Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200106plCC1701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 1/06 /2020 Document dates: 12/11/2019 – 12/18/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Robert Lum <outrageouslums@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 2:05 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Wireless Resolution Changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. This is absurd, why even bother having a setback? Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put whatever they want within spitting distance of our homes.    It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you,    Robert Lum    Barron Park  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lisa Talbot <lisa.talbot@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:cell tower update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. That is not an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home.    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their loud and hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.    2 Yours truly,  Lisa Talbot  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Melody Song <shanghaimelody@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 7:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers in Residential Areas CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Melody Jing Song  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.com; Clerk, City Subject:cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    We have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Richard and Carol Heermance  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 10:47 PM To:Council, City Cc:RB@cityofpaloalto.org; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:20-foot setback distance for cell towers is too small CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Council members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on 16 December 2019. That distance is too small, being only a few feet more than the length of a typical car. In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, when an exception is granted residents need to be protected from having a cell tower installed only a 20 feet from their homes. Please establish instead a no-exceptions set back of at least 100 feet This set back is a more than reasonable accommodation that the telecommunications industry can make to meet the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for considering my request. Best regards, Ron Wilensky 1 Brettle, Jessica From:nader.farr <nader.farr@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 6:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cell towers setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please create meaningful setbacks of cell towers from homes of at least 100 ft. Palo Alto residents have been asking for your help on this for 2.5 years. Please help create a good policy now.    The PAUSD School Board resolution in June asked City Council to establish policies to ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential negative effects associated with radiation exposure. We need strong, robust setbacks from schools AND homes. Please make the no-exceptions setback from homes at least 100 ft.    -Regards,  Nader Farr    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ken Poulton <ken@poulton.net> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 9:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:No on 100’ wireless setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please do not pass a 100 foot setback rule for wireless basestations. This would simply prevent any improvement in cell  service in the city.     Furthermore, the highest fields we get exposed to are from our own mobile phones, because they are much closer to us  than any basestation. And our phones reduce their output power (to save battery life) when the basestation is closer.     Thanks,  Ken Poulton   Los Robles Ave  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anna Wichansky <radcliffe73@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 12:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:100 ft setback needed for new cell phone towers in residential areas CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I live at 4234 Suzanne Drive. I have recently observed the sign for a new cell phone terminal on my block. Frankly the neighbors here and I don't want this on our block. This thing will buzz all the time, and emits energy that we are not sure is safe to humans. It is right in front of one of the neighbors' houses, several feet away from their door. This really can't be right. Now I have learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? The proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Anna Wichansky 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Eugene Spevakov <spevakov@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 1:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stronger setbacks for cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, I am asking you to support PAUSD school board resolution recommending 1,500 foot cell tower setbacks from schools and not allow a placement on any cell towers near Barron Park School closer than this distance. It has come to my attention that there is currently a consideration to place a cell tower as close as 200 feet from the school which is not acceptable. Sincerely, Eugene Spevakov 524 Kendall Ave. #8 Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Krassimira Harwell <krassuna@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 2:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,  The PAUSD School Board resolution in June asked City Council to establish policies to ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential negative effects associated with radiation exposure. We need strong, robust setbacks from schools AND homes. Please make the no-exceptions setback from homes at least 100 ft.    Thank you for standing up for the citizens, young and old. of our beautiful city,  Krassimira Harwell  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sarah Feinberg <shfeinberg1@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 3:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Council members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration, 2 Sarah Walker 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Janet Gu <janetlipingding1120@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 10:12 PM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Cc:Planning Commission; board@pausd.org Subject:the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     2 Yours truly,     janet  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ding Erin <erinding9@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 10:14 PM To:board@pausd.org; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Fwd: the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.   2   Yours truly,     janet  1 Brettle, Jessica From:jason dong <bigjason413@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 10:17 PM To:board@pausd.org; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Fwd: the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,     I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  2   Jason  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Willy Lai <willyhlai@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 10:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Tower Ordinance - Setbacks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I plan to attend Monday’s wireless ordinance meeting at city hall, and I’m requesting in advance of the meeting that you  please strongly consider matching the setbacks that Los Altos has established for their wireless ordinance. Just  yesterday, Los Altos passed the following setbacks for wireless facilities:   “The towers and poles must be at least 50 feet from public and private property lines; at least 200 feet from residences;  at least 1,100 feet from K‐12 schools; and at least 1,500 feet between wireless facilities operated by the same carrier.”  https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/news/199‐city‐affairs/61518‐los‐altos‐hills‐council‐adopts‐small‐cell‐ setbacks‐rejects‐gas‐ban    Thank you,    Willy  1 Brettle, Jessica From:kip <krhusty@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 11:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Wireless Resoultion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,   It has come to my attention, thanks to tireless neighborhood activists, that the City Staff will recommend your approval of the revised Wireless Resolution which has a mere 20 ft. set-back from homes. I am alarmed by the City's attitude toward public concerns about safety, health, and welfare of residents. There has been little, if any, fair and thorough public investigation and discussion of the health and the safety issues involved in the amplification of EMF, yet the City is once again caving to corporate pressure (I will assume, contrary to a reasonable conclusion drawn by some, some of you do not have a deep-seated bias of corporatism).     How is it possible that health concerns addressed to the relatively recent phenomena of EMF are seemingly shrugged off in favor of new technologies that, frankly, are not as indispensable as they are hyped by providers and their fans. The same can be said for safety issues, although from a risk factor, while still significant, this pales compared to the potential health issues. Finally, even if the ultimate health concerns are not as devastating as, say, cigarette smoke, the negative consequences for human and animal well-being are also numerous (e.g., the effects on brain waves and the effects on insect, animal, bird reproduction are two potential problem areas that come to mind).    The 20 ft. set-back is inadequate safety precaution - in fact it is no safety precaution at all. I ask that you do not approve a resolution that does not more distinctly protect citizens.    Thank you,    kip husty  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 6:24 AM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Cc:dshenster@gmail.com Subject:Cell tower setback needs to be 100ft or more CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, David Shen Old Palo Alto Resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeffrey S. Glenn <jsglenn@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:12 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,     I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th.    Twenty feet is only  three to four feet longer than the average car.  How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?        In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.        It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.      Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.     Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely,  Jeffrey    Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D.    Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology    Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering    Stanford University School of Medicine    CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A    269 Campus Drive    Stanford, CA 94305‐5171    2 U.S.A.    email:jeffrey.glenn@stanford.edu    tel (office): (650)725‐3373    tel (lab):     (650)498‐7419    fax:            (650)723‐3032    pager:        (650)723‐8222; ID# 23080      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Randy Fung <rfung8@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 10:10 AM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Wireless Cell Towers and OUR homes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no- exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. 