Chair Foster: So, I am always in favor of resolving today anything that can be resolved today. Having said that, If we
have been thinking about it for 15 years, I'm not sure another month or two will kill us. So I think, Commissoner Cook and
Commissioner Eglash -- gentlemen down there at the left -- I don't entirely disagree with your position, but I'm prepared --
I'm going to stick with my motion. And we'll -- if it doesn't pass -- I mean, you guys can vote against it, and we'll take
another crack at it. So I'm going to start again on my motion here. I'm going to move that we agree with the staff
recommendation on Point Num- -- Oh. I'm sorry. Yes?
1:24:40:
Council Member Shepherd: Council and Finance is very familiar with working with the City Attorney's office to try to get
clarification as to whether or not we're allowed to move forward on refuse rates, on waste treatment rates. This is an area
of fluid conversation that, from meeting to meeting, has a different nuance to it. So, it is -- we're used to that -- so don't
feel worried about that. So -- OK?
1:25:06:
Chair Foster: OK. That sounds good. OK. So, my motion is to approve the staff's recommendation on Point Number 1 --
that's continuing commercial dark fiber service. On Point Number 2, to delay a final recommendation, and bring this issue
29
back at the September meeting, to -- and, Director Fong, I'm, again, proposing the September meeting -- it could be a
different day, though, if you want -- with a request to resolve the open issues -- particularly, to allow the Mayor's Advisors
to comment, and to resolve the open legal issues. And then, Item 3, to proceed with an evaluation of a municipal wireless
network -- with the added caveat, again, that it would be sense of the UAC that this would be particularly interesting if it
was open to the entire community. So that is my motion. Commissioner Melton.
1:25:58:
Commissioner Cook: I have an alternative motion.
### Technically, this is called a substitute motion. Since a substitute motion potentially throws away all the effort that
went into crafting the motion being replaced, it's not something to be done lightly.
1:26:00:
Chair Foster: Go for it.
1:26:01:
Commisioner Cook: And that is that we accept staff's recommendation as-is.
### Note that, technically, the substitute motion doesn't say anything about Commissioner Cook's earlier idea that
UAC defer the decision about whether to delay to Council (at 1:20:22) or Commissioner Eglash's point that the analysis
isn't quite complete (at 1:21:11). I hope Council is willing to read between the lines.
1:26:04:
Commissioner Eglash: And I'll second that.
### It's sort of unusual for the seconder of a motion to then second the substitute motion that replaces it.
1:26:06:
Chair Foster. OK. So I think what we need to do -- since my motion was seconded, we have to have a vote. I would
recommend that you guys vote against -- Oh, oh. What were you --
1:26:13:
Xx: [unamplified]
1:26:14:
Chair Foster: That's OK. But you can be.
1:26:15:
Xx; [unamplified]
1:26:18:
Chair Foster. Oh. Theirs gets voted on FIRST. WOW! Gosh! All right. You learn things all the time.
1:26:
Xx: [unamplified]
1:26:24:
Commissioner Hall: Can I seek a clarification? In your motion, do you include what Jonathan indicated is the idea that
the net- -- the study should look at it as being a generally -- at consider the possibility of it looking -- being accessible to all
residents.
30
1:26:42:
Valerie Fong: [unamplified] That's already in staff's proposal.
1:26:44:
Commissioner Hall: Is it? It wasn't so clear to me that it is.
1:26:47:
Valerie Fong: [unamplified] Yeah,....
1:26:47:
Commissioner Hall: OK. Well, then, that's the case, the answer is yes.
1:26:49:
Chair Foster: OK. So your proposal is the same as mine except for Item 2. OK, so we've got a motion and second on
that.
### Ideally, the Chair would ask if anyone wanted to discuss the (substitute) motion on the floor. This is normally the
point where supporters of the original motion explain why it's better than the substitute motion.
All in favor.
1:26:58:
Xx: [unamplified] Of?
1:26:59:
Have you -- or you go first, right? I'm going to remember this next time. I'm going to save mine for second. But
OK. [general laughter] But, all right. But, yes, it's your motion. And your motion, again -- just to clarify -- is same as mine
on Item 1 and Item 3, and on Item 2, it's that we agree with the staff recommendation. Right? All in favor say aye.
1:27:16:
Xx: Aye.
1:27:18:
Chair Foster: Hang on. How many -- did you say aye?
1:27:19:
Xx: [unamplified] I did.
1:27:20:
Chair Foster: That's four.
### Presumably Cook, Eglash, Hall, and Keller.
All opposed. Nay.
1:27:23:
Xx: [unamplified] Nay.
31
### Presumably Foster, Waldfogel, and Melton.
1:27:24:
Chair Foster: Passes four to three. There you go. How about that.
1:27:28
Xx: [unamplified] [unintelligible informal remarks by various speakers]
1:27:50:
Chair Foster: So, ah, let's see. Um. Director Fong, do we have the right to take a three-minute recess?
### Again, UAC does not exist for the purpose of humoring staff.
1:28:01:
Valerie Fong: We can absolutely take a three-minute recess.
1:28:03:
Chair Foster: Very good. Let's do that.
1;28:06:
[videotape ends]
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Transportation
Sent:Monday, December 30, 2019 12:50 PM
To:robert@neffs.net
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; Transportation
Subject:RE: Please expedite completion of the safer pedestrian crossings on El Camino Real.
Dear Mr. Neff,
Thank you for your email.
We have entered this into our PaloAlto311 system to have one of our staff members evaluate these issues further, track
progress, and keep you informed of our findings. One of our staff members might reach out to you for additional
information, if necessary. You will be receiving email updates from staff or our 311 system as staff evaluates these
issues.
Thank you again for your email.
Sarah Wilson, Administrative Assistant
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org
(650) 329‐2520
From: Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 10:53 AM
To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Please expedite completion of the safer pedestrian crossings on El Camino Real.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Manager, City Council, and Transportation Department,
Please expedite the completion of the six new High‐Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) pedestrian crossings on El
Camino Real. These are in important safety improvement, including one near Barron Ave, where there was a recent
fatality.
CalTrans completed construction of these in late September, and in an oral report to the Ped/Bike Advisory Committee,
we heard that these would be activated when the city utility connected electricity for these signals. That was almost 3
months ago, and there has been no apparent progress. Please encourage Palo Alto Utilities to complete these
installations quickly.
I look forward to this ‐ these crossings will be a safety and convenience improvement for pedestrians crossing El Camino.
--
-- Robert Neff
robert@neffs.net
2
Emerson Street, Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 30, 2019 8:08 PM
To:Council, City; scscroundtable@gmail.com; Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov
Subject:Time sensitive: Please appeal for an extension for comments to SJC draft EIR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council, SCSC Roundtable, Representative Eshoo's office,
I urge you to please appeal to extend the comment deadline for the SJC draft environmental impact report. You may
have seen today's Mercury News article.
Mineta San Jose Airport projects 50 percent passenger growth, proposes expansion
per the article,
"Members of the public can submit comments on the draft environmental impact report to David Keyon in the
city’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement at 408‐535‐7898 or via e‐mail at
David.Keyon@sanjoseca.gov until Jan. 13, 2020."
If you cannot help extend the deadline or have reasons why you don't think it's necessary or appropriate to ask, I would
appreciate any information about why that would be the case.
Thank you,
Jennifer Landesmann
Palo Alto, CA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, December 26, 2019 11:47 AM
To:gerry cox
Cc:wildcatcox@gmail.com
Subject:To My Childhood Abductors in the Satanic Fourth Reich Cult
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Let God ((Allah : Θεος : Elohim : Pa'tah)) judge between Me and You. You can lose your Mind in the Fire of Hell if that's
what you want. You've been playing a Losing Hand.
In the Name of Yhawuøòwah Elohim (( יהולא הוהים )) : Either Submit to the Light or Receive the Curses of Elohim and My
Tongue for your Refusal to Duck the Curses.
[:;]
Adon is the Name of a Canaan King around 600 BC. Adonai is the Plural of Adon. So what are the Assholes really saying
when they instruct people to say Adonai instead of Yhawuøòwah ((הוהי)). The World is immersed in the Cult of Baal and
the Contamination of Unclean Spirits is pervasive and operational in All Sectors of this World. The World is on the Path
to a Massive Holocaust that shall make the Last Holocaust look like "Little Boy." The Fat Man cometh as a Matriarchal
Cult that Breeds Stupid with Indoctrination.
The Book of Mark released in the Timeframe of AD 69 under Marcus Otho "Oath" Salvius is Widely Distributed with a
Baal Mangled Citation that isn't Isaiah but is BOTH Malachi AND Isaiah but the First Part of this "Falsely Rendered
Citation" isn't Actually Malachi in the Form it occurs in Malachi by the Translation of the Septuagint the Ransom
Translation of whose Only Valid Mechanical Printing is the Sixtine Text of 1587 that the World fails to Present to the
Masses and this is why we can expect a Massive Holocaust that will purge Organized Crime and All those Connected with
Organized Crime Cults and Groups and given that the Opening of Mark has been deliberately mangled then what are the
Odds that ((Jesus Christ)) ἸΗΣΟΥ້ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ້ is a Corruptive PastOver Redaction to Deify ((Julius Caesar)) ΙΟΥΛΙΟΣ
ΚΑΙΣΑΡ to Repoint the Book to Jupiter the Supreme Deity of Rome even as Holem was used to Replace Waw in Elohim
whose True Spelling is ((םיהולא)) of Six Characters and Not the Pentagram of Five Characters elevating Holem over the
Small Hole of the Missing Waw in Elohim ((םי ִה˄ֱא)) to Crucify Scripture and to Enslave Elohim so that Elohim is Forced
to Work on the Seventh Day in the Falsified Hybrid Book of Baal wearing Torn Scripture and as Levites who converted
were made into Priests who could not marry to Exterminate the Tribe of Levi yet Scripture says, You shall be a Nation of
Priests, and Priests are the Line of Aaron with the Tribe of Levi the Third Son of Jacob and Leah hence does this mean
thar through Rebirth and Intermarriage All of Israel will be in the Branch of Aaron even as the Ancient One of Days was
Made Incarnate through Miriam who with Elizabeth are among the Daughters of Aaron and Whom are we to Follow?
[:;]
The Abomination of the World is that there is No Plain Text of the Sixtine Text of the Printing of 1587 available Online in
a Manner that can be Easily Navigated, Copied, and Pasted wherein the Text can be Easily Proofed with a Highly
Readable Photographic Scan of the Printing of 1587.
There is a Scan Online at OriginalBibles.com and the Text can be Copied but yet the Rendering if the Image of Each Page
is Difficult Cipher as the Image of Each Character can be Fuzzy depending on the Scan of Each Page and though the Text
of this Scan can be Copied and Pasted the Text is a Mixture of Valid Copy and Gibberish.
2
For the Massive Failure of Thinking Inspiration leads to Spelling Mistakes and the Need to Reconstruct the Text when the
Spirit Realm is Ruled by Absolutes and the Sixtine Text is the Inner Garment of the Son of Man Lifted Up while the Four
Main Uncials are the Tattered Outer Garment torn and butchered by Roman Soldiers and even the Cover of the Sixtine
Text includes the Words, "VETVS TESTAMENVM IVXTA SEPTVAGINTA" where VESTVS IS NEITHER OLD NOR NEW
BECAUSE TRUTH CANNOT BE CHANGED and IVXTA is to denote EARLIEST EXISTANT COPY OF THE GREEK TRANSLATION
and this occurs before the Infiltration into the Temple of Twins where One is Decent and Elevated and the Other is
Obedient to The Cult of Rome and as the Twins are Switched the Book is Switched and Corruption becomes a Cult of
Jews of the Tribe of Judea subjugating the Tribe of Levi and the Branch of Aaron to Crucify the Book Incarnate and Every
Hebrew Scroll which is why John begins with the Plaintive Was Was Was Was when the Light is Shining in Darkness until
we begin to Exercise the Right to Return to the Unaltered Light of the Truth of the Knowledge of the FATHER GOD
((ALLAH : THEOS : ELOHIM : PA'TAH)) as we Call upon the Sacred Hallowed Name "YHAWUØÒWAH ELOHIM" ((הוהי
םיהולא)) where UØÒ are OO EE OH in the ROUNDED LIPS OF OO in the Formation of the KΙSS to ΚΥΡΙΟΣ as the Camel
Tongue Follows with OO and Stops with EE with Rounded Lips and then Pulls Back with the Back of the Tongue pulling
back and going down as the Direction of the Camel is Stubbornly Pulling Back and this UØÒ is Wrapped in W's like Wings
"Let Flying Creatures Be Multiplied" and the W's are Wrapped in Laughter with HA and Inspirational Inversion AH as in
Eureka you took a Bath and Found it as the Color Yellow like Sunlight in a Child's Drawing is Evoked in YHAWUØÒWAH
even as the First Heh of "Yod Heh Waw Heh" wears the Crown of Yod and The Two Heh's are the Hooves of the Yellow
Cow in the Second Surah of the Quran that was Sent Down while the Unaltered Hebrew Torah has been in Quarantine as
is the Source Material of the Sixtine Text since 1590/1600 and Jacob was Born in 1600 BC and in 1470 BC Jacob is
presented to Pharaoh and in 1070 BC the New Kingdom under Ramesses the Eleventh is brought down when Egypt is at
its Highest Level of Power as the Bones of Joseph are taken across the the Path between the Water wherein Ramesses
and Amun Re of Unified Egypt the Sun and the Moon and the Eleventh Sheaths bend down in Submission to the Bones
of Joseph as they drown. And we are to Slaughter this Yellow by the Tripithong of Waw the Third Character by the
Spears that enters, stops, and is removed in UØÒ and this Name was All that Pharoah was given so that Pharaoh could
begin to exercise the Right to Return to Sacred Unaltered Truth for Egyptians had the Womb of Truth buried in the
Carbuncle with the Prasian Stone the Cipher Stone of Sacred Hieroglyphs with Hebrew Script to Restore the Backstory
the Sacred Writing that is the Gold and the Gold of that Land is Good and Only Elohim is Good and Elohim is at the Right
Hand of "Yod Heh Waw Heh" for the Word of Yhawuøòwah is the God of Mankind. We need to Return to Absolutes
where Source Material isn't Doctored to Support Doctrines and as we Return to Absolutes we shall Absolutely receive
more while we follow by Keeping the Book of the Law of Six Books in our Mouth by the Version Sent Down and
Translated as Sent Down without a Usurper leading a Rebellion against God in Commandeering our Tongue.
Whats the UFO? The Flying Saucer is your Rounded Lips in Submission to Elohim,
U .. "Ø" .. Ò
So what's the Name of the Incarnation the Sent Word that is to the Elohim that Sits at the Right Hand of God as God
faces Us when We face his Truth even as Yod of "Yod Heh Waw Heh" is the Spirit of Anointing at the Left Hand of God ...
That's What I would like to Know. "Roger Anointing"? Nope. Don't think that's it. What does the Complutensian Gospels
"God Spells. Imagine that. Do you wanna Keep Writing Songs about Dead People Living Together in Harmony in the Dead
Leary Cult? You have to Round the Lips you Uncircumcised Horde Members if you want to Drop God's Acid" of the
Printing of 1514 say? What about the Reading of Walter Manuscript 537 which is likely AD 415 when Western Armenia
was under Roman Authority and the Western Dialect of Armenian may be the Cipher of ARAMAIC SCRIPTURE even as
the Greek Pontic Dialect is the Cipher of the VETVS SEPTVAGINTA hence currently I'm unclear as to the Pronunciation of
the Unaltered Incarnation of the Ancient One of Days. Yet we can still say YHAWUØÒWAH ELOHIM as Canine Priests
whose Lord is our Shepherd while we Teach the Flocks around Us to Say the Name of Elohim. Amen A Moon Howl.
THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL WANT NOTHING. IN A VERDANT PASTURE HE HATH FIXED MY ABODE. HE HATH FED
ME BY GENTLY FLOWING WATER AND RESTORED MY SOUL. HE HATH LED ME IN PATHS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR HIS
NAME'S SAKE. FOR THOUGH I WALK AMIDST THE SHADES OF DEATH : I WILL FEAR NO ILLS, BECAUSE THOU ART WITH
ME ; THY ROD AND THY STAFF HAVE BEEN MY COMFORT. THOU HAST SPREAD A TABLE BEFORE ME ; IN THE PRESENCE
3
OF THEM WHO AFFLICT ME. WITH OIL THOU HAST ANOINTED MY HEAD ; AND THINE EXHILARATING CUP IS THE VERY
BEST. THY MERCY WILL SURELY FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE ; AND MY DWELLING SHALL BE IN THE HOUSE OF
THE LORD TO LENGTH OF DAYS.
Say the Name and Curse the Fourth Reich Cult of Eva Braun to it's Death until All Connected Members are Either Dead
like the Dust of the Earth or in Submission to the Light as the Submit without Guile to be Vessels of Light where they will
Remain until the End of their Lives though of they Defy the Light then Let them Die for to Die is Mercy for those
Steadfastly Planting Evil Seed to Cut Off an Overwhelming Harvest of Evil and Depravity which they would suffer as
Consequences in their Next Life hence to Curse the Cult of Baal to its Death by the Tongue as we are Required to do is
Merciful.
4
5
6
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 29, 2019 6:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external)
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 12-09-19 Council meeting -- procedures & protocols -- boards &
commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
Below the "######" line is a TRANSCRIPT of item 9 of Council's 12-09-19 meeting -- the item about procedures and
protocols related to boards and commissions, to which I have added my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with
"###").
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74217
Many of my comments are about the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), because I know more about it than the other
boards and commissions.
Generally, I think it was a good idea to assign the item to the ad hoc committee, not Policy & Services. Council Member
Cormack seems to have the long-standing interest in taking on a task that others don't even acknowledge needs doing.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: If I could suggest a couple of additional points to consider:
* What's the difference between a board and a commission?
* One often hears that Joint Study Sessions between Council and each board and commission are "annual." That might
be aspirational, but it's not actually true. As far as I know, the last joint study session between Council and UAC was 11-
27-17.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62203
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64102
And the one before that was 04-20-15.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46830
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48363
Maybe Council can come up with a way to do better.
#####################################################################################
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-1292019/
3:17:07:
2
Mayor Filseth: So, the first item will be a Council Direction on Scope and Review for Procedures and Protocols Related to
Council-Appointed Boards and Commissions. Is there a -- let's see here -- Yes, is there a staff presentation?
3:17:22:
Assistant City Manager Monique Ziesenhenne: Yes. Very brief. Good evening. I'm Monique Ziesenhenne. I'm the
Assistant City Manager. Tonight, we bring before you a report requesting direction on the scope of the review for our
Procedures and Protocols related to boards and commissions. I will mention that other items are agendized for
discussion tomorrow night, with Policy & Services. So, also related to Procedures and Protocols. But tonight, we are
asking you to give us guidance on how to look at the range of issues that have come up, as they relate to all the boards
and commissions, looking at a variety of topics. So, one is the role of Council liaisons. So, looking at your participation,
as the liaison to different meetings. Looking at the relationships between the boards and commissions and the Council
roles. So, asking whether a procedure should be established that enables the Council to affirm interest in having the
board or commission engage in a topic prior to development of recommendations. There are -- In relationship to that,
there are times where commissions or boards have developed a topic, also -- requiring not only their own time but also
staff time. So, before they go too far down the path, perhaps there's a way for Council to weigh in.
Third is a question about commissioner conduct, in terms. Should there be a greater clarification of expectations? And a
definition of particular elements, as they relate?
And, finally, fourth, are additional topics that we should also clarify, such as staff support level, the amount of resources to
be invested on certain topics, how agendas are created, and rules of order. Should those be left up to the board or
commission? Or should we perhaps create something that is more common throughout -- for all the different groups. So
we would just, at this time, like a confirmation of the issues to be included. Maybe some ideas of how -- or perhaps there
are other issues. And then, we can look into this and come back. You also have the opportunity to suggest an ad
hoc. And we'll look forward to hearing the discussion. Thank you.
3:20:27:
Mayor Filseth: Very good. So, we also have an ad hoc committee, comprised of Council Members DuBois and Cormack,
who is going to work with you folks more directly on this. Do you -- Do you guys want to speak directly to this? In fact, do
you have a couple of slides?
3:20:43:
Council Member Kniss: (unamplified but audible) Do we know there's an ad hoc committee?
3:20:45:
Mayor Filseth: We announced it.
3:20:48:
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible)
3:20:48:
Mayor Filseth: Last week.
3:20:50:
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible)
3:20:51:
Mayor Filseth: Beth sent an email.
### Should the public know how to find this online? Google "site:cityofpaloalto.org 'beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org <past
year>" 4 hits, none relevant.
3:20:52:
3
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible)
3:20:55:
Mayor Filseth: OK. Council Member -- Do you want -- So, do you want to that now, or ...
3:21:01:
Council Member Cormack: We do have two short slides. I think I pre- -- let's see -- I'll see what Council Member DuBois
thinks -- I prefer to hear from the public first ...
3:21:07:
Mayor Filseth: OK.
3:21:07:
Council Member Cormack: ... if we may.
3:21:08:
Mayor Filseth: That's fine, too. So, we'll go to the public. And ...
3:21:15:
Council Member Kniss: (unamplified but audible) With your permission, may I ask a question?
3:21:17:
Mayor Filseth: Yes, you may.
3:21:21:
Council Member Kniss: (amplified -- finally) I'm kind of puzzled about this. You have a policy committee. Three people
are on a policy committee.
### As of 12-09-19, Council Members Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka were serving on the Policy & Service Committee.
I think I can guess what is to be discussed, from the memo tonight. Boards and Commissions Ad Hoc Committee is
looking at pretty much the same thing. Which means five people will have already had a discussion regarding this. Which
is a bit much. Unless you very carefully dissect and remove some aspect of Policy and Procedures -- of Policy & Services
Committee -- it seems as though we're taking ourselves down a rather -- rather awkward road.
3:22:11:
Mayor Filseth: Yeah. Council Member Kniss has brought up an interesting point. Which is, if there's an ad hoc
committee and the Policy & Services Committee discussing similar stuff, or overlapping stuff, are -- can we manage that
within the context of the Brown Act?
3:22:28
City Attorney Stump: I think you'd have both practical problems and, potentially, Brown Act problems with that
arrangement. So, Council should really decide where it wants these questions to be discussed. And then return to
Council for action. It should be one or the other.
### That's probably good advice for avoiding practical problems. But, hypothetically, if the members of the ad hoc
committee managed not to hear about what the Policy & Services Committee did, and the Policy & Services Committee
managed not to hear about what the ad hoc committee did, until the issue returned to the full Council, wouldn't that be OK
under the Brown Act?
4
3:22:46:
Council Member Kniss: So -- So ...
3:22:48:
Mayor Filseth: OK.
3:22:48:
Council Member Kniss: ... Mr. Mayor, if you could perhaps tell us -- This is your committee?
3:22:53:
Mayor Filseth: Yes. **
3:22:55:
Council Member Kniss: OK. So, you made this committee.
3:22:56:
Mayor Filseth: Uh huh.
3:22:58:
Council Member Kniss: And you clearly had some reason for creating a separate committee. Which would be kind of like
creating a separate Finance Committee.
3:23:06:
Mayor Filseth: [laughs briefly]
3:23:07
Council Member Kniss: Um. To overlook the other Finance Committee.
### I don't see the analogy.
### Most of the issues the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) considers have a financial aspect. And, over the years,
many UAC commissioners have had specific expertise in finance -- more specific expertise than many Council members.
So, I think you either need to tell us -- Policy & Services -- you don't need to worry about that -- which you worried about in
the past --
3:23:18:
Mayor Filseth: Um hum.
3:23:18:
Council Member Kniss: ... because that's been a pretty standard kind of assignment, ...
3:23:21:
Mayor Filseth: Um hum.
3:23:21:
Council Member Kniss: ... through the years. And, I think it's going to be up to us, as a body of seven, to decide which
you prefer to have -- attack this problem, that may or may not exist.
5
### Council Member Kniss seems to be focusing only on whether Council should remove Commissioner Alcheck from
the PTC. But the staff report mentioned a much broader scope of problems/opportunities.