2 Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly,   Randy Fung  Palo Alto           1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 12:42 PM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only  three to four feet longer than the average car.  How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?      In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.      It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.       Thank you for your consideration.         Yours truly,        Ardan Michael Blum                           1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 2:12 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:please create meaningful wireless objective standards CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I am very thankful for all the hard work the Planning Department has put into creating a wireless standard that tries to  address resident concerns. The spirit of the proposed updates is good, but the proposed standards ultimately allow cell  towers to be installed 20 ft from someone’s bedroom. This is not what we want.     Please ask for something more meaningful here, like a 100 ft setback (with no exceptions) of cell towers from  residences. Otherwise, the whole resolution with objective standards can be sidestepped by wireless companies simply  asking for exceptions and having them granted. We also need a 1500 ft setback from schools as requested by the June  2019 PAUSD School Board resolution.      We also need a very robust exceptions process. Please keep this in mind, as Staff have not yet prepared an  accompanying update to the wireless ordinance with updated exceptions language. Other cities have very strict  exceptions language to make sure this ‘exceptions' pathway is not exploited by wireless providers to their own  advantage.       Also, the staff report mentions effects on staff time devoted to wireless compared to other important issues. All  applications in a residential zone will require exceptions, and whether the exceptions are related to 1 or 5 requirements  doesn’t matter. Furthermore, all staff time is fully compensated by the wireless providers on a cost‐recovery basis, so  staff can hire extra help when they need it. Staff have also worked and will continue to work to create a robust,  streamlined process to handle applications and minimize time spent processing them.     I therefore hope that our policy decisions will be based not on staff time but rather what we want to achieve as a  community. The cell tower issue is very important to residents in Palo Alto, as you’ve seen over the last 2 years with  residents emailing, calling, and coming to city meetings, plus all the coverage in the local media. As you know, aesthetics  is one aspect but there are so many others that are important to residents, like health effects, fire safety, property  values, and ADA issues.       Thank you for all you do to support residents and keep Palo Alto a beautiful and safe place to live!      ‐Tina Chow, Ph.D.  Barron Park  Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 4:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:No to the 20 foot setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration,    Francesca L. Kautz  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 6:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers Setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,  I am concerned that our City Council is becoming more and more out of touch with the citizens you represent.  Our neighborhood,  Green Acres I, has already been denied keeping our underground transformers underground.  Adding to that distress, it seems the  Wireless providers are only all to eager to add to more above ground equipment near our homes.  The Telecom providers want to  install cell towers that have only a 20 foot setback from residences.  This is very little protection from noisy and potentially  hazardous equipment right next to our homes.  Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet is a more  than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.  Nancy Steinbach  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 5:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:12/16/19 Public Hearing on Wireless Resolution (Action Item 14) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I am requesting that Council establish requirements for a mandatory setback for cell towers from homes of at least 100 feet.    City Staff's request for a 20-foot setback for cell towers, with their potentially hazardous and noisy equipment, located so close to our homes is not acceptable to Palo Alto's residents.   Although there is a provision that cell towers not be located in a residential zone, exceptions are permitted -- so residents still need to be protected in these cases.   Requiring a 100-foot setback from homes is a reasonable accommodation for the telecommunications industry to make to Palo Alto residents.  Thank you for your service to our community,  Mary Dimit Palo Alto owner and resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:42 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Planning Commission Subject:Wireless Resolution - establishing a 100 foot setback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, Please do not establish a 20 foot setback in the revised Wireless Resolution Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Jyo Nimkar Barron Park 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Objection to inadequate setback from cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th.    Twenty feet is only  three to four feet longer than the average car.  How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?      In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.      It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,   Jerry Fan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 2:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Cell towers near school - please remember PAUSD's resolution Attachments:CellTowerResolutionNo.2018-19.19.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members,     I understand that you are looking at proposed revisions to your rules for permitting cell towers and antennas.      As you may recall, the PAUSD board unanimously passed a resolution on June 18, 2019 on this topic, calling for a set‐ back of 1,500 feet and notice of future proposed projects near existing school sites.  A copy of the resolution is  attached.    Reading your staff memo, it proposes a school set‐back of 600 feet, and as little as 300 feet by "exception."  There is no  mention of the notice to school principals and the district superintendent that the resolution requested.    I'm not sure what the logic is for the much smaller set‐backs.  There is no value to placing cell towers near schools  sites.  PAUSD has a total of only 16 school sites in the City of Palo Alto ‐ wireless carriers should be able to give them a  wide berth, and still achieve other objectives.      The notice requirement is also important. The district staff is charged with protecting the interests of our community's  children.  To do so, they need to be properly informed.  There is only one public school system in Palo Alto, so ensuring  the proper authorities are notified (the superintendent and school principal) should not be an undue burden on the  city's staff.    So please, keep the Resolution in mind and provide the protections that our community's children need and deserve.   Thank you for your service and attention.    Best,  Todd    ‐‐   Todd Collins  650‐403‐2084    Want to see how PAUSD is performing? Check out our California School Dashboard, a new tool from the CA Dept of Education for understanding, monitoring, and comparing school districts!      NOTE: Messages to/from this account related to PAUSD matters may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.  Resolution No. 2018-19.19 WHEREAS, ● The desire of wireless companies to market new wireless services has led to wireless infrastructure being deployed in residential neighborhoods and areas near schools in Palo Alto; and ● Serious concerns exist regarding wireless permits approved near schools without sufficient notification to school officials, staff, PTAs or parents; and ● An increasing number of public agencies at all levels are raising concerns about and taking action to protect against cell tower radiation, a sampling of which is included in Exhibit A; and ● There has been an active community discussion about the deployment of small cell networks in residential areas and near schools, including a Palo Alto City Council vote in April 2019 directing city staff to consider setbacks from homes and schools and return with an updated wireless ordinance as soon as possible and no later than a year; and ● The Palo Alto PTA Council voted overwhelmingly in May 2019 to advocate for “risk reduction policies” regarding cell tower setbacks from schools and other electromagnetic field related issues consistent with the 1994 California PTA resolution on electromagnetic fields; and ● A 4G/5G wireless tower has already been approved within 300 feet of Barron Park Elementary School, nearest to the classrooms housing pre-K and Kindergarten students; and ● There are pending applications to erect over 150 4G/5G wireless towers in Palo Alto, several of which are in close proximity to PAUSD schools, including sites already approved e.g. near Barron Park, Ohlone, and El Carmelo, and proposed sites next to Palo Alto High School and other schools; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ● That the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education (the “Board”) opposes the siting of future cellular facilities on or in close proximity to schools to ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential negative effects associated with radiation exposure; and ● That the Board supports the City of Palo Alto (“CPA”) immediately establishing local municipal zoning setback rules of 1500 feet or more from an operating wireless transmitter and a school site; and ● That the Board requests that CPA provide timely notification to the District Superintendent and the Principal(s) of affected schools, when new cellular permit applications are filed within 1500 feet of a school; and ● That, in light of the failure to provide timely notification to school officials and the local school community, the Board requests that CPA takes appropriate action either to enable appeal of the approved tower site adjacent to Barron Park Elementary School or to request the applicant to cancel plans for the tower at that location and reject or delay consideration of other applications near school sites until appropriate regulations and approval criteria are in place. Exhibit A Summary of Recent Public Official and Agency Actions ● On December 3, 2018, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo co-authored a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr that requested the FCC and relevant health agencies provide them studies informing the FCC's 5G safety determination, and while they did receive a letter from the FCC on December 17, 2018, it had no mention of 5G safety testing. ● In 2000, the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a resolution opposing the siting of cellular facilities on or in