So, --
3:23:36:
Mayor Filseth: I -- I think that's a reasonable question. I, with some consultation, appointed the committee, because I felt
that it had not received adequate focus from the Council in any form this year. And there was a compelling need to move
more quickly on it. And so, that was the source. But I think it's worth a discussion as to -- you know, is the Policy &
Services Committee gonna -- should we do that -- should we have the Policy & Services Committee do it, instead of an ad
hoc committee. I think that's a reasonable discussion.
3:24:12:
Council Member Kniss: Um. It's somewhat unusual. So, what I would ask you -- Are you feeling that this should have
come up in Policy & Services earlier this year?
3:24:24:
Mayor Filseth: I ...
3:24:27:
Council Member Kniss: Because you could have directed that. I mean, that's your purview.
3:24:29:
Mayor Filseth: Yeah. Ah. I think -- I think we have -- I think there is a need here. And that -- ah -- it needed some focus
here. And so that's why I did it.
3:24:46:
Council Member Kniss: Well, I wouldn't deny that it needs some focus. But it hasn't taken it up yet. So, until it takes it up,
I don't know that there isn't any focus.
### That's crazy talk. Is Council Member Kniss saying that Policy & Services should never focus on anything that wasn't
put on its agenda by someone else?
So, ...
3:24:57:
Mayor Filseth: Hmm.
3:24:57:
Council Member Kniss: ... let me ask, is the problem more than one of the problems we've been hearing directly from the
public for some period of time?
3:25:04:
Mayor Filseth: I think there are a number. I see the City Manager -- getting -- you want to ...
3:25:09:
Council Member Kniss: So, maybe you could articulate all the problems that exist.
3:25:11:
6
Mayor Filseth: I think that's a fairly broad view.
3:25:14:
City Manager Ed Shikada: Well, part of the -- Well, I could speak to one specific area of interest. And, actually, in terms
of the Procedures and Protocols that is pending with Policy & Services Committee, I would note, as is described in your
staff report, that there is one specific section -- it's actually section 2.4, that's attached to the staff report -- that is in the
Procedures and Protocols, that deals with boards and commissions. So, that's really the ONLY section of the Procedures
and Protocols that deals with the interactions between the Council and boards and commissions. There is also, though, a
section -- or, actually, several sections in the municipal code that describe, or relate, to the commissions themselves. So,
it's actually larger than the assignment that currently sits with Policy & Services. Boy, this -- The terminology here gets a
little complex. But, in any case, to just be clear, that it's more than what's currently pending with Policy & Services.
3:26:14:
The specific issue that I would like to chime in on is number 2, which is the relationship between the board and
commission and Council roles. And perhaps that could be described a little better. I will have to acknowledge that there
have been several instances that have been brought to my attention recently of inherent friction between staff and
commissioners, that, quite frankly, I would -- um -- um -- assign to a lack of clarity as to how issues get raised by
commissions and then are brought to the Council. Currently, that's a really -- there's basically not great clarity on that
question. And so, a number of the commissions have identified issues that they want to tackle. And, in some cases, have
undertaken some work, without really indication of whether this was a topic that the Council's interested in taking on. And,
as such, staff is somewhat caught in the middle, between -- Do we spend time on the issue? Do we not spend time on
the issue? Because commissions do not assign work to staff. And so, establishing some process by which issues that
commissions want to initiate have a way of being confirmed by the Council are of interest -- is definitely an interest for
staff. Just to give you an example, in prior organization, we did annual work plans from the commissions, that would be
approved by the Council, and that would establish that clarity, for each commission, as to what topics they would be
taking up over whatever the upcoming period was. Whether it's a year, semi-annual, or what have you. But that's a way
of, again, ensuring that the Council has a way of agreeing on where the commissions and staff would be spending time
during that upcoming period. And, consistent with what we do at the Council, it's always important to have some way to
bring up an issue in between the time period, if and when it's necessary, based on some timely issue. But, again,
establishing some predictability, and setting some expectations on a topic is, as I mentioned, an issue that's actually come
up -- unfortunately -- fairly frequently recently. So, that was one in particular. And let me describe others as necessary.
3:28:40:
Council Member Kniss: (unampllified) So (amplified) if I might, let me continue with Ed for a minute. So, if we have an ad
hoc committee, with two members, they don't have to meet in public. So, whatever is discussed, they can discuss in
private, and then would bring it -- presumably -- to the full board. Correct?
### I think Council Member Kniss meant to say, in this case, "to the full Council."
3:29:01:
City Manager Shikada: We can set this up in whatever form makes sense for the Council. And, again, ...
3:29:05:
Council Member Kniss: Wouldn't that be the normal way you would do it? Unless you were going to have the ad hoc
committee report to the Policy & Services Committee?
### I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't this violate the Brown Act? (Because five Council members -- a quorum -- would have
discussed something among themselves before that something was brought to Council. Unless the ad hoc committee
members were also Policy & Services Committee members.)
3:29:11:
City Manager Shikada: It would typically be to the full Council. What we could do for staff -- or as staff ...
3:29:16:
7
Council Member Kniss: So, you're really saying, ad hoc committee would substitute for Policy & Services' usual role.
3:29:23:
City Manager Shikada: Well, this ...
3:29:23:
Council Member Kniss: That is how I would see it. To be quite honest. Because you can't have it both ways. You can't
have both a smaller committee that can meet, frankly, in secret. Because you will not find out what was discussed until it
comes up. That the public will not have input. And Policy & Services, the whole reason for having that committee is to
have input from the outside world. So, I am -- I'm troubled by this. And I don't think it's headed in a good direction.
2:29:55:
City Manager Shikada: Understood.
3:29:56:
Mayor Filseth: Council Member Cormack.
3:30:00:
Council Member Cormack: Are we going to go to the public now? Or do you want us to continue on this line of ...
3:30:05:
Mayor Filseth: Well, I was going to -- Actually, your call. If you want to respond to this -- if you want to weigh in on this ...
3:30:09:
Council Member Cormack: Right. I think we should go to the public, and then go to the process.
3:30:11:
Mayor Filseth: Fair enough. Let's go to the public. First speaker will be Winter Dellenbach. And you'll have two minutes.
3:30:17:
Council Member Kniss: But if you haven't -- I'M SORRY. If you haven't made a decision, the public can't speak to which
way THEY want this to go either. And, clearly, the public has an issue that they have wanted -- And we know what the
issue is.
### Is Council Member Kniss claiming that this issue is (only) whether or not to remove Commissioner Alcheck from
PTC? If so, then why didn't the staff report say so? The staff report invited Council to consider a broader "range of
issues."
I think we're kind of hiding behind the issue.
3:30:30:
Mayor Filseth: Actually -- Actually, I don't agree. There's a staff proposal here. There's an agendized action item. The
public can speak to it.
3:30:38:
Council Member Kniss: Um -- I -- It's your -- meeting.
3:30:46:
Mayor Filseth: Winter Dellenbach. Ah. Valerie Stinger.
8
3:31:05:
Valerie Stinger: Good evening. I'm Valerie Stinger. I've been on two commissions: HRC and the LAC. And I'm speaking
for myself this evening. I want to begin by thanking the Council and the City Manager's office for your attention to the
work of boards and commissions. We come to our work with good intentions and strong commitments. We need that to
be matched by appropriate rigor and policies and procedures. Thinking about my time on the two commissions, I have
two observations that may be related to the staff report. And are not related, I think, to the most recent question at
hand. But related to the staff report. First, Council members have been very generous to me with your time and
guidance. When I get a moment of your time, I want to use that time on a higher plane, to discuss the commission's
work. It is a waste of my time and yours to piddle around at a lower level to belabor how we function, or working
mechanics.
### OK. As long as someone makes sure the commissions are able to function,
Second, in my experience, the Council has alternatively given commissions wide latitude to establish priorities or specific
directions. While the wide latitude is appreciated, specific direction has been more productive. And I'd point to the Library
Strategic Plan, which produced Mitchell Park, upgraded Rinconada, Downtown, and College Park. And the plan came
when the Council narrowed its direction to the commission.
So, speaking from my two personal observations, my request to you is two-fold. I believe that the commissions I know
would be more effective if you established ground rules, comparable to the bylaws of a well-run service organization, so
the commissions can do their own housekeeping, managing themselves without taking advantage of YOUR time. And,
second, I would ask that the guidelines be established to formalize the process by which the commission sets its annual
priorities, and by which these are agreed to. Commissions exist to respond to Council. Additionally, commissions have
their hands on the pulse of their charge. And they're in a position to develop their own priorities. A more rigorous formal
review of the
### [two-minute beep]
proposed priorities would focus commission work and increase our utility to the Council. Thank you.
3:33:09:
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. Bob Moss.
3:33:19:
Bob Moss: Thank you, Mayor Filseth and Council members. Speaking as an individual. Not representing the
commission tonight. But, looking at this, the more I thought about the relationship between the boards and commissions
and the Council, the more concerned I became that we're not really being clear. And let me give you an example. You
say that -- At the very end, it says, "Should a procedure be established ...." This is on the second point
### Staff report, page 2, paragraph 1.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74201
"Should a procedure be established that enables the Council to affirm interest in having a board/commission engage in a
topic prior to development of recommendations?" Sometimes, members of the public, or property owners, or
businessmen who have come to a commission or board with an issue that the commission or board, staff, or Council was
unaware of. And these issues can be raised without, let's say, a prior evaluation and approval by the Council, as
something the commission should be looking at. So, I don't think you want to limit what the commission says -- or studies
-- to only the things that are in direct -- consistency with the Council priorities.
### Yes. Every year (since 2000), Council has a retreat to pick some priorities. Every year (I think), Council says that its
priorities are not necessarily the most important things. They're just things that the City has given insufficient attention to,
possibly because the City organization hasn't yet been designed to do them automatically and habitually, without having
to be prodded by Council.
Because sometimes your priorities will change after you had input from commissions and from the public. So, I'm not sure
how to reword this. But I would just say, they ought to be allowed to evaluate issues that come to their knowledge,
whether it's direction from the Council, from the staff, or it just comes in from the community. Because sometimes the
9
community knows what's going on better than you do and we do. I just think it's worthwhile to encourage the community
to get together with the
### [two-minute beep]
Council and the commissions, and present their concerns.
3:35:22:
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. Fred Balin.
3:35:33:
Fred Balin: There is both valid reasoning and public support for removing Michael Alcheck from the Planning
Commission. As well as authority in the municipal code. And a mechanism in the current Council protocols, wherein the
Mayor -- wherein the Mayor may address an unresolved problem to the City Council, as appropriate. That is where we
are. But tonight, initiation comes, instead, from the City Manager to consider new processes, opening up a potentially
protracted undertaking, and maintaining an indefinite status quo cloud over the Commission. Without a current Council
majority in support of removal, these steps may be necessary. But they are not sufficient. You should also exercise your
authority to prohibit Commissioner Alcheck from maintaining or assuming a leadership role on the Commission, i.e., as
Chair or Vice Chair, until this problem is resolved.
Moving on, the Council protocols on conduct are fine, as long as they are followed. Term limits for commissioners is a
good idea. Eight years. That's what you get. That's just great. Take two years off and go to another commission, or
come back again. We need a common core of policy and procedures across all boards and commissions. And board-
specific requests for a vision should be reviewed by the Council. In 2010, the Planning & Transportation Commission
loosened their rules for quasi-judicial communications in private, while the Council was tightening theirs. We need to have
boards and commissions have all their hearings in public, and not have outside private conversations. What procedure
rules commissions are following -- Robert's Rules, or a modification thereof -- those rules should be standardized in sync
with the Council.
Finally, as long as commissions do not stray from a City Council's specific direction, it's OK, in my view, for them to
explore paths of interest, together with staff's help. That
### [two minute beep]
has occurred in the past, and is generally worthwhile. Thank you.
3:37:36:
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. And I'm just going to note that the tenure of any particular commissioner on any particular
commission is not agendized tonight. Rebecca Eisenberg.
3:37:52:
Rebecca Eisenberg: Hi. It's Rebecca. Um. I just want to thank, first, the Mayor, for bringing this to the attention -- and to
the level that I think that this situation deserves. As to why, to Council Member Kniss, that we would possibly need a new
group to look at this, I think it's a fairly standard and rational point of view that it's best not to trust the people who caused
the problem also to solve the problem. So I think, possibly, what we need here is a fresh look, whoever serves on that
committee. That said, I do think that the answers to most of the questions that the Mayor stated, I guess -- if it was the
Mayor -- in the statement of what would be needed on this new committee, the answers are actually found in the
municipal code. They're pretty clear, if you're a lawyer. I mean, again, I've been practicing law for 27 years, so I know
how to look these up. But maybe there's some sort of misunderstanding right now -- on the commissions -- as to what the
rules are. Additionally, when there is a conflict, or when there's a question whether to disclose, the answer always is,
DISCLOSE. There's really no excuse -- or, absolutely no excuse -- for a commissioner with a potential conflict not to
disclose the potential conflict. Whether or not that commissioner ends out recusing him- or herself is a different
story. And that could be discussed. But whether or not a commissioner -- or a Council member -- should DISCLOSE a
conflict of interest, I think, goes beyond argument. The answer is always disclose. Thanks.
3:39:32:
10
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. We now return to Council. And I'm going to make a suggestion here. Which is -- So, first of
all, you know, this item is not about, you know, any one particular individual. I think it's quite a bit broader than that. And
it involves, you know, a look at many board and commission processes. That said, the Council's -- I mean, the staff's
discussion this evening really tees up -- I mean, you have an issue of content and structure. The Council -- The staff's
item really tees up a Council discussion of what content and what space should be explored here. OK? And then, the
discussion that we've just been having, a few minutes ago, is, see, well, what's the structure -- should it be this structure
or that structure. I'm going to suggest that we focus on the content first. And maybe that will help us inform a discussion
of structure. OK? Council Member Cormack.
3:40:34:
Council Member Cormack: Thank you, Mayor Filseth. I have a really long-standing interest in how our boards and
commissions work. I started attending those sessions here and throughout City Hall more than a dozen years ago. And,
frankly, I was really surprised at the wide variety of approaches that boards and commissions use to -- What the
difference is between policy and operations. How they handle minutes, and meeting management.
### PTC has verbatim minutes. UAC used to have verbatim minutes, but, starting 06-02-04, staff unilaterally switched to
sense minutes.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3516.pdf
When Commissioner Dawes returned from vacation on 07-07-04, he denounced the switch, but staff's sense minutes
didn't do justice to his denouncement.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/4129.pdf
And the video is no longer online as an alternative source. So, whenever UAC's view differs from staff's, staff controls
what the minutes say about it.
Whether or not the Council liaison attends. The role of staff. I just thought, that's how it was. And so I just worked with
it. And then, when I was thinking about running, in 2017, I attended one of every single board and commission
meetings. I guarantee you that, if you do that, and sit through to the end, they will come and say to you, who are you, and
why are you here? 'Cause you didn't speak. And nobody stays for the whole thing. So, I was once again exposed to the
whole variety.
When I joined Council earlier this year, members from many boards and commissions reached out to me as the new
person, with concerns about a better understanding of how to work with Council. And, frankly, sometimes concerns about
how to work with their colleagues. So, this is not a new topic for me. It's one that I have a lot of interest in. And let me
explain what my intent is, for any work that I do on this topic. It's to create a better working environment for the dozens of
people who are volunteering their time to help us refine projects and programs. This is, as the Mayor said, not about any
one individual or board. And the more I think about it, the broader the work is that we have to do. I think this about our
responsibility as a Council to provide a clear structure for all of this work. And now, with the Mayor's indulgence, I'm going
to -- I'm just going to list off all of the things I think we should be considering. There in the scope of what's on here.
* The line between policy and operations.
* The use of ad hoc committees. We have boards and commissions that have zero. We have a board and commission
that has 10.
### Note: this is different from the issue of how Council should use ad hoc committees.
### On 04-20-15, Council met with UAC in a joint study session. (See this transcript, from page 4, paragraph 1, to page
17, paragraph 1.)
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48363
Hot topics included fiber to the premises (FTTP), undergrounding electric lines, another redundant electric transmission
line, electrification, and recycled water.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50030
On 06-03-15, UAC decided that four of these five hot topics should be addressed by forming ad hoc subcommittees
(although I don't think that was Council's intent). (See page 4 here.) Commissioners Schwartz and Danaher were
appointed to the FTTP subcommittee.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48494
The plan was for each subcommittee to write a report which would be agendized and discussed by UAC. What happened
instead, in the case of FTTP, was that, at UAC's 11-04-15 meeting, Commissioner Schwarz chose to deliver a one-way,
20-minute anti-FTTP rant at Commissioner Comments. Since the item was not agendized, UAC couldn't discuss it.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50339
11
Please see my comments here (pages 24-35):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49931
Summary: the FTTP subcommittee took staff time (I don't know how much), but did not result in bringing information back
to UAC that it could be discussed by UAC.
### Another reason not to like ad hoc subcommittees is that staff can try to persuade the subcommittee members -- out
of the public view -- to adopt the staff position.
* Attendance expectations for Council liaison.
### Yes. By the way, various commissions have various ways of recording in the minutes whether the liaison
attended. UAC minutes currently don't record, at the top, whether the liaison (or the alternate) attended. (But we know
Council Member DuBois attended on 09-04-10, because he said something.)
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73560
LAC names the liaison as Council Member Cormack, but I don't know whether it means the liaison attended. (But we
know she attended on 06-27-19, because she said something.)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73437
Parks & Rec minutes of 11-12-19 records Council Member Cormack as one of the "others present," but she is not
identified as the liaison.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74482
* Roles and responsibilities for board members and commissioners. I've never seen a process where you hire someone
and then you don't tell them what is expected of them. And what they can expect from you.
* Attendance.
* Appropriate behavior with colleagues and staff.
* The neutral role of the Chair for meetings.
* How we create agendas.
* Necessary recusals.
* Appropriate disclosures.
* Options for board or commission to regulate behavior.
* Options for Council to handle any violations of these rules and responsibilities.
3:43:05:
This responsibility lies with us. The application for boards and commissions, I think, is a good start. You know, it gets at,
certainly, some of the content. But it doesn't get at the process, in terms of how people work with others. Term limits, I
think, is absolutely something worth considering. Whether or not to have student representatives. Which has come up a
number of times, actually, already in this year. And, let me see, I think I have a few more things. Ah. That's about
it. That's about it for the scope of what I think we should be doing. And whoever it is that does this work, I think, in terms
of a work plan, the very first thing that should happen is interviewing current and former board members and
commissioners. To understand what their work has been like. What has gone well. What has not gone well. And, before
Council Member Tanaka gets to it, we should ask them their net promoter score. Would you recommend doing this job to
someone else. So, I have a very expansive view of the work that we should do. It's been a very long time. You know, in
all the time that I've been watching this, you know, we really haven't paid enough attention to it. So, that is my concept of
the work that should be done here. And we'll defer the question of who does it for the time being.
3:44:16:
Mayor Filseth: Vice Mayor Fine.
3:44:18:
12
Vice Mayor Fine: Thank you. And nice comments, Council Member Cormack. So, I guess the first thing is, I -- I've got
involved with stuff here in the City, 'cause I grew up here. And one day I noticed in the Weekly about openings on the
Planning Commission, and I sent them an application. And I'm pretty sure I sent it in the day before it was
due. Somehow, I still got up here. And, I guess, the first question to me is, you know, what do we want these boards and
commissions for? A few are required by state law. I think Planning, HRB, and ARB. Is that right?
3:44:51:
City Attorney Stump: I know Planning is. I do NOT know about HRB and ARB, as far as state law requirements.
3:44:56:
Vice Mayor Fine: OK. Thank you.
3:44:
Mayor Filseth: There are some limits on HRB, I think.
3:45:01:
Vice Mayor Fine: Well, that's a separate issue. On HRB, we have certain requirements for members. But, if you step
back, like, what's the purpose of these? And I think we could -- we probably want a bit of a statement, or some kind of
goal, for our boards and commissions. And we can probably all agree on some of it. Right? Some of it is community
input and awareness. Some of it is, you know, specific expertise in areas the Council may not have. Some of it is,
actually, just delegation. Helping us do the vast amount of work that goes on here in the City. But I'd put that up as kind
of a beginning thesis. That we need some definition of what we want out of these boards and commissions.
3:45:35:
I completely agree with Council Member Cormack that we should survey and invite existing board and commission
members. I think, in the audience, I can count one, two, three, four, five -- if not -- five? -- current and past members of
boards and commissions. They show up at our meetings a lot. They're not always identified. But they do a lot. And so,
there's a role for surveying and inviting those folks to participate in this.
A couple more comments. I totally agree with staff that sometimes the Council expectation, timeline, and alignment with
priorities is really not there. And I've experienced this both at the Council and as the Planning Chair, where I came, was
standing there, and was, you know, reporting to Council. Some of you even said, hey, this is what we did on this
item. Like, does that work? And, you know, sometimes the answer was, like, eh, not really. Like, thanks, and we're just
going to go in a totally different direction. Sometimes, there's no answer. And I'm just saying that there's
miscommunication there.
In the past few years, I think, I have seen and heard of more conflict between staff and commissioners -- or
commissions. And that is something I don't think any of us should brook. So, we need to address that.
OK. I went through and -- like Council Member Cormack -- made a list that staff has brought up. And my own. And I'll
just kind of map them to whether we have some definitions or not. So:
* Expectations of these boards and commissions. I don't think we have expectations mapped for any of them.
* Qualifications. For some of them, we do. Right? ARB, we require a certain number of architects. HRB, we require
some expertise. Others, you know, whatever you want.
* Term limits. I don't think we have any term limits for any of them.
### UAC has 3-year terms. I think no UAC commissioner has served for longer than three 3-year terms. But I don't
know if this is because of a formal term limit.
* Recusals and disclosures. We do have FPPC. The Brown Act.
### Should the City require even more than FPPC and the Brown Act require?
13
### For example, the Brown Act requires posting a paper agenda in a well-known public place 3 days before the meeting
(with fine-print exceptions). The City also posts agendas online. For City Council meetings, the agenda is usually posted
online 11 days before the meeting. For UAC meetings, the agenda is usually posted online 6 days before the
meeting. (So the public has less time to think about issues brought to UAC than it does to think about issues brought to
Council.)
And section 2.09.030, which is disclosures.
### Section 2.09.030 seems to apply to "designated employees" but not to board members or commissioners. (But
there's no clickable link to the resolution, which might provide further details.)
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v
id=amlegal:paloalto_ca
I don't know if they're robust enough. But we do have some measures there.
* Attendance. I don't think we have any.
* Rules of conduct and behavior. I think we have none. Although I'd like to think, here in Palo Alto, that we have, you
know, some social contract to be nice and responsible and, you know, good citizens.
* Removal of commissioners. I think we DO have it, in section 2.16.020.
### All it says is, "2.16.20 Removal. The appointing authority may remove any member with the approval of the
council. (Ord. 2146 (part), 1963: prior code § 2.250.2)"
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v
id=amlegal:paloalto_ca
### This document confirms that there was an Ordinance 2146 that passed unanimously on 06-24-67, but it doesn't help
the public to find it.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73671.5&BlobID=73164
Is that correct -- to the City Attorney? That we have a procedure to remove boards and commissioners or other appointed
officials?
3:47:50:
City Attorney Stump: There is one. I don't recall the cite off the top of my head.
3:47:54:
Vice Chair Fine: Sorry?
3:47:54:
City Attorney Stump: There is -- There is a provision. It's very brief. There are not detailed procedures.
3:47:58:
Vice Chair Fine: "The appointing authority may remove any member with the approval of the council." So, are we the
appointing authority?
3:48:02:
City Attorney Stump: You are.
3:48:03:
Vice Chair Fine: OK.
3:48:03:
14
Mayor Filseth: But -- Well, it says we can do it. There's no process defined.
3:48:08:
Vice Chair Fine: OK. So, maybe that's something that needs to be worked on. In terms of definition of staff support, there
isn't none. And this is something I will say I've really seen variability on. I think on certain commissions -- For example,
Parks & Rec, our community service department does an excellent job engaging with those folks, sending the appropriate
manager to discuss items, work with the chair and vice chair. On the Planning Commission, I saw a change over the
years. Where, at first, there was an administrative assistant that worked with the assistant head of planning and
community environment. And we had support from the City Attorney's office. And I've seen that change and
shift. Um. And as new commissioners have come on board, they say, well, what was the commission like? What do we
ask for? And there's some disconnect there.