close proximity to schools to ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential health effects associated with exposures to extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radio- frequency radiation, and in 2009 reaffirmed this with a resolution requesting local jurisdictions to provide timely notification when new cellular permit applications are filed and to provide comment on the health risks from cumulative exposures. ● The full Parliament of the European Union has raised concerns about the exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields and continuing uncertainties about possible health risks; and therefore, adopted in 2009 a resolution encouraging 1) the establishment of setback criteria for wireless antennas, mobile phone masts and other electromagnetic emitting devices to be set within a specific distance from schools and health institutions, 2) stricter regulations and protections for residents and consumers, and 3) more reliable information be made available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields to citizens in an effort to prevent a “proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters.” ● Many cities internationally have taken action to restrict cell towers near homes and schools, including the California cities of Petaluma, San Anselmo, Fairfax, Hillsborough, Piedmont, Rancho Palos Verdes, Mill Valley, and Ripon. ● 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anne Lum <annelum@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 3:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Fwd: Stop City Council from passing a bad Wireless Resolution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and council members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    STOP THIS NONSENSE with the wireless policy and cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods and STOP wasting everybody's time by not listening to your constituents!    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    2 Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Anne Lum  Barron Park resident and Palo Alto homeowner for over 25 years.               1 Brettle, Jessica From:Christine Selberg <christineselberg@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 4:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:ARB@citypaloalto.org; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org Subject:Cell Tower topic 12/16/2019 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes. It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Yours truly, Christine Selberg Downtown North Resident 281 Everett Ave., Palo Alto 94301 1 Brettle, Jessica From:cvakili@gmail.com Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 4:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:concerned about cell phone towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please create meaningful setbacks of cell towers from homes of at least 100 ft. Palo Alto residents have been asking for your help on this for 2.5 years. Please help create a good policy now.     Also, schools should have setback rules too of 100 ft.     No exceptions on setbacks!    Thanks,  Chris  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 4:40 PM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; DuBois, Tom Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; addrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org; addrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Please do not approve a 20 foot setback for cell phone towers. This is much too close to a home. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,        I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th.    Twenty feet is only  three to four feet longer than the average car.  How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?        In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.        It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.        Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.        Thank you for your consideration.        Yours truly,    2 Kathleen Martin    Sevyson Court, Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tom O Connor <oconnorelectric@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 6:44 PM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Please excuse any spelling or grammatical  errors as  This request may have been sent via VoiceOver text  Tom O Connor. Owner  O'Connor & Sons Electric  Office (650) 813‐9159  Cell.   (650) 740‐1121  Email tom@paloaltoelectric.com  Info @www.Paloaltoelectric.com  Info @www.oconnorelectric.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 11:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; board@pausd.org Subject:Wireless Resolution: Cell Equipment fan noise pollution is a problem CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Council Members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kuo and Tanaka,    Fan noise from the pole‐mounted wireless systems in our neighborhood pollutes the peace and quiet within 40 or 50  feet of each installation. I understand there is a revision in‐process for the Wireless Resolution. The new resolution must  address noise pollution and should require installations to be inaudible in anyone's yard, home or other occupied space.  I believe a no‐exception minimum set‐back of 40 feet from a property line would be the minimum required distance to  achieve this.    If you have never walked by one of the pole‐mounted wireless equipment installations on a quiet morning or evening, I  implore you to do so before finalizing no‐exception setback distance requirements. The installations in Barron Park have  fans which run continuously and which can easily be heard from 40 feet when it is quiet on the street. If an installation is  20 feet from a house, this will likely be on the corner of someone's yard, so would be very audible in the yard adjacent  to the pole. It's very likely the fan could be heard in the house when windows are open. If you were told you would  never again be able to be in your front yard without hearing white noise from a fan, would you be content to let this  infrastructure be installed by your home? Imagine kids growing up without ever hearing the periods of quiet stillness  while enjoying a warm spring or summer evening sitting in the yard.    I commute by bike from Palo Alto to Redwood City five days a week and in Atherton I pass by several pole‐mounted  wireless installations. None that I have seen have fans. Instead, they seem to have some passive cooling of some sort.  These installations make no noise. Why is this not required in Palo Alto?    In the revised Wireless Resolution, please require all companies who own wireless infrastructure equipment to install  systems which emit no noise (passive rather than active cooling) or require at least a 40 foot setback to any residential  property, school, park or other occupied space.    (Alternately, perhaps some sort of eminent domain process should be required if the city will force certain property  owners to have a sudden change in noise‐pollution on their property. Perhaps some property owners will be willing to  have cash compensation equivalent to the property value they have lost by having a noisy, ugly, RF‐emitting system  installed on the corner of their lot. (Would you buy a house with such an installation on the corner of the front yard if  there was a similar property for sale without one?)    Regards,    Dan Adams, Star Teachout and family.  3550 Whitsell Ave.    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karen Saxena <heypalermo@aol.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 4:44 AM To:Council, City Cc:board@pausd.org; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Update: Number of towers doubling CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.          Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?     In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes.     Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto.  2   Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,        Karen Saxena            1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cindy Russell <cindyleerussell@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 6:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:December 16, 2019 PA City Council Meeting Cell Towers Attachments:Palo Alto City Council Letter regarding revised ordinance Final Dec 15, 2019 PDF .pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:  Attached is a letter regarding upcoming agenda item on cell towers and  distance from homes.   Many thanks for your consideration.  Cindy Russell ,MD    ‐‐   Cindy Lee Russell, M.D.  Physicians for Safe Technology  WWW.MDSafeTech.org  Our vision is a world where technology serves our needs without undermining our physical, psychosocial or environmental health.  Date December 16, 2019 To: Palo Alto City Council From Cindy Russell, MD Re: Wireless Facilities Odinance Revision. Dear Palo Alto City Council: I appreciate your thoughtful discussion to revise your small cell tower ordinance for the protection of residents as well as for property values. I understand you have proposed to limit small cell towers in residential neighborhoods. That is wonderful news. There is however another important question remaining. If a small cell is installed then what is the minimum distance it can be from a home or school? I understand that your staff has recommended 20 feet. Other cities have given a 500 foot buffer (Petaluma and Suisun city). The scientific literature says it should be al least 500 meters (1500 feet). The tide is turning with regards to the FCC Ruling. If in the near future this ruling to accelerate deployment of 5G “Small Cells “ is overturned as being capricious and arbitrary, and the state legislature decides to study the science (like Oregon SB 283) instead of dismissing it, Palo Alto will now be burdened with an unhealthy legacy of cell towers which threaten not only the health of its citizens, but also their privacy as wireless networks are inherently vulnerable. Scientific references are at https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/ There are bona fide health reasons to have a 500 Meter (1500 foot) or more buffer from a “small cell” to a home, school or hospital 1) Increase in Cancer within 10 years if less than 1500 feet (Dodd 2011) (Wolf 2004) (Ghandi 2015) 2) Increase in Blood Cell Abnormalities (Zothansiama 2017 ) 3) Cognitive Decline in students near cell tower over 2 years (Meo 2018) 4) General Neurobehavioral Effects (fatigue, headaches, insomnia, depression, memory loss): (Shinyo 2014), (Santini 2002 ). (Navarro 2003 ) (Abel-Rassoul 2007 ) ( Hutter 2006) ( New Review Article in Environmental Research Indicates 500 Meter Buffer Around Homes, Schools and Hospitals Pearce reviewed the scientific literature and in his paper recommends a 500 Meter (1500 feet) buffer around schools, hospitals and homes in order to protect telecommunications companies from liability and ultimate failure due to lawsuits. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019) He notes, • Cellular phone networks demand widespread human exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR). • Cellular phone base stations density & power output increasing global human RFR exposure. • Already enough medical-scientific evidence to warrant long-term liability concerns. • To protect cell phone tower firms, companies should seek to minimize human RFR exposure. The FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report FCC 18-133 The FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report FCC 18-133 which further impacts local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities siting. This ruling, which accelerates the deployment of small cell antenna in the public right of way, took effect January 14, 2019. The League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, among many others, feels this declaratory ruling by the FCC is an overreach of authority. It requires only a ministerial permit to approve small cell towers in the right of way, not the current conditional use permit that is fully vetted. These cell towers can be batched so dozens of these can be automatically approved at once. There is an increasing sentiment that this FCC Ruling should be overturned to give cities back what little authority they do have in the placement of cell towers as per the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This Act requires proof that there is a significant gap in coverage and that the least intrusive methods should be used. These have been removed with the FCC Ruling. 5G and Small Cell Issues The rollout of 5G has many glitches and hazards that have not been thought through by Federal leadership. These include health effects, privacy, security, surveillance issues, climate change (increase in energy consumption), lower property values, weather forecast interference and liability. Fiberoptic and wired alternatives are safer, more secure and cheaper in the long run than adding cell towers every 300 feet. In addition, many carriers will use these towers and not for just 5G. 4G will be essential in these towers as well. No safety testing has been done for 5G or the mix of frequencies we will be exposed to 24/7, especially for vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children. https://mdsafetech.org/2019/02/13/no-research-on-5g-safety- senator-blumenthal-question-answered/ FCC Lawsuits I understand that there is a lawsuit from the City of San Jose and dozens of other cities challenging the FCC and the FCC ruling as an overreach of authority. The lawsuit is still pending and will likely not be settled until early 2020. https://mdsafetech.org/2018/12/31/fcc-5g-fast- plan-provokes-lawsuits/ U. S. Conference of Mayors Opposes FCC Order The U.S. Conference of Mayors is in support of the lawsuit brought against the FCC. They feel this is an overreach of authority as it threatens local democracy. CEO Tom Cochran, noted that this is "an unprecedented federal intrusion into local (and state) government property rights that will have substantial and continuing adverse impacts on cities and their taxpayers, including reduced funding for essential local government services, and needlessly introduce increased risk of right-of-way and other public safety hazards.” Statement by U.S. Conference of Mayors CEO & Executive Director Tom Cochran on FCC’s Order Proposing to Usurp Local Property Rights https://www.usmayors.org/2018/09/10/statement-by-u-s-conference-of-mayors-ceo-executive- director-tom-cochran-on-fccs-order-proposing-to-usurp-local-property-rights/ Eshoo- Speier HR 530 and Feinstein SB 2012 Representative Anna Eshoo Introduced HR 530 to Revoke the FCC Ruling. The bill has 52 co- sponsors now and hundreds of municipalities supporting this bill. Senator Feinstein has introduced a companion bill SB 2012 in the Senate which also blocks the FCC order. SB 2012 is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, American Public Power Association, Communications Workers of America, National Association of Counties, League of California Cities and American Public Works Association . Your neighbors on all sides including, Mountain View as well as San Jose, Marin County, Santa Cruz County, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego and many other cities all support this effort. NEPA and Historic Preservation A recent court ruling examined the requirement for a Federal review for the placement of 5G small cell towers under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Historic Preservation and environmental review. These requirements were removed in the FCC Order for streamlining small cell towers. The court overruled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arguments in favor of the NRDC and Native American tribes. NRDC attorney Sharon Buccino stated, “Local governments can condition approval for new 5G cell construction upon compliance with state and federal requirements for environmental review. While a local government cannot add new requirements for environmental review, it can require proof that the necessary federal review has been done. Given the mounting evidence that the FCC’s radio frequency limits are inadequate, such federal review should include an evaluation of the adequacy of these limits.” https://mdsafetech.org/2019/12/08/nepa-the-nrdc-and-5g- neighborhood-cell-towers/ New Ordinance I urge you to carefully look at options to craft the strongest ordinance that gives you as much authority in placement of cell towers. Several aspects of other city ordinances that would be useful to include are listed below. There are legal requirements but other cities are keeping key provisions. The key elements to require are 1) Regular monitoring (random and at least yearly) of RF radiation by an independent consultant that is paid by industry along with notification of any changes in cell tower settings 2) Require $5million in general liability insurance. 3) Have set backs and separations between antennas- 1500 feet 4) 500 Meter (1500 feet) buffer around schools, hospitals and homes. Article reviewing health effects within 1500 feet of cell tower. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019) Pearce M. Environmental Research, Nov 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425. Note: 500 ft buffer (or more) from residencies (or businesses) placed in ordinances from Petaluma and Suisun City 5) Have restrictions (non-favored) or preference list for placement of cell towers to keep them from schools, homes, parks, nursing homes or other sensitive areas where humans or wildlife are vulnerable 6) Stipulate that the small cells will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act 7) Provision to revoke emergency ordinance: If FCC Order is overturned by HR530 or Feinsteins Senate bill SB 2012, a city may be able to overturn the permitted cell towers if they have a clause voiding the agreement or requiring it modification in the event of a regulatory change (overturning the FCC Order), according to a report by Next Century Cities Small Cells I would like to point out that • These small cells are not really small and have powerful antennas that radiate 3G and 4G telecommunications frequencies. At almost the same power as tall cell towers. A telecommunications expert has admitted this in a Sonoma City Planning commission meeting. Thesea re the same towers that used to be on tall towers but now are placed adjacent ot homes without any health surveys or study.These will transmit many frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. • These small cell antenna will be densely spaced i.e. 25-30 per square mile • Small Cells will be close to homes, schools and businesses. • This will impact the Public Right of Ways far more than it ever has • Public Right of Ways are valuable real estate • Cities are asked to give away this real estate without planning for future development and infrastructure which may preclude other communication development i.e. pure fiberoptic which is faster, safer, and more secure Health and Environmental Effects When 5G was turned on recently in Switzerland reports of adverse health effects started to appear. https://mdsafetech.org/2019/07/20/the-first-report-of-5g-injury-from-switzerland/ These were typical symptoms of overexposure or sensitivity and include headache, fatigue, insomnia, nausea, poor concentration, memory loss, and irritability. A family in Sacramento stated their 2 daughters became ill after 5G cell tower was placed, They had to insulate their home with special window covers and paint to regain their health. I understand that the 1996 Telecommunications Act prevents a decision based on health or environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation that these cell towers emit and we are not supposed to bring this issue up. Some would argue that it is not the correct interpretation. Nevertheless, the unfortunate and inconvenient reality is that a growing body of scientific literature has determined that not only are there human health effects from RF radiation, there are adverse effects on trees, plants, insects and animals. This radiation is absorbed by and passes through all living organisms and affects cellular processes along the way. There is cumulative damage with RF thus short exposures would not give much evidence of harm. As we are exposed to a mix of other toxins all acting on our immune, endocrine, nervous and metabolic systems, we can rarely determine the cause of any particular chronic illness. https://bioinitiative.org https://mdsafetech.org/2018/11/03/wireless-silent-spring/ The recent $25 million, 10-year study by the National Toxicology Program on Cell Phones and Cancer concluded that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage along with clear evidence of carcinogenicity of the heart, significant findings for brain cancer as well as higher cancer rates above controls for prostate, pituitary, pancreas, liver and lung. https://mdsafetech.org/ntp-study- 2016/ A robust study by Dr. De Kun Li of Kaiser looked at 900 pregnant women and found a 3 fold increase in miscarriage at the highest levels of everyday exposures that are within ICNIRP guidelines. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727515/ This non-ionizing radiation acts like a biologic toxin, similar to chemicals, acting through a process of free radical formation or oxidation. New Danish Legal Compendium of Health and Environmental Effects of 5G The Danish Institute for Public Health and the Council for Health-Safe Telecommunications has prepared legal document related to the broad harm from 5G as well as other wireless technologies. They state, “The legal opinion is based on the rules of law in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the EU directive on the conservation of wild birds, on the precautionary principle as well as on the Bern- and Bonn- conventions on the protection of animals and plants.” The 2019 Legal Compendium Document can be found and downloaded here 5G Danish legal opinion Jensen 2019. PDF Congressmembers Blumenthal and Eshoo Ask for Evidence of Safety for 5G The evidence of harm from 2,3 and 4G radiofrequencies is contrasted with the lack of safety testing for 5G telecommunications. Congressmembers Blumenthal and our own Representative Anna Eshoo have asked the FCC for scientific proof of safety prior to the rollout of this novel technology. https://mdsafetech.org/2019/02/13/no-research-on-5g-safety-senator-blumenthal- question-answered/ They stated in their letter that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018. There has been no response. In a press conference with Senator Blumenthal, author Blake Levitt noted that thin skinned amphibians and insects will be most affected by this technology with potentially disastrous results. She warns that it is not the power density or tissue absorption but the signaling characteristics that are harmful with damage even at low power levels. In addition, she emphasizes that there are inadequate protective regulations for chronic human exposures for current wireless frequencies and no oversight for wildlife or the environment. She