3:48:50:
In terms of liaisons, I don't think there are any rules around this. It's another one, I think, I've seen really differing levels of
support and engagement from Council members. Where, I know, some Council members will go to every single liaison
meeting they have; others go to absolutely none. Sometimes it's just a meeting with the boards and commissioners. And
let's define that. I mean, maybe it's the right thing to have liaisons. Maybe we just want to drop them overall. I will note,
when I first joined Council, I asked, you know, why is their no liaison to PTC? And the answer I got from a few outgoing
Council members was, oh, well, it's seen as too political. Is it? I just don't know. So we should put that out there to
everyone that that is interesting to me that there is no liaison to PTC. Maybe there should be. Maybe we should have no
liaisons.
### Years ago, I attended an ethics training session (as just a member of the public) at City Hall. City Attorney Stump
led a session about the role of the liaison. She said the liaison should be available to answer questions the
commissioners might have, but should not participate in the commission's discussions as if he/she were an additional
commissioner. Later, when then Council Member Filseth started participating in UAC meetings as if he were an additional
commissioner, I asked City Attorney Stump about it, and she said that there was no hard-and-fast rule against it. Maybe
there should be.
3:48:42:
Three other areas that I've thought of. Maybe we want to address. One is what I'd call public awareness, maybe. Not
noticing, exactly. But I'm sometimes surprised that when an item comes to us, and we've kind of been tracking it maybe
through one board or commission, and they've had two, three meetings on the issue. And the public comes here and
says there have been no public meetings on this thing. And, like, you know, we know there HAVE been public
meetings. Maybe you didn't know about them. Maybe you weren't engaged. That's an issue.
### Perhaps staff reports for Council items should systematically cite where the issue has been discussed previously.
Training for boards and commissioners. That certainly varies. I know some are invited to League of Cities
training. Some get a meeting upstairs. I think some we just throw to the wolves. Let's figure that out.
And then, that kind of leads to another thing. What do other cities do. I know some cities really support their planning
commission deeply and broadly. You know, other cities have different commissions. Right? Some cities have, like, you
know, like, digital engagement communications committees. And that's something that we've been talking a lot
about. Right? Some cities, you know, their planning commission is the final approval on buildings. Do we want that? Do
we like that? You know, some cities have, like, a citizens finance committee. Right? Is that a good idea, for, like, our
infrastructure projects? So, I'm kind of wondering, you know, what other cities do.
Those are some of my thoughts. We may want to -- This seems like a silly exercise, and I wish we could use Google
Docs on Council. But, like, list all these criteria that we're listing. 'Cause I assume the rest of you have others. And kind
of map out, you know, do we do this at all? Do we do it well? What can we improve? And then have whatever group we
designate go through this stuff. Those are my thoughts.
3:51:11:
Mayor Filseth: I'd say one of the tasks is to go through, ...
3:51:14:
15
Vice Mayor Fine: Yeah, this list.
3:51:14:
Mayor Filseth: Go through the list. Right?
3:51:16:
Vice Mayor Fine: I will agree. One last comment. I think Council Cormack chairs an agenda-setting. That's another one
that's really not clear. And I've seen it shift.
3:51:25:
Mayor Filseth: I'm going to agree with that one, too. I mean, that's actually one of the ones -- I mean, you got most of the
list. One of the ones on my list is, I remember, you know, when I was -- in my first year as a Council member, you know,
the -- one of the Council -- one of the commissions I was on -- liaison to -- This is a very, very good -- absolutely not
dysfunctional at all -- bad word -- bad choice of words -- but a very, very high-performance commission.
### Filseth was first the alternate liaison to UAC (2015-2016) and then the liaison (2017-2018).
https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/cou/meet/efilseth.asp
But one of their big issues was agendization. I mean, there was no clear path to agendization.
### At each UAC meeting, an action item is agendized where commissioners can propose items for future
meetings. And commissioners often use this item to suggest future items. But only rarely do commissioners actually vote
to agendize a future item. And I think staff reserves the right to schedule them at staff's convenience.
### By the way, most of UAC's items are agendized as "discussion" or "presentation" items, not "action" items, meaning
that UAC can't vote on them. But last year, Council Member Scharff said that, typically, Council only pays attention to the
staff report (which might include how UAC voted, but only IF they voted). See here (pages 14-42), specifically at 2:49:29.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73560
I see this as a huge disconnect.
And there was some con- -- There was some tension between the commission and the staff, actually, you know, as to
how the agenda got set. So, I agree with you. I think that varies all over the place.
### When Valerie Fong was Director of Utilities, she and UAC often butted heads. And I usually agreed with UAC. On
the FTTP issue, Fong would refuse to agendize anything that required support from staff other than CPAU staff.
Council Member Kou.
3:52:11:
Council Member Kou: So, I mean, both Council Member Cormack and Vice Mayor has basically put forth a lot of good
points. I did want to add in there, in terms of qualifications, I'd actually like to see that there are members, when they
apply, that we know how long they have been in -- as a resident here. 'Cause I think our commissioners really need to
know a little bit more -- or board members -- need to know a little bit more about our community. So, that might be
something to define.
### At most one of the UAC commissioners can be a non-resident.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/default.asp
I'd also like the word "decorum" to be defined. Because it IS in PTC's procedural rules, as well as in Council
members. And I found it on our municipal code, 2.04.120. And then, it even has, at 2.04.130, the ENFORCEMENT of
decorum. So I think we have those. And it should apply to our boards and commissions.
Let me see here. In terms of -- You know, Council members -- my understanding is that we are only allowed one hour of
staff time, on outside matters.
16
### A copy of (proposed changes to) the Council Procedures & Protocols document is attached to this 12-10-19 staff
report.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74342
It says, "H. Respect the 'One Hour' Rule for Staff Work.
Requests for staff support should be made to the appropriate senior staff member, according to the protocol for
channeling communications. Any request, which would require more than one hour of staff time to research a problem or
prepare a response, will need to be approved by the full council to ensure that staff resources are allocated in accordance
with overall council priorities. Once notified that a request for information or staff support would require more than one
hour, the Council Member may request that the City Manager place the request on an upcoming Council agenda." (No
change was proposed for this paragraph.)
If I understand correctly or not. So, I -- And, as it is, we constantly get complaints that there's not enough staff time to
look at topics. So, I think that, you know, when there needs to be a procedure, so that we -- we -- when the work plan --
as you said, City Manager -- when the work plan for each of these boards and commissions come forward to Council, we
approve it. If there's any additional items that the Council or board members would like to take on, it's something that they
should form -- they should discuss among themselves, and agree to it, then form their ad hoc committee, and work on it
without staff time.
### I think it would be a mistake to ASSUME that an ad hoc committee should be formed.
They should -- It should be something that they're doing, in reaching out to the community, and getting consensus. But
not using staff time.
### I think it would be a mistake to ASSUME that an ad hoc committee would reach out to the community.
I understand that Parks & Rec had done that on a couple of topics. And then, on that one, it just kind of blew up.
### I don't know what this is about.
3:54:24:
Let me see here. And I was just wondering. Is the oath of office that the commissioners and board members take -- are
they the same as the one that we do? What kind of oath do they take?
3:54:42:
Assistant City Manager Ziesenhenne:: Yes. It's the very same oath.
3:54:43:
Council Member Kou: It's the same. Right? OK. I agree with giving them tools -- giving our commissioners and board
members tools. Training is very important. I think PTC really, really needs to have training on both the traffic --
transportation -- as well as CEQA. You know. An introduction into our codes -- municipal codes and land use. Um. Land
use. Um. Let me see here. Also, I'd like to see, you know, in order to reduce contention and, you know, bantering and
bickering, that we actually look into the commissions and boards taking turns on having chairs and vice chairs. So, I know
some cities have that in place, where they take turns, rather than being appointed, or nominated and appointed by their
body.
### For UAC, the commissioners elect a new Chair and Vice Chair annually (usually in June). Michael Danaher has
been Chair since 06-07-17. As long has his colleagues keep electing him, what's wrong with that? (Maybe if I saw a
specific example of why it was a problem in general, I might understand.)
### Small point: I did think that when UAC elected both its Chair and Vice Chair in one motion, on 06-07-17, that was a
bit goofy.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62478
Maybe the election of the Chair and the election of the Vice Chair could have been agendized as two separate items, as
Council does.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=46855.54&BlobID=68316
3:55:47:
17
Let me see here. I would like to see us further go through the removal process -- of defining a process for removal.
And also, on our application forms, it does state that they need to fill out the Form 700. However, I notice that that's not
reviewed. I'm not sure if that's reviewed or not, because there's certain members on board that has nothing on it.
### The City Clerk's "home page" on the City's website
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/default.asp
provides a pointer to an online database of Forms 700. Is this the database Council Member Kou is relying on?
https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA
How much is the City paying for this service annually? I notice that when I ask to view the Forms 700 of UAC
commissioners in 2019, it says that Asher Waldfogel is a UAC commissioner. That's not correct. He served on UAC from
September 2008 to April 2015. He's now a PTC commissioner.
I mean, in the past, I think there were even Council members. So, how does that work? Is that reviewed when they take
the oath? Is their Form 700s reviewed? By the Clerk? Or by anybody in the City? No?
### Because I attended the meeting, I know that at this point City Attorney Stump shook her head subtly, indicating that
nobody on staff reviews this stuff, but the video wasn't watching her.
So, we're not really kind of following up to make sure that they're disclosing -- they're letting the public -- general public --
know whether there's a conflict or not? I think that needs to be a process, too. I think that's something to look into.
### Yes.
### If a commissioner turns in a paper copy of his/her Form 700, but, for some reason, it's not entered into the online
database, how should that be resolved?
### I've noticed that there's no enforced standardized way of describing stocks. Why not require that a stock be
identified by its ticker symbol, or CUSIP number, or both, even though FPPC apparently doesn't require that? I think it
would be great if I could ask the City's Form 700 database to list all the people who own a certain stock -- and get the right
answer.
### I think it's clear that the commissioner (or, for that matter, Council member) should list each stock he/she owns (that
is worth more than $2,000) separately on his/her Form 700. But apparently that's not clear to everybody.
### Even if the Forms 700 database is complete and accurate and accessible by the public, who decides whether a
particular commissioner has a conflict of interest on a particular issue? What algorithm should be followed?
### By the way, in 2016, when staff wanted to appoint some new members to the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP
& Wireless (CAC), it created an application form that included four questions about conflict of interest. "Question 4" was
"Are you aware of any facts or circumstance that might give someone the impression that your personal relationships or
economic interests might lead someone to question whether it may be difficult for you to be completely fair, open and
impartial in the advice you give the City?" I answered, "In 2002, I heard that staff was accusing me behind my back of
being paid by World Wide Packets, a manufacturer of FTTP electronics. It wasn't true, and, in a message to UAC and
Council of 11‐12‐02, I denied it." See this document (pages 42-46).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53482
By comparison, the official application to UAC
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/20067
mentions "conflict of interest" only once, saying only that if the applicant is appointed to UAC, he/she must fill out a Form
700. Of course, CAC was a committee, not a board or commission, so figuring out how applications to committees can be
standardized to ask about conflicts of interest is beyond the scope of the agendized item. But I thought the CAC
application form was overzealous.
3:56:57:
Um. Also, I noticed that in PTC, they voted to take out substitute motions, or secondary motions. That they're not allowed
to make that. I don't know how that came about.
### At the 01-10-18 PTC meeting, Commissioner Alcheck proposed forbidding substitute motions when PTC reviewed its
procedures. Per these minutes.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63769
18
### At the 09-12-19 PTC meeting, Item 3 was about reviewing PTC's procedures. Including substitute motions. Here's
the agenda.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66654
Here's the staff report.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66652
Here's the minutes.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67108
Here's the video.
https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-09122018/
PTC voted to forbid substitute motions, but review that decision in 6 months. The vote was 3-2, with Alcheck, Monk, and
Lauing voting yes, Summa and Gardias voting no, and Waldfogel and Riggs absent.
### I looked for an item about reviewing substitute motions 6 months later, but didn't find it.
### PTC's "home page"
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp
has a pointer to its procedural rules, "Revised September 2018."
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66744
The rules say what a substitute motion is, and then say it is not permitted.
### At the 01-10-19 PTC meeting, Commissioner Riggs points out that a substitute motion is no longer possible.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69663
But it should be the same as what we're allowed to do on Council --
### That sounds like a good idea to me. If Council visits this issue, maybe the people who think it's not a good idea
could present their view.
how we move forward. Do they have different rules that they follow? So, that's something that we need to have
consistency throughout, in terms of how they make motions, how -- I guess, the Rosenberg Rules -- Is that what we go
with?
### At Council's 02-02-19 retreat to choose its annual priorities, Council discussed Council Procedures & Protocols as
Item 3.
Agenda:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=50401.06&BlobID=68678
Staff report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60548.34&BlobID=68799
Minutes: (page 18)
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58433.51&BlobID=69248
Video: (4:24:34)
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-242019/
Mayor Filseth proposed trying to use "strict Robert's Rules" as an experiment. (On it's face, that's just silly. For example,
Robert's Rules doesn't make distinctions between Council members and the public. But, I guess Mayor Filseth was trying
to suggest that each item Council considers should start with a motion.) City Attorney Stump said "we encourage, as the
League [of Cities] does, to use Rosenberg's" Rules of Order.
### The Council Procedures & Protocols document proposed in this 12-10-19 staff report
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74342
says (PDF page 28, labeled page 22) Council doesn't follow Robert's Rules of Order. It also provides a copy of the rules it
does follow. But it doesn't say they are Rosenberg's Rules of Order.
### UAC used to use Rules of Order similar to Council's, but then it switched to using Rules that forbid amendments but
allow substitute motions nested to any level. UAC doesn't have a document that says what Rules it uses.
### This randomly discovered document about Rosenberg's Rules of Order
https://www.cacities.org/Resources/Open-Government/RosenbergText_2011.aspx
says a motion doesn't really need a second. That makes me suspect that Council is NOT using Rosenberg's Rules of
Order.
19
### IF Council is using Rosenberg's Rules of Order, shouldn't the Procedures & Protocols document SAY that's what it's
using?
Is that for all of the boards and commissions? So, let's have some consistency there.
Then, also, I've been noticing that a lot of times, on all these boards and commissions, when they make motions, they
don't have any staff members to throw it up on the screen. And it's hard for me to vote on things when I'm not reading
it. It would be absolutely helpful to have that. Perhaps staff who's supporting that commission or board should have
access to putting up the motion, just so that it's done correctly, and they're voting on the right one. Also, I just wanted to
say that I believe HRB is a state -- is a state -- it's required by state. So -- It IS required by state. I just wanted to point
that out.
And I believe that having a Council liaison is pretty important. When I joined -- became a Council member, and I would
attend, as Council liaison, I learned a lot of what the commission and boards are doing. And it actually lets me appreciate
them because I am there. I see the work that they do. And that they show up. And that they study their staff
reports. And so, it keeps me up-to-date about what they're doing in the City for us. So, I'd like to see that continue. I
don't know what my colleagues think. But I'd like to see that continued.
Another thing is, we need to look at enforcement of our rules. So we need a process for that. I also think that on the page
of each of these commissions and boards that there should be a paragraph about what it -- about what conflict of interest
means. Just to be very clear. Where we take it out of, I don't know.
### I think it would be better to define conflict of interest in just one place. If each commission and board "home page"
wants to reference that one page, fine.
But that's it for now. Thank you.
3:59:57:
Mayor Filseth: Council Member Tanaka.
4:00:00:
Council Member Tanaka: Hey, yeah. Sorry. I DO actually think this is a pretty interesting topic. I, as the Vice Chair,
have also served on a commission.
### PTC.
And so, I have a, I think, probably a unique perspective. I'm not sure. Who else here has served on a commission or
board? Just you and -- I this just you and -- us?
### Vice Mayor Fine, PTC.
Is anyone else has? No? OK. Anyways, so, first of all, I wanted to thank, you know, all of our commission members and
board members that have served. I know they're not paid. It's all volunteer. I can tell you, I served on the Planning
Commission for two terms. That I've worked with some very talented people. People that are volunteering their time. I
think people have really good intention. At least as far as I could tell. And people who are willing to put their heart into
it. So, I think, the discussion -- I think we want to just be careful of the fact that, you know, we are blessed that we have
so many people willing to volunteer a lot of their valuable time to help the City. So, I think that's something that I think we
want to make really clear.
So, you know, my view is very much colored by the fact that I was on the commission -- on the PTC -- for a while. And I
really think that as Council, we tend to get into the weeds. You know, I think we -- To me, it seems like we could delegate
a lot more to our boards and commissions. We have people who are -- who have a lot more time than we do. Perhaps
even more expertise than we do. And yet, we kind of hold things very, very close. And I, for one, think that we should -- I
mean, we wonder why we have really late meetings. And part of the reason why is because we take on a lot ourselves.
Right? We don't delegate very much. We take things on which, in some ways we're not necessarily as expert in. That
we have boards and commissions set up that could actually study them more. And so, I think, it's kind of a
shame. Because we actually do have good people. We -- You look at the people that apply, and they have pretty
amazing backgrounds.
20
And, you know, I think the fallback of having the fact that we kind of route everything through Council, as we do -- I mean,
we don't delegate as much authority as we could -- is that, as I look at the City -- right? -- for the most part, 99 percent of
the City -- perhaps more -- is run by staff. Which is not a bad thing. But I'm just saying, it's like -- in terms of
oversight. Because we -- we're like a thin straw, where everything has to go through. Ah -- we -- ah -- you know, I think
the City's kind of like on autopilot. Right?
### I don't know whether staff would like being compared to an autopilot. But, yes, Council has empowered staff to make
a vast amount of day-to-day decisions, according to rules established by Council (and state and federal governments),
without Council's intervention.
### In theory, the pilot can always switch off the autopilot if it's not doing what the pilot wants. The Boeing 737 Max's
anti-stall system is an example of an autopilot-like system that the pilot can't switch off, and some crashes
resulted. Council should try to assure that City government doesn't have any 737 Max problems like this
We're elected, so we're accountable to voters here in the City. But, you know, because we have only so much time, only
so much capacity to actually take things on, for the most part, you know -- and people in the public may think differently --
but I think, for the most part, the City does run on autopilot. And -- But, it doesn't have to.
### It still DOES have to.
I think we could do much better if we actually empower our boards and commissions. I think it's really important that we
give them clear direction. We, I think, set goals. I think all that's -- because I do agree -- I forgot who said it --
### Council Member Cormack, at 3:42:35.
it's like hiring someone and not giving them a job description -- telling them what they need to do. And so, we can't expect
too much, if we tell them what we want, how our people are going to try to make it happen. So, I do agree with
that.perspective.
### One way of looking at it is that Council should empower the City's boards and commissions to provide advice to
Council that, at least potentially, Council can use to make decisions more efficiently and -- even more important -- to make
better decisions.
You know, one concern -- and I think Council Member Kniss talked about this -- is, this does seem to have a bit of an
overlap. I mean, I don't know whether we should have another sep- -- get another subcommittee that builds this, versus
Policy & Services. It seems a little bit redundant. I mean -- And that's kind of the part of that I -- listening earlier. Which
is, I think -- On Council, we take a lot of things on. And yet there's so many things going on that, for the most part,
because we only have limited capacity, it's pretty much staff deciding everything. Right? And we take a cursory look at
it. And I think that doesn't serve the public as well as it could.
4:03:57:
I think part of the reason why there's probably a reluctance on Council to delegate, actually, to our boards and
commissions more is because I think maybe there's sometimes perceived a minor problems. I think people think, well,
gee, people on the boards and commissions maybe don't align to what I think. Right? And so, you know, if I could -- I
don't know if the Vice Mayor would agree, but when I first got on Council, we actually saw the same items again that we
saw on PTC. It was almost like a total re-do, right? Like it was a total re-do on Council. For the same -- Staff presented
the same exact report to us on PTC as Council saw.
### Is Council Member Tanaka saying that PTC gave Council its advice on an issue, but staff didn't agree with that
advice, so it saw no reason to incorporate that advice into its staff report to Council? Maybe it would help to consider
specific examples.
And I think about the discussions we had on PTC versus Council -- we had on Council. I can't say they were that much
deeper, that much better. It was just basically a total re-do of what PTC had done. And I don't that's -- You know. So,
for members on the boards and commissions, I don't think that's -- that's got to be kind of disheartening. Right? Because
it seems like kind of, I did all of the stuff, and you're having it yet again.
### If I were a commissioner (which I have never been), what would dishearten me is if Council simply ignored the
commission's advice without saying why.
21
So, you know, maybe, in terms of trying to align commission or board to members of the Council, maybe what we should
do is -- ah -- we should -- ah -- have a different way of appointing these board members. And commission
members. Maybe it should be -- each Council member appoints one. So that it's reflecting their idea, perhaps.
### I think this is a very bad idea. If Council populates its boards and commissions with yes men and yes women, it
won't get good advice.
### On 06-06-12, UAC considered Item VIII.1, about a "user-financed" FTTP network
Agenda:
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30100
Minutes:
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31450
Chair Foster moved that UAC bring the FTTP issue back in 3 months, so staff could improve the staff report (plus some
other things). Vice Chair Cook made a substitute motion to adopt the staff recommendation, including giving up on the
user-financed FTTP idea (and some other things). That substitute motion passed 4-3. Later, Cook said he had wanted to
vote for Foster's motion, but he thought that if Council had wanted to move forward with FTTP, it would have told UAC so,
so that UAC could have given Council the advice it wanted. I think Council has to be very careful to tell boards and
commissions to give Council their best advice, not just what they think Council wants to hear.
Or, maybe we should, you know, elect them when we change -- like Council.
### Does this mean some or all of our boards and commissions should be elected by the people? I don't like this idea
either.
But to make it more reflective as to what -- so that Council can feel like they can trust the boards and commissions to
make decisions. Versus us having to second-guess everything. And stay here 'til late. Or do a really cursory job on
something. Because when we do that, it's pretty much staff is running everything. Right? And I don't think we are
necessarily giving the oversight or direction that we could, that would really kind of align things better to what the
community wants.
4:05:55:
And I -- And this is the other thing, which is -- I know that there's limits to staff time. We have an hour limit. Right? And
there's limits on the PTC, and all this other stuff. But I actually -- I mean, the problem with doing that is that it kind of
creates us more autopilot from staff, because it depowers
### disempowers
the elected and appointed officials to such a degree that is pretty much it's all autopilot by staff. And staff, you know,
they're -- yeah, they're appointed by us.
### Not exactly. City employees are hired. Council hires the City Manager, City Clerk, City Auditor, and City Attorney
(who are called Council Appointed Officers -- CAOs). Each other City employee is hired by a CAO.
And they're kind of accountable to us. But, for the most part, short of firing them, there's not much we can do about
things.
### Council can fire a CAO. Council can make compensation decisions regarding CAOs, although that process is not
transparent to the public.
And -- So, I think, actually, what we should do -- you know, from my perspective -- is, we should empower boards and
commissions more. We should delegate things more to them. Maybe some decisions they make should be on the
Consent Calendar, so we don't have to just do a total re-do of the same thing that they just did.
### Another bad idea, in my opinion.
And to kind of allow us to trust them, maybe we should figure out a different appointing system. So that we -- So that
Council members feel like they're representing OUR views. And if they're not representing OUR views, maybe we should
get rid of them.
### Another bad idea, in my opinion.
22
Or, whoever first appointed them gets rid of them.
### Another bad idea, in my opinion.
Like, that's not my view. You know. Or, I don't know. But I think that -- I'm just trying to think of better alignment, so that
we get leverage on our time. Because the members of the public, they -- they're -- they hold us accountable. Right? If
we do a bad job, we don't get reelected. Right?