concluded that “The FCC is completely unprepared, unable and possibly unwilling to oversee 5G for safety, even at it barrels toward us.” Although we should be reevaluating the FCC safety guidelines and amending the 1996 Telecommunications Act we are now faced with trying to have the strongest possible ordinance to protect the character, safety and health of the City of San Francisco. Boulder Colorado Legal Expert Report A wonderful reference and summary is from Boulder Colorado, who hired an attorney to look at how to maintain as much authority as possible. Boulder Colorado Has Expert Legal Opinion to Maintain Local Control of Small Cell Towers. Policy Report: Small Cell Facilities in Boulder, Colorado- June 2019 City Ordinances that are strong I have looked at several different urgency ordinances in California including Los Altos, Mill Valley, Sonoma City, Palo Verdes, Glendora and Belveldere. They have taken the opportunity to craft emergency ordinances that reflect the current law with regards to siting of wireless communications facilities including small cells, maintaining as much control and oversight as possible. Here are additions I have found in these other ordinances that would be important to consider. Sonoma City has a very strong ordinance. Los Altos just passed an ordinance in keeping with the wishes of the community. It is a strong ordinance and I would advise modeling your ordinance after that of Los Altos and include a robust noise clause. The links and summaries to other City ordinances are listed at https://mdsafetech.org/cell- tower-and-city-ordinances/ and below and at Physicians for Safe Technology website https://mdsafetech.org Other Information:You can visit this website for scientific information regarding the • Science of 5G- https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/ • Cell Tower Health Effects- https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/ • Executive Summary of Wireless Technology and Public Health- https://mdsafetech.org/pst-summary-wireless-technology-and-public-health/ • Environment and Wildlife Effects of Wireless Radiation- Scientific Literature- https://mdsafetech.org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/ • First Report of 5G Injury in Switzerland- https://mdsafetech.org/2019/07/20/the-first- report-of-5g-injury-from-switzerland/ • Firemen Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers - https://mdsafetech.org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/ Respectfully submitted, Cindy Russell, MD References • Pall ML. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. (2018). Environmental Research. Volume 164. July 2018. Pages 405-416. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355 • Li DK et al. Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. (2017) Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 13;7(1):17541. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727515/ • NTP TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN Hsd:SPRAGUE DAWLEY SD RATS EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT A FREQUENCY (900 MHz) AND MODULATIONS (GSM AND CDMA) USED BY CELL PHONES. (NIEHS/NIH). 2018. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf • BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012 at www.bioinitiative.org • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646 • The 5G Appeal. Scientists and doctors call for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields RF-EMF, that has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. https://www.5gappeal.eu • EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illness. (2016) Belyaev I. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363- 97. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/download.php?field=filename&id=363&class=DownloadItem • 500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019) Pearce M. Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425 • From the Physicians for Safe Technology Website Examples of City Small Cell Wireless Facilities Emergency Ordinances • City of Belvedere, California https://www.cityofbelvedere.org/DocumentCenter/View/5641/Item-11 • Calabasas, California (very strong) . https://www.cityofcalabasas.com/pdf/wireless/Wireless_Facility_Ordinance- w_CC_Changes052312.pdf • Fairfax, California. Fairfax Emergency Wireless Ordinance 2018 • Hillsborough Wireless Update January 2019 (weak) https://library.municode.com/ca/hillsborough/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod eId=TIT15BUCO_CH15.32WICOFA or https://www.hillsborough.net/482/Wireless • Los Altos, California (very strong) passed Aug 5, 2019 • Ordinance Wireless Facilities 2019-460 -General Provisions https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/page/ 48421/2019-08-05_19-460_1.pdf • Resolution No. 2019-35 of the City of Los Altos Adopting Design and Siting Guidelines and Standards for Wireless Facilities. Site preferences, setbacks from schools, spacing, noise, tree separation… are here https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/page/48421 /resolution_no._2019-35.pdf • Fee Chart for Wireless Facilities in Los Altos, California. Resolution 2019- 36. https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/page/48421/r esolution_no._2019-36.pdf • City of Mill Valley, California (strong) http://cityofmillvalley.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1290&meta_id= 59943 • Newark, California. http://www.newark.org/home/showdocument?id=4629 • Palos Verdes, California (Medium) New Ordinance 2019 – https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13741/RPV—ROW-Wireless- Telecommunications-Urgency-Ordinance-April-2-2019. Old Ordinance 2016- https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7952/RPV—ROW-Wireless-Telecommunications- Urgency-Ordinance • Petaluma, California (setbacks good) https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Petaluma/html/Petaluma14/Petaluma1444.html • San Anselmo, California https://www.townofsananselmo.org/DocumentCenter/View/23883/Wireless-Policy-in- effect-September-26-2018 • San Raphael, California https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/ordinance- 1967/ and https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/resolution-14621/ • Sebastopol, California. https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/4371a3fe-b28f-4e19- a4b2-bedd0073ab92/Ordinance-Number-11-23-TELECOMMUNICATIONS-FACILITIES-AND- MINOR-ANTENNAS-Appvd-5-7-2019.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf • Sonoma City, California (strong) https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/document/17797 • Suisun, California (medium) https://www.suisun.com/small-cells/ Key Elements of Strong Local Ordinances (Combination of ordinances passed and suggested) • FCC Clause: Have a clause voiding the agreement or requiring it modification in the event of a regulatory change (overturning the FCC Order), according to a report by Next Century Cities • Maintain that all wireless facilities both small cells and cell towers require a Conditional Use Permit by the planning department followed by an encroachment permit. (remove Minor wireless permit section 18.41.050 and add all wireless communications facilities to section 18.41.060) which is reopened every 3 to 5 years- Sonoma City, California • Significant Gap in coverage: Maintain requirement for significant gap in coverage to be identified for approval of both small cells and cell towers • Least Intrusive Methods: Maintain requirement for the least intrusive methods to fill the gap for both small cells and cell towers.A justification study which includes the rationale for selecting the proposed use; if applicable, a detailed explanation of the coverage gap that the proposed use would serve; and how the proposed use is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide wireless service. Said study shall include all existing structures and/or alternative sites evaluated for potential installation of the proposed facility and why said alternatives are not a viable option. (Old-Palos Verdes) • 1500 Foot Setback from other small cell installations: Every effort shall be made to locate small cell installations no less than 1500 feet away from the Permittee’s or any Lessee’s nearest other small cell installation, or within ______ feet of any permanent residential dwelling. (ART Ordinance) Setbacks Between Small Cells:Calabasas, Petaluma, Fairfax, Mill Valley, and San Ramon (all California) require 1,500 feet between SCFs. (Boulder, CO Recommendation-Boulder Colorado Small Cell Ordinance Legal Opinion Policy Report). (Los Altos Ordinance) • Radiofrequency Data Report Requirement: Have a thorough radiofrequency data requirement as part of the submittal for consultants. For all applications require that both an RF Compliance Report signed by a registered Professional Engineer, and a supporting RF Data Request Form as Attachment A as provided is mandatory. RF DATA SHEET (can be an attached form to be filled out and submitted with application). • Preferred or Disfavored Locations: In addition to residential areas, designate areas where cell towers are disfavored and not permitted, i.e. near schools, residential areas, city buildings, sensitive habitats, on ridge lines, public parks, Historic Overlay Districts, in open spaces or where they are favored i.e. commercial zoning areas, industrial zoning areas. (Boulder, CO Repor-tBoulder Colorado Small Cell Ordinance Legal Opinion Policy Report). (Los Altos Ordinance) • Disfavored Location: Every effort should be made to avoid placement of small cell installations in close proximity to residences, particularly from sleeping and living areas. Viable and defendable setbacks will vary based on zoning. (ART ordinance) (Los Altos Ordinance) • Prohibited Zones for Small Cells: Prohibits small cell telecommunication facilities in residential zones and multi-family zoning districts (Mill Valley) (Los Altos Ordinance) • Require Mock-up: Require full-size mock-up of proposed SCFs and other pertinent information in order to adequately consider the same potential impacts. It also may want to adopt Larkspur’s approach to require construction drawings, a site survey, and photo simulations. (Boulder, CO Report ) • Public notifications of planning commission hearings; Either in newspaper, website no less than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing. • Notification of all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed installation within X timeframe • Drip line of tree/heritage trees: No facility shall be permitted to be installed in the drip line of any tree in the right-of-way…. (Old-Palos Verdes)- 15ft in Los Altos (Los Altos Ordinance) • Speculative Equipment Prohibited. The city finds that the practice of “pre- approving” wireless equipment or other improvements that the applicant does not presently intend to install but may wish to install at some undetermined future time does not serve the public’s best interest. The city shall not approve any equipment or other improvements in connection with a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (Old-Palos Verdes) • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance. All facilities shall be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (New Palos Verdes) • Authorization from Property Owner: If the facility will be located on or in the property of someone other than the owner of the facility (such as a street light pole, street signal pole, utility pole, utility cabinet, vault, or cable conduit), the applicant shall provide a duly executed written authorization from