### For Council members who are termed out, and can't run again, the public doesn't have this kind of "leverage."
And -- But our -- Because we take so much on, as a Council, we have only so much leverage. So much time to review
things. And I fear that, for the most part, like I said, this is total autopilot on the staff part. Because we don't have the
time. We -- you know, we spend -- not every City Council spends as much time in meetings as we do. I mean, it's kind of
amazing. And yet, I don't think we're that much more effective for spending more time. Because we're holding so many
things so tight to ourselves. Versus, maybe appointing people that we trust. And then allowing them to make the
decisions on the smaller stuff. And let us -- let us debate and figure out where are the big things. Because we spend -- I
feel we spend so much time on the small things. Right? And not enough time on the big things. And so, for the big
things, we barely have time for it.
4:08:26:
Like, I mean, one example is, like, grade separation. We barely have time for that. Right? And we have XCAP, and
things like that. But I just feel that we could do better than what we're doing. So -- So, that's my overall view of this, it
that -- So I think -- I do think this is a worthwhile topic. But, for me -- I want us to get more leverage. And I think all of us
want to be more effective. And I think we could be more effective if we actually empower our boards and commissions.
### I think it would be better to empower the boards and commissions to give Council better advice.
Back to what Council Member Kou said. I have to agree with her -- right? -- in terms of how do you make motions when
you can't see them? And I think, on the PTC, one reason why, you know, I mean, when I was Chair, I asked for that very
thing, because, I agree with you, it's super-hard to know what you're voting on, because you have these long, complex
motions, and you have no idea what people are seeing -- or voting on. And so, we asked staff, hey, can you do
that? And the answer was, there's no real resources -- there's no funding for this. Right? So, that's an issue.
### OK. How much funding would be required to do this? And, by the way, is there a way to improve the putting-
motions-on-the-screen service that Council meetings now get?
But, you know -- So, one thing we tried doing was, let's use Google Docs -- we could all do it ourselves, and we could
present it up there. But, you know, there's all these things about -- oh, no, we can't use Google Docs -- you know, for
some reason.
### I think it would be important to understand what the reason is.
So, it's kind of weird but true. So -- So, I think we all kind of want something -- I we all feel that there's not -- some things
aren't working as well as they could. And so, I just wanted to throw some of these ideas out there, to see if we can try to -
- try to get to a point where the system's more effective. Because I think if it is, we, as City Council members, could be
more effective. And we'll have a better run City.
4:09:57:
Mayor Filseth: So, I'm going to go to Council Member DuBois in a second, here, but let me summarize a major piece of
what I think we just -- of what I think Council Member Tanaka just said. Which is, so far, most of the discussion -- and the
staff report -- has sort of been kind of an operational stuff. It's, like, how do things get agendized? You know, you talk
about sort of a social contract, and, sort of, you know, motions and procedures, and so forth. And then Council Member
Tanaka has brought up sort of a different angle, which is, what if there's alignment issues between such and such a
commission and the Council? Which I think is kind of -- I think it's kind of a different topic. But it may be one that the --
you know, that the staff and the Council choose to consider, as part of the span of this study.
Council Member DuBois.
23
4:10:50:
Council Member DuBois: So, I just want to say, in terms of the need, here, I support looking at these policies kind of --
kind of the end-to-end process, I think. Starting with recruiting, interviewing, serving, and then working with Council. So,
that goes with what everybody else has said. And however we do this, I think it's just a recommendation that has to come
back to the full Council. I mean, that kind of goes without saying. But I just wanted to say it.
I -- One -- So, I thought about this. I think, in general, we should think about crafting a policy with a light touch. I think if
we really try to have very detailed, complex set of rules or processes, we're going to miss things. So, it's kind of a
balance. It's kind of like the Constitution of the United States. In a way.
### A ton of documentation has been amassed over the years to explain and interpret what the Constitution of the United
States means.
But, clearly, we have some gaps. And staff is asking us to fill those in. And, kind of, the bigger issue Council Member
Tanaka was raising -- I do think we need to keep in mind the differences in roles and responsibilities. And the difference
kind of between being an elected official, to make decisions, versus kind of appointed volunteers who, at least, today, are
making recommendations to Council. So, when I looked at this, I see a need -- there is a small section in the Council
Protocols that applies. But, more importantly, I think there's our ordinances. And we can potentially consider creating a
new document that's like a Board and Commission Guideline. More like a handbook. I do think we should try to do this
with some focus. Kind of quickly and efficiently. And bring back recommendations to Council in a few months. And so,
the way I was thinking about it -- and this discussion tonight was really about the scope, and trying to do something in just
a couple of months. But --
4:12:50:
Mayor Filseth: OK. So, I'm going to go to Council Member Kniss in a second, here. Let me ask staff. In terms of sort of
looking at sort of the scope, is this kind of what you were hoping to hear from Council?
4:13:02:
City Manager Shikada: Well, ...
4:13:03:
Mayor Filseth: The content?
4:13:04:
City Manager Shikada: As expected, yes, it's a fairly expansive description, or ...
4:13:09:
Mayor Filseth: More than you came in with.
4:13:10:
City Manager Shikada: [laughs]
4:13:11:
Mayor Filseth: Really.
4:13:12:
City Manager Shikada: As it -- Well, if nothing else, I don't think I've heard any comments to limit the scope. And, as
such, I think, as has been suggested, I think the question really, then, does turn to how best to tackle it as a topic area, in
terms of the work ahead.
4:13:28:
24
Mayor Filseth: OK. Council Member Kniss.
4:13:33:
Council Member Kniss: So, I will have a couple of other things to say. But before I do that, I think if -- I'm trying to look at
the ad hoc committee and the Policy & Services at the same time. I think we would do better if we incorporated one into
the other. And we're about to change mayors. And I think, at that point, we should have a plan for, if this is something
that Policy & Services isn't going to do next year, then that should be outlined at the beginning of the year. And if the
kinds of issues that we've discussed tonight -- which are very broad -- need to go through an ad hoc committee, then I
think that would be the time to set it off. Is when -- at the beginning of the year. Otherwise, I think you're in an awkward
state now.
4:14:29:
But let me ask another question, because, sort of underlying everything people have been talking about tonight -- and
we've heard if from those in the audience, and we've heard it, you know, in letters, and so forth, that have come to us -- is,
how do you get rid of someone? How do you get rid of someone on a commission, that you don't like, or doesn't align
with you?
### Or, more to the point, perhaps, someone who does something illegal, or contrary to City rules.
Or, how does that happen? And there are a couple of situations that are ongoing right now, that most of us are just not
going to speak about baldly. But they do exist. So, I'd like to ask our City Attorney. If we were to vote -- which apparently
we think we could do -- to remove somebody from one of the commissions, what are the rights of the person who is -- who
is perhaps going to be removed?
4:15:21:
City Attorney Stump: So, Council Members, the local law makes it clear that Council appoints commissioners, and has
the power to remove them. There aren't procedures -- detailed procedures -- for doing that. And in the occasions where
that has occurred in the past, it's been handled informally, and in a cooperative way. If a more formal process was
needed, we would need to work with you to set up a process that would protect the Council's right to make those
decisions, but also other rights and procedures that might apply. So, it would depend on the circumstances. And we
would work with you to do that. If it's Council's wish to set up more clear or additional step procedures in your Rules, or in
the municipal code, then we could assist you with that as well.
4:16:17:
Council Member Kniss: So, I think Tom just said something that I would agree with, which is, you talked about either a
deft or a gentle touch.
### light touch. At 4:11:08.
And I that that would be very important if someone was going to be removed. I haven't seen that happen since I've sat
here. And I've sat here a long time this time, and a long time before. I have never seen anyone -- I have NEVER seen
any Council VOTE to remove somebody from a commission.
4:16:47:
Council Member DuBois: (inaudible)
4:16:48:
Council Member Kniss: Pardon?
4:16:48:
Council Member DuBois: (unamplified) People have been asked. You said more informally?
4:16:51:
25
Council Member Kniss: Yeah. That's a -- But I have never seen it come to a vote of the Council. And I think that would
be so regrettable, if that were to happen. I don't -- I just don't believe that fits this community's humanity. And their sense
of how a person should be treated. And perhaps if somebody -- In fact, I don't even know anyone, Tom -- I know you've
said it happened quietly. I can't think of anyone recently -- maybe one of the rest of you can -- in the last 4-5 years that
has been -- Is there someone, Adrian, you can think of that was gently guided off a commission?
4:17:31:
Vice Mayor Fine: Um. No point in naming names. But my understanding is -- also from the City Attorney -- that, you
know, the Council has the ability to remove somebody. And if there's a majority of votes on the Council to do that, that
can be transmitted to that person.
### Given the Brown Act, how can anyone know whether there are enough votes on Council unless Council actually
votes in public?
And, I guess, they have the option of resigning from a commission.
4:17:50:
Council Member Kniss: But my recollection is, that has never happened.
4:17:54
[multiple speakers]
4:17:56:
Council Member Kniss: ... several years that I've been here.
4:17:57:
Council Member Kou: It's never been agendized.
4:18:00:
Mayor Filseth: Hey, guys ...
4:18:01:
Council Member Kniss: No, but the question is, if we're talking about this, and we're specifying ways to remove someone,
I think we want to think how -- how could that be handled in some way that's different than that? And I think it would
be. As to the rest of it, I think everyone has put out, you know, a very extensive agenda. I don't know if that's what you
were looking for, Ed.
### I think the staff report did a poor job of saying what staff was looking for, possibly because it was overly concerned
with treating people with humanity. But, at this point, Council should be the entity that decides what it is looking for.
Something that extensive. But I think what's really important -- is there -- is at the top of the page, as it reads.
### That is, page 2 of the staff report.
What's the board and commission and the Council? And, right now, we're thinking, apparently, that it's -- it needs to be
tightened. That it's too loose. Is that kind of what we're hearing tonight? We need to go through and revamp it, and have
more clarity, and more -- a more concrete understanding of what the boards and commissions should do. Is that correct?
4:18:57:
Mayor Filseth: You can ask staff. I don't think so. I think it's more how they should work. Right? Than ...
4:19:02:
26
City Manager Shikada: I think it's -- as the discussion has pointed out -- there's some specific areas that can be clarified.
4:19:07:
Mayor Filseth: We spend a huge amount of time discussing -- well, I mean -- and it's the most emotional piece, of course
-- right? -- is that -- I mean, certainly -- certainly, because of -- you know, I think, Council Member Tanaka has correctly
pointed out -- I mean, all these are volunteer folks, that, you know, are committed to doing good. We spend a huge
amount of time talking about this one little piece, and, you know, I think we're trying, you know, to do here is sort of like
this much.
### He gestures something like a two-foot diameter circle.
And we're really focusing in on that little piece.
### He gestures something more like a quarter-inch circle.
But that's, like, a really small piece of what we're talking about here tonight. Right? But it's the most emotional one, for
sure.
4:19:41:
Council Member Kniss: Well, -- Although this is due to come up tomorrow night. This is on the agenda for Policy &
Services. We can begin to make a dent in it. But I'd suggest for next year that this be on Policy & Services' plate. And
that be the group that does it in public. So that it can be discussed and everyone can hear exactly what we're talking
about. I think that's one of the most important parts. We tend to do our best work, I think, when the public is there, when
they can comment, when we have communications back. And so, that would be my suggestion -- as we go forward.
4:20:24:
Mayor Filseth: That's good. So, I'm going to go to Council Member -- or, to Vice Mayor Fine in a second, here. But, I
think this is good. I think we sort of shifted into the discussion of, OK, how do we structure to do this. And I hope well do
this, and we'll do it quickly, and -- because it's 9:30 at night. And we'll make a decision, and we'll move on. So, let me
briefly comment on what I think is sort of the most important reasons why we ought to do an ad hoc committee.
You know, we only got seven people on Council this year, as has been pointed out, right? And that means we got a 25
percent reduction on committee resources on all our committees. Policy & Services is BUSY. They have a lot of
responsibility, a lot of territory. You know, we knew we were going to rely more on committees when we went into this
year with a Council reduction. And including ad hoc committees. And if we -- I mean, the current process is, frankly,
slow. Right? And if we want -- I mean, I believe an ad hoc committee will move faster, and get more done -- right? --
more quickly than if we sort of refer it to one of the standing committees. And I don't think this is the kind of thing that -- I
mean, this is a -- this is a process that's going to be bounded in its span. We're going to do it, and then we're going to
move on. And there's going to be a, you know, a report and a discussion. And Council's going to adopt some
policies. And then we move on. And so, if the criteria is, look, how can we get the most work done the fastest -- right? --
then I think that points toward an ad hoc committee. Given enough time, could other processes do it? Probably. But I
think we'll get more done faster if we do it that way. And I think that ought to be our criteria. And I don't think we should
wait 'til the new year to get started. I mean, we do still have a couple of weeks left in this year. Right? We are still all at
work. OK? As most of the world is. And I know it's sensitive, because there's potential Charter issues, and so forth. But
if we're going to get it done, I think that's the right way to -- I think that's the quickest way to do it. And the most effective.
Vice Mayor Fine.
4:22:20:
Vice Mayor Fine: OK. I'll try to be brief. Just two or three other areas I was thinking about, we may have missed. How
many of you know we have an Emergency Standby Council? A few of us up here. That's if there's an emergency, and
we can't make it, there's previous Council members who come and take our places.
Another issue you may want to look at, Tom -- Council Member DuBois -- mentioned applications or
improvements. Totally agreed.
27
We also have a number -- I don't know how many right now -- of ex-Council members serving on board and commissions
or appointed things. I want to look at that quickly.
### I don't know what issues Vice Mayor Fine has with that. Dick Rosenbaum served on Council from 1971 to 1975 and
from 1991 to 1999,
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/10/13/former-palo-alto-mayor-dick-rosenbaum-dies
and then served on UAC from 2000 to 2009.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/16450
I thought he did a great job, although I didn't always agree with him.
And then, the final one is: do we want to potentially remove any commissions, or add any?
4:22:56:
So, those are a few more areas -- like cuts, to look at this issue. But I'll propose a framework. I don't think this a
motion. But maybe if we could just type these up. Just list them.
A framework for everyone to think about these things.
* What is the purpose or goal of our boards and commissions?
* How do they align with the Council and/or staff?
* What are the expectations around staff support?
* What is the need for a various commission?
* And the big one is, what the Mayor ** -- just kind of operations and mechanics -- you know, recruitment, responsibilities,
terms, etc. -- all these things we've listed. So, those are kind of five bullet points I'M thinking about.
I'm not really convinced on the Policy & Services versus ad hoc thing. I hear both arguments. I think there is something
for the public to play a role in here. And especially our boards and commissioners. I also hear the point of view that, you
know, an ad hoc can get this done faster. And, Council Member DuBois, you're absolutely right, both of these will be
reporting back to Council. And we're going to -- just, like we get a report from our boards and commissions,
### In the case of UAC, it's usually not true that Council gets a report from the commission. It usually gets a report from
staff, plus staff-written sense minutes about what UAC discussed, plus a video, if Council wants an alternative account of
what actually happened at the meeting. Occasionally, some commissioners might write a colleagues' memo, which is a
kind of report.
we're going to take what we want. [laughs] So, **, it should be purpose, alignment, staff support, operations, and then
the need for commissions. [shrug]
4:24:05:
Mayor Filseth: And I would say that, I mean, potentially, Council can take a report in a couple of months, and send THAT
to Policy & Services. Right? If they want. But, I mean -- I mean, I'm open to the case that Policy & Services can get it
done faster than an ad hoc committee. But I think it's going to be a difficult one to make. Council Member Cormack.
4:24:21:
Council Member Cormack: So, as a member of the ad hoc committee -- and we were appointed a couple of weeks ago --
yes, Mr. Mayor? -- Council Member DuBois and I have actually already met. Happy to maybe just talk a little bit about the
work we've done, to see if that's helpful. As we've been thinking about this. I wonder if the clerk could just put up those
two simple slides, there, for the moment. The Vice Mayor is headed in the direction that we were thinking about. What is
the objective? Right? What is it that we're trying to achieve here? And it's to review and revise purpose, process, and
standards for boards and commissions to work with us. So, that was the overall -- overarching goal, as we thought about
what is the work that we're trying to do.
And, then, on the next page -- if you would just move to the second slide -- because the Mayor was interested in this
going quickly -- for all the reasons that Council Member Kniss mentioned -- which is, you know, there will be a
28
transition. It's possible we'll have changes in the composition of various committees, etc., and commissions, this was the
plan that we came together with. And, you know, again, I want to emphasize -- and we already have 7 questions outlined
for a survey that we're [laughs] ready to work on -- that, I think, gathering that information, I think, is a really important first
step. I totally second the Vice Mayor's mention of reviewing all of the commissions. Are there some to add? Are there
any that we -- you know, we might decide that their work is complete. That's absolutely, I think, an appropriate thing to
consider. And I guess my question about, you know, whether it would go to Policy & Services eventually or start, you
know, as an ad hoc is -- I just don't know. You know, I mean, how many members of the public usually come to Policy &
Services Committee? Do you usually have a lot of members of the public come? I'm not quite sure. I think that, you
know, given the volume of work that needs to be done in this -- Again, I only have my experience on Finance so far this
year. But the volume of work, I think, is -- is more than the -- Does Policy & Services meet monthly? Is that how
often? Finance is like every two weeks. Right? I feel like an ad hoc committee could really get a great start on this. That
would give us something to work with that is much more detailed than this wide-ranging discussion. And then we could,
you know, work with that. So, those are my thoughts.
4:26:55
Mayor Filseth: Council Member DuBois.
4:26:58:
Council Member DuBois. Yeah. So, just quickly. And, again, the idea here was a 2-3 month timeline, including over the
holidays. So, you know, we did start working. I think we were trying to figure out how we can do this pretty efficiently. I
think we would do our best to complete our review and then bring the recommendations back to Council kind of early
February. You know, we don't have a lot of meetings in January. So, that was kind of the idea. Council Member
Cormack and I worked well together on the Stanford GUP, and -- so I think we can do this pretty efficiently. And just to
clarify. When we talk about surveying, we were talking about emailing current and former board members,
### And, presumably, commissioners.
just to gather some quick feedback. That's what that was about.
4:27:46:
So, I would go ahead and try to like make a motion, which would be that Council would direct the ad hoc committee to
work with staff on the items listed in the staff report, including processes, from recruitment through serving and working
with Council. Yeah. And -- So, Council Member Fine, I think everything you mentioned would be in there. I just had a
kind of a simple summary.
4:28:14:
Vice Mayor Fine: I would just suggest, if staff sends a quick email to us, if we can send topics we would love addressed
by the ad hoc, that would be awesome, too. Yeah.
### If the intent is that the ad hoc committee would get the suggestions of all the Council members who responded to the
"quick email," I think that would be a potential violation of the Brown Act.
4:28:24:
Council Member DuBois: If we can do that --
4:28:25:
Council Member Kniss: (unamplified) So, then, I will have a question -- this is a little tricky tonight --
### I can't tell whether she's talking about the issue or about turning on her mike.
(amplified) question about Policy & Services for tomorrow night. Which is due to take up this item as Item number
2. Shall we get rid of that? Looking at the Assistant City Manager.
So, are we saying that the -- Council -- City Council Protocols and Procedures Handbook is going to go to you guys? Is
that right? To the ad hoc?
29
4:28:52:
**: No.
4:28:52:
Council Member DuBois: No. You're only looking at boards and commissions, most of which is in the ordinances.
4:28:57:
Council Member Kniss: OK. So, you want us to continue the Handbook, essentially. And you're going to take over -- So,
I think what I need from you, to really be clear, is, I need to know exactly what you're going to work on. Remember, I'm
only Chair of this committee for two more weeks.
### And only one more meeting: 12-10-19.
So, somebody else will take it over after that.
4:29:14:
Council Member DuBois: [laughs] So, again, my understanding -- and I haven't looked at the Policy & Services staff
report -- is, you guys were looking at overall Council protocols and procedures. All topics. **
4:29:26:
Council Member Kniss: But they do run into each other, though. They do.
4:29:29:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. So, maybe, if you want to be really clear, we could exclude the one section that's in
Attachment A.
### I think Council Member DuBois is referring to Attachment A of the 12-09-19 staff report to Council. The 12-10-19
staff report to the Policy & Services Committee has an attachment, but it's not called Attachment A.
4:29:38:
Council Member Kniss: Well, let's not work on that tonight. We'll -- I'll figure it out tomorrow, with staff.
### As of 12-29-19, the action minutes and minutes of the 12-10-19 Policy & Services Committee meeting had not been
posted online yet,
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/policy/default.asp
The video is available.
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-1292019/
But I think we -- we -- Yes. And I would agree. This and -- Expediting of that would probably be a good idea. Um. I still -
- I'm not going to vote for the new ad hoc committee. Because I'm troubled that, once again, it's not going to be held in
public. Whereas Policy & Services is. But that's -- that's my prime concern for having it happen this way. So, we'll look
forward to something coming in February. If not before.
4:30:17:
Council Member DuBois: [laughs] Not before.
4:30:19:
Mayor Filseth: Seeing no further lights, would you vote on the board, please?
4:30:21:
30
**: (unamplified) Do you need a second?
4:30:22:
Mayor Filseth: [raising his hand] Yeah.
4:30:23:
**: (unamplified) ** that motion
### Apparently staff hadn't yet put Council Member DuBois' motion (made at 4:27:46) up on the screen. So the next
minute or so was spent remedying that.
4:30:27:
Mayor Filseth: Ah. Oh. **
4:30:29:
Council Member DuBois: I said, "from recruitment through serving and working with Council."
4:30:35:
Mayor Filseth: Wait a second. "Recruitment" isn't the right word. Yeah, that's a good point. On the process for -- what's
the language?
3:30:42:
Council Member DuBois: I said we would "work with staff" -- but we would work "on the" issues "listed in the staff report" -
-
3:30:53:
Council Member Kniss: You've gone through a whole lot more, though, tonight ...
4:30:55:
Mayor Filseth: Yeah. With ...
4:30:55:
Council Member Kniss: ... so it needs to be **
4:30:58:
Mayor Filseth: Yeah. With -- with -- with stuff brought up in Council.
4:31:00:
Council Member DuBois: Including processes from recruitment -- "from," not "for" -- "through" ...
4:31:11:
Mayor Filseth: Processes ...
4:31:13:
Council Member DuBois: ... "working with Council."
4:31:18:
31
Mayor Filseth: There you go. "Through."
4:31:24:
Council Member Kniss: To. To what? What was your next ... ?
4:31:25:
Council Member DuBois: "serving and working with Council."
4:31:29:
Mayor Filseth: And you need a line in there about not just the staff report but stuff brought up by Council this evening.
4:31:36:
Council Member DuBois: Including additional items raised by Council.
### As of 12-29-19, action minutes for 12-09-19 had not been posted online, so I won't comment on whether the motion
was correctly transcribed.
4:31:52:
Vice Mayor Fine: If we don't like the results, we have a process for removal from the ad hoc.
4:31:55:
[laughter]
4:31:56:
Mayor Filseth: Yes, we do. Ad hocs sunset. That's the great thing about them. Council Member Tanaka.
4:32:01:
Council Member Tanaka: Actually, I was going to make the same comment. Which is, I don't think it's just the staff
report. Because I think we all brought up some topics that were not in the staff report. So, ...
4:32:08:
Mayor Filseth: That's important.
4:32:09:
Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. It would be incomplete. But I'm also with Council Member Kniss. I -- You know, this is
what -- Back to my point, I think -- on Council, we take on too much. You know, I feel like -- I actually feel like we have a
lot of committees, and subcommittees, and all that kind of stuff. And I -- I -- I think one big issue that we suffer from is, we
don't delegate. Right? I mean, we -- We want to make every decision, big and small. And it doesn't make sense,
actually. Because we're not that good at making that kind of decision. So, how do we split this so that it's -- it's something
to where, if Council Member Kniss and I want to vote at -- separate out that part of the motion? I think it's what Council
Member Kniss was saying. Right? Does this belong in Policy & Services, or should it be separate? Right? How do we
separate it out?
4:33:02:
Mayor Filseth: Vote against the motion. Seeing no further lights, ...
4:33:12:
Council Member Kniss: (unamplified) No, but she ...
32
4:33:13:
Mayor Filseth: ... would you vote on the motion? And that passes 5-2, with Council Members Kniss and Tanaka
dissenting.
============