the property owner(s) authorizing the placement of the facility on or in the property owner’s property. (Palos Verdes) • Community Meeting: The applicant would be required to hold a community meeting at least two weeks prior to the planning commission hearing on the use permit. (San Anselmo) • Noise Complaints: If a nearby property owner registers a noise complaint, the city shall forward the same to the permittee. Said compliant shall be reviewed and evaluated by the applicant. The permittee shall have ten (10) business days to file a written response regarding the complaint which shall include any applicable remedial measures. If the city determines the complaint is valid and the applicant has not taken any steps to minimize the noise, the city may hire a consultant to study, examine and evaluate the noise complaint and the permittee shall pay the fee for the consultant if the site is found in violation of this chapter. The matter shall be reviewed by the director. If the director determines sound proofing or other sound attenuation measures should be required to bring the project into compliance with the Code, the director may impose conditions on the project to achieve said objective. (Old- Palos Verdes) • Noise Restrictions: Each wireless telecommunications facility and wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. • Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall nor be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. • At no time shall any facility be permitted to exceed 45 DBA and the noise levels specified in Municipal Code XXX. (Los Altos Ordinance) • Transfer of Permit: The permittee shall not transfer the permit to any person prior to the completion of the construction of the facility covered by the permit, unless and until the transferee of the permit has submitted the security instrument required by section 12.18.080(B)(5). (Palos Verdes) • General Liability Insurance $ 2-5 million to protect the City: The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the public right-of-way, an insurance policy or policies of commercial general liability insurance, with minimum limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for each occurrence and Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) in the aggregate, that fully protects the city from claims and suits for bodily injury and property damage. The insurance must name the city and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers as additional named insureds, be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California with a rating of at least a A:VII in the latest edition of A.M. Best’s Insurance Guide, and include an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except with thirty (30) days prior written notice to the city, except for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium…. (Old- Palos Verdes) • Endangerment, Interference: No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. • Independent Expert. The director is authorized to retain on behalf of the city an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. The review is intended to be a review of technical aspects of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and shall address any or all of the following: xxxx (Old- Palos Verdes) • Annual Recertification: Each year, commencing on the first anniversary of the issuance of the permit, the Permittee shall submit to the Town an affidavit which shall list all active small cell wireless installations it owns within the Town by location, certifying that (1) each active small cell installation is covered by liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000 per installation, naming the Town as additional insured; and (2) each active installation has been inspected for safety and found to be in sound working condition and in compliance with all federal safety regulations concerning RF exposure limits. (ART Ordinance) • Random Testing for RF Compliance: The Town shall have the right to employ a qualified RF engineer to conduct an annual random and unannounced test of the Permittee’s small cell wireless installations located within the Town to certify their compliance with all FCC radio- frequency emission limits as they pertain to exposure to the general public. The reasonable cost of such tests shall be paid by the Permittee. (ART Ordinance) • Violation of Compliance Notification: In the event that such independent tests reveal that any small cell installation or installations owned or operated by Permittee or its Lessees, singularly or in the aggregate, is emitting RF radiation in excess of FCC exposure guidelines as they pertain to the general public, the Town shall notify the Permittee and all residents living within 1500 feet of the small cell installation(s) of the violation, and the Permittee shall have forty-eight (48) hours to bring the small cell installation(s) into compliance. Failure to bring the small cell installation(s) into compliance shall result in the forfeiture of all or part of the Compliance Bond, and the Town shall have the right to require the removal of such installation(s), as the Town in its sole discretion may determine is in the public interest. (ART Ordinance) • Non- acceptance of Applications: Where such annual re-certification has not been properly or timely submitted, or equipment no longer in use has not been removed within the required 30-day period, no further applications for small cell wireless installations will be accepted by the Town until such time as the annual re-certification has been submitted and all fees and fines paid. (ART ordinance) • Order of Preference – Location. The order of preference for the location of small cell installations in the Town, from most preferred to least preferred, is:1. Industrial zone 2. Commercial zone 3. Mixed commercial and residential zone 4. Residential zone (ART Ordinance and New Palos Verdes). (Los Altos Ordinance) • Fall Zone: The proposed small cell installation shall have an adequate fall zone to minimize the possibility of damage or injury resulting from pole collapse or failure, ice fall or debris fall, and to avoid or minimize all other impacts upon adjoining property • 500 Meters (1500 foot) setback from schools, hospitals and homes. The setback for Calabasas, CA is 1,000 feet (Bolder, CO Report), 500 ft Setback from residencies (Petaluma). See engineering article • Setback From Roads or Property Lines: No new tower shall be constructed without a setback from the tower’s base of at least 1.5 times the tower height to a public or private road and at least 2.5 times the tower height to the nearest property line. Scenic America Model • Aesthetics and Undergrounding: All equipment not to be installed on or inside the pole must be located underground, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole. Each installation is to have its own dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately. • Aesthetic Requirements: “Law firm Baller Stokes & Lide highlighted the following aesthetic considerations that local governments can consider: “Size of antennas, equipment boxes, and cabling; • Painting of attachments to match mounting structures; • Use of shrouds, stealth techniques, or other camouflage; • Flush-mounting of antennas; • Placement of equipment in the pole base rather than on the outside of the pole; • Consistency with the character of historic neighborhoods; • Minimum spacing between attachments;” and • Aesthetic standards for residential neighborhoods, including “any minimum setback from dwellings, parks, or playgrounds and minimum setback from dwellings, parks, or playgrounds; maximum structure heights; or limitations on the use of small, decorative structures as mounting locations.” (Boulder, CO Report) 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 8:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Revised Wireless resolution     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com>   Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 10:23 AM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: re: Revised Wireless resolution    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,      I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th.    Twenty feet is only  three to four feet longer than the average car.  How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.    It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.    2 Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.      Thank you for your consideration.  ‐Phil Coulson        Yours truly,  1 Brettle, Jessica From:WRL <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 8:25 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please oppose 20' setbacks in revised Wireless Resolution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th.    Twenty feet is only  three to four feet longer than the average car.  How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?      In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.      It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.  This will also help to ensure that no one is harmed by cellular equipment emitting radio  frequency radiation and microwave radiation right next to residential homes and businesses, especially those  particularly sensitive the effects of such radiation, like children.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 9:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:cell phone towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    Please, we have been BEGGING you to hear the residents' plea to NOT allow cell phone companies to devalue our  properties, place us in potential harm's way, and force us to look outside our houses onto ugly poles.    Please, modify the setback outside a residence to 100 feet.    Thank you in advance.  Ann Protter    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 10:51 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:New Law on 'Small Cells' CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To All City Officials, It is very important to take this new law into account before making any decisions on cell towers tonight. Please click below on the yellow line to see a copy of the law. Of course they should be at least 100 ft. away from anywhere, but there needs to be an environmental study before any decisions are made. I know you supposedly can't take health concerns into account, but there is many studies about the negative effect on humans with 5G. Europe does not allow it. First do NO Harm. Thank you for taking this new law into account. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306   The FCC Gets It Wrong on "Small Cells" (and why this may significantly set back the nationwide 5G rollout)     Dear Friend, Every once in a while we have good news to share, and this is one of those times! The FCC has been reprimanded by the Washington DC Federal Court of Appeals for overstepping its authority, and now, most pending applications for "small cell" antennas in your community will need to be revised and re-submitted for consideration.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Here's the story: There is a federal law called the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) which requires all federal agencies, like the FCC, to analyze and report on the environmental impact of any major action it takes. Pretty much every application to install an antenna requires some type of environmental impact assessment. So the FCC delegates the responsibility of conducting an environmental assessment to the wireless companies and their contractors that install the antennas. 2   In 2017, wireless companies complained that the NEPA process was expensive, time-consuming, and unnecessary. So the FCC decided to release wireless companies from submitting the environmental analyses required under NEPA in March of 2018. "Not so fast," said the Judges in Federal Court in Washington DC. The court ruled that the tremendous deployment of "small cell" antennas could have major environmental impacts. Now, the wireless companies have to do NEPA analyses for "small cells" whether they like it or not. You can read the final court decision here. Lawyers are still scratching their heads about whether or not "small cells" that were approved and/or installed without the proper NEPA paperwork need to be redone. We will keep you informed as events unfold. So as of right now, what's the bottom-line? All pending applications for "small cell" antenna permits may need to be redone and re-submitted with the proper environmental assessments.   Take Action: Today we're asking that you please spread the news about the recent NEPA court decision by calling or emailing any of your local officials who may be considering applications for "small cells." Sample Email to Your Local Officials: Dear _City Council, Planning Commission, City Clerk, City Manager______, I wanted to bring to your attention a recent court decision by the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals that vacates a recent FCC order to exempt "small cell" wireless installations from the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). As per the August 2019 ruling, any application for a "small cell" installation is incomplete if it does not include the required NEPA assessment. *In your email, include this link to the court order. Thank you for you consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, ___Suzanne Keehn_________     Thanks for all you do! - The 5G Crisis team Donate     Copyright © '5G Crisis.' All rights reserved. Contact us: Email report@5gcrisis.com Call 516-883-0887 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 3     __._,_.___ Posted by: Pamela Lau <wapf.siliconvalley2@gmail.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (2) VISIT YOUR GROUP To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InYahoo! Gro • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:wolfi99 <wolfi99@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 11:07 AM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Comments on proposed standards for WCF: Please increase distance limits. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Council members Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, Dear City Council members: From the staff report regarding the Wireless Resolution that you will be considering on December 16th I learned that the set back requirement for WCFs from residences will only be twenty feet, and the distance requirement between WCFs will only be 600ft. As a Palo Alto resident I urge you to significantly increase these limits. A distance of twenty feet is really still much too close to a residential building. This is barely more that three times the height of a male adult. Moreover, since Palo Alto is already cluttered with hundreds of unsightly wireless antennas on utility poles, I urge you to increase the minimum distance between WCFs to 1500ft, as considered in the staff report. Even though this may trigger more exception requests from wireless carriers, it will be well worth the effort to protect the visual appeal and well-being of the community. Please keep in mind that these antennas will remain in place for decades to come. Other jurisdictions have implemented more stringent requirements for WCFs. I urge you to step up and replicate these more stringent requirements for Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Wolfgang Himmelbauer 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 12:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please make the absolute minimum for WCF's 100 feet (or more) from residences CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please make the minimum distance for Wireless Communication Facilities 100' from residents and ideally 600'. As a reminder, cell sites cause burns on maintenance crews and wireless companies sometimes cheat and put more powerful equipment than approved on sites. Lastly, the sites do cause noise. Thanks. Hamilton Hitchings 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sherryl Casella <orioness@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 1:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; cityclerk@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Cell Tower setback and above ground equipmwent boxes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is not an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home.    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     Also, in project file number 17PLN-00228, Verizon plans to build an equipment box above ground on Emerson, near Lowell. . It's proposed height is 4 1/2 feet and depth is 2 1/2 feet. Please do not allow such an ugly and large piece of equipment in our neighborhood. Surely they could be required to underground equipment in the neighborhoods!    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Also, please require that such equipment boxes be placed underground.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,    Sherryl Casella         1 Brettle, Jessica From:Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 1:32 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Re: Cell towers near school - please remember PAUSD's resolution Attachments:ResolutionNo.2018-19.19CellTower(signed).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All,     Attached is the "official signed" copy of our PAUSD Board Resolution from last June.  As someone pointed out, the  earlier attachment was unsigned (though approved without changes).    Best,  Todd      On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 2:06 PM Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org> wrote:  City Council Members,     I understand that you are looking at proposed revisions to your rules for permitting cell towers and antennas.      As you may recall, the PAUSD board unanimously passed a resolution on June 18, 2019 on this topic, calling for a set‐ back of 1,500 feet and notice of future proposed projects near existing school sites.  A copy of the resolution is  attached.    Reading your staff memo, it proposes a school set‐back of 600 feet, and as little as 300 feet by "exception."  There is  no mention of the notice to school principals and the district superintendent that the resolution requested.    I'm not sure what the logic is for the much smaller set‐backs.  There is no value to placing cell towers near schools  sites.  PAUSD has a total of only 16 school sites in the City of Palo Alto ‐ wireless carriers should be able to give them a  wide berth, and still achieve other objectives.      The notice requirement is also important. The district staff is charged with protecting the interests of our community's  children.  To do so, they need to be properly informed.  There is only one public school system in Palo Alto, so ensuring  the proper authorities are notified (the superintendent and school principal) should not be an undue burden on the  city's staff.    So please, keep the Resolution in mind and provide the protections that our community's children need and deserve.   Thank you for your service and attention.    Best,  Todd    ‐‐   Todd Collins  2 650‐403‐2084    Want to see how PAUSD is performing? Check out our California School Dashboard, a new tool from the CA Dept of Education for understanding, monitoring, and comparing school districts!      NOTE: Messages to/from this account related to PAUSD matters may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.        ‐‐   Todd Collins  650‐403‐2084    Want to see how PAUSD is performing? Check out our California School Dashboard, a new tool from the CA Dept of Education for understanding, monitoring, and comparing school districts!      NOTE: Messages to/from this account related to PAUSD matters may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 3:09 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Fw: [WAPF-SouthBay] Fwd: [WAPF-SF] 5G - Not just the bad news but what works better, and how to heal from EMF exposure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please listen to the 15 minute interview with Dr. Sharon Goldberg below. The health effects of these technologies has been known for years. She also discusses 5G, this is from peer review doctors and scientists. Thank you, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stephanie Vargo swalker@craterdiver.com [WAPF-SouthBay] <WAPF-SouthBay@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [WAPF-SouthBay] Fwd: [WAPF-SF] 5G - Not just the bad news but what works better, and how to heal from EMF exposure To: <WAPF-SouthBay@yahoogroups.com> SafeG is the initiative for fiber optic to the home. You can check it out at: https://safeg.net/home/ ATT Fiber is the service we subscribed to for fiber optic connectivity to the home. https://www.att.com/internet/fiber/ Some people think the only way to get fiber optic is for cable to be laid underground, but this is not true. NOTE, THE VIDEO OF SHARON GOLDBERG TESTIMONY IS SHORT AND NEEDS TO BE SENT TO CITY COUNCIL ASAP SHE IS A LEADING RESEARCHER, THE YOU TUBE LINK IS BELOW WHICH YOU CAN CUT AND PASTE Hello WAPF Friends, Have you heard about the hazards of 5G? This reliable information, with citations, may be worse than you thought, but there’s helpful, positive info at the end of this video about how you can protect your family. 2 Also, I've attached my notes from the video, so people can scan for points that matter to them, and some other good citations, both in PDF form because PDFs don't have viruses.. 24:30 — Dr. Martin Pall paints a big picture of what independent research has found about EMF harm. 54:35 — Dr. Timothy Schoechle explains why fiber optics are better than 5G 1:18:00 — Eric Windheim describes how to make one's home and office safe from EMFs We need to get the word out. County supervisors need to know about the problems with 5G, since they are likely to be the ones who will say yes or no when Telecom comes asking permission to put 5G antennas on every fourth or fifth house. School board members need to know, parents and grandparents too. Corporate profit motive has coopted our regulatory agencies, so there has been no research on safety for decades. Anyway, as Dr. Schoechle explains, there is another, a better, way to connect with the world. Instead of WiFi in schools, computers could be connected to the world wide web by ethernet cords. Fiber optics are fast and carry more data. Here's the 2‐hour video (too much for most people, so scroll down for other ways to learn more): https://livestream.com/SAVP/5thGen/videos/183717189 Comments to the FCC, Susan Foster MSW, February 2, 2013 – on firefighter study https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022117660.pdf Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan’s 5G Small Cell Tower, Senate Bill 637 15 minutes https://youtu.be/CK0AliMe-KA ___________ Lauren Ayers Chico, CA 530 321-4662 GoodSchoolFood.weebly.com WestonAPrice.org ChicoGuildHall.org SWATaluminum.org CitizensClimateLobby.org <5G - Good Citations, 11-19, PDF.pdf> <5G – Martin Pall, Timothy Schoechle, Eric Windheim, 11-18, PDF.pdf> __._,_.___ Posted by: Stephanie Vargo <stephanie.vargo@gmail.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (2) VISIT YOUR GROUP To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -- Sincerely, Christine 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 4:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING - re Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) in the Public Rights-of-Way Attachments:Ltr to Mayor Eric Filseth and City Council 12-16-19.PDF Importance:High     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:56 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Bilir, Aylin <Aylin.Bilir@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly  <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING ‐ re Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless  Communications Facilities (WCF) in the Public Rights‐of‐Way  Importance: High    Forwarding for your use.            Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner   Planning & Development Services Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org   Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code   Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped    2     From: Ruby Williams <Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com>   Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:50 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Michael W. Shonafelt <Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; James, Sharon <Sharon.James@crowncastle.com>;  joshua.trauner@crowncastle.com; rochelle.swanson@crowncastle.com; antela.mcintyre@crowncastle.com  Subject: FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING ‐ re Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless  Communications Facilities (WCF) in the Public Rights‐of‐Way  Importance: High    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Sent on behalf of Michael W. Shonafelt          Ruby Williams  Legal Administrative Assistant 949.271.7238 |  Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com    Newmeyer & Dillion LLP    895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660    newmeyerdillion.com                   2464.109 / 8549574.1 Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street Fifth Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 854 7000 Michael W. Shonafelt Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek newmeyerdillion.com December 16, 2019 VIA EMAIL Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council City Hall – Planning Division Fifth Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Eric.Filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) in the Public Rights-of-Way Dear Mayor Filseth: This office represents Crown Castle Fiber LLC (“Crown Castle”) with respect to all matters pertaining to the approval and installation of small wireless communications facilities (“WCFs”) in the City of Palo Alto (“City”) public rights-of-way (“ROW”). This letter constitutes Crown Castle’s comments on the City’s “Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities (“WCFs”) in the Public Rights-of-Way” (“Resolution”). 1. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS The City’s authority to regulate land use stems from the Tenth Amendment’s “Reserved Powers Doctrine,” which provides that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. (See, e.g., Hodel v. Va. Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981).) When state and local regulations are in conflict with that delegation, they may be subject to preemption. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Telecom Act” or “Act”) circumscribes such land use powers and therefore may give rise to such preemption. The Act governs the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure and is “intended to remove all barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunications services.” (In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket Nos. 17-79, 17-84, FCC 18-133, ¶ 14 (rel. Sept. 27, 2018) (hereinafter, “Small Cell Order”) [citing congressional conference report on the Telecom Act].) Section 253 of the Act represents a “broad preemption of laws that inhibit competition.” (Ibid. [citing Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Telecomm. Reg. Bd. of Puerto Rico, 189 F.3d 1, 11 n.7 (1st Cir. 1999)].) Section 253(a) provides, in relevant part: No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 2 2464.109 / 8549574.1 (47 U.S.C. § 253(a).) Similarly, section 332(c)(7) states: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof—(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).) Both Sections 253 and 332 prohibit state and local authorities from taking action (or not acting) in a way that either prohibits or has “the effect of prohibiting the provision of” telecommunications or personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7).) In the Small Cell Order, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) declared that the proper standard for determining whether a state or local requirement has the effect of prohibiting service in violation of Sections 253 and 332 is the “materially inhibit” standard articulated in the FCC’s 1997 California Payphone decision. (Small Cell Order, supra, at ¶¶ 10, 31.) Under that decision, a state or local law has the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications service if it “materially inhibits or limits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” (Id. [citing California Payphone Ass’n, 12 FCC Rcd 14191, 14206, ¶ 31 (1997) (“California Payphone”)].) The FCC recognized that certain state and local fees and other non-fee requirements -- including aesthetic criteria -- may violate the California Payphone standard. (Small Cell Order, supra, at ¶¶ 11-12, 30-102.) With respect to aesthetic requirements, the FCC interprets the Telecom Act to require treatment of WCFs to be “competitively neutral” with regard to all users of the ROW. Specifically, the FCC determined that aesthetic criteria governing small wireless facilities must be (a) reasonable; (b) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (c) objective and published in advance. (See generally Small Cell Order, ¶¶ 87-88.) To ensure that aesthetic criteria are reasonable, the FCC has required state and local governments to enact aesthetic criteria that are objective, clearly defined and published in advance: Finally, in order to establish that they are reasonable and reasonably directed to avoiding aesthetic harms, aesthetic requirements must be objective—i.e., they must incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner—and must be published in advance. “Secret” rules that require applicants to guess at what types of deployments will pass aesthetic muster substantially increase providers’ costs without providing any public benefit or addressing any public harm. Providers cannot design or implement rational plans for deploying Small Wireless Facilities if they cannot predict in advance what aesthetic requirements they will be obligated to satisfy to obtain permission to deploy a facility at any given site. (Id., ¶ 88.) Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 3 2464.109 / 8549574.1 On the whole the Resolution results in a supplemental tier of regulation on WCFs, resulting in discriminatory treatment when compared to other utilities using the rights-of-way. As the FCC noted: … aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible, because such discriminatory application evidences that the requirements are not, in fact, reasonable and directed at remedying the impact of the wireless infrastructure deployment. For example, a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be considered an effective prohibition of service. (Id., ¶ 87.) The Resolution singles out wireless telecommunications carriers and infrastructure developers, prescribing onerous aesthetic and engineering restrictions that do not apply to other utilities in the ROW. The Resolution also contains a number of “minimum” aesthetic standards, including setbacks, preferential hierarchies, and maximum heights and equipment dimensions. Such criteria frequently result in technical complications that could render a facility infeasible. More specific comments follow. 2. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE CITY’S PROPOSED SITING STANDARDS. (a) Public School Boundary Setbacks: The FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards. (City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 367, 376 [124 Cal.Rptr. 2d 80].) Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecom Act preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions. The only ostensive purpose for requiring minimum setbacks from schools is due to perceived health effects of RF emissions. This standard therefore runs afoul of section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecom Act. Moreover, the lack of an ability to invoke an exception for 300-foot setbacks may result in a prohibition of service under sections 253 and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), in addition to unlawful regulation of WCFs on the basis of perceived health effects of RF emissions. (b) Residential Zone of Exclusion: The location of each WCF node is driven by RF propagation needs. Because WCFs operate with small-scale, low power equipment, each RF propagation polygon is relatively small, sometimes covering only a few blocks in any one direction. Each node must be located within the small RF objective polygon (search ring) in order to achieve its propagation objective. Moreover, each WCF node is locationally dependent on its adjacent node to relay signal from one node to the other and thereby create a viable network on a city-wide basis. The residential street exclusion zones therefore may preclude nodes in critical locations necessary to achieve viable service, resulting in a material impediment to providing service, in violation of sections 253 and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecom Act and the standards promulgated by the FCC in the Small Cell Order. Crown Castle notes the City’s reference to the exception provision of City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) section 18.42.110(k) (“Exception Provision”). To the extent the Exception Provision imposes a second tier of discretionary review, similar to a variance, the Exception Provision may not be sufficient to save this section from preemption under the Telecom Act. (c) Residential Roadway Hierarchy: As noted above, the location of each WCF is driven by RF propagation needs. The imposition of hierarchical preferences tends to impose Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 4 2464.109 / 8549574.1 tiers of increasingly onerous regulatory burdens on applicants who may need to install WCFs in less preferable categories. It is not clear what criteria would govern approvals in less preferable roadway categories. Such criteria may operate to impose a material impediment to providing service, in violation of sections 253 and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecom Act and the standards promulgated by the FCC in the Small Cell Order. Additionally, such criteria may be inherently discriminatory to carriers and developers employing technologies that depend on siting in residential streets, in violation of section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). (d) Occupied Building Setbacks in Residential Zones: This provision indiscriminately imposes setbacks from occupied buildings, without any reference to aesthetics or provision for fact-based analysis of visual impacts. It therefore constitutes a facial regulation on the basis of perceived health effects of RF emissions. As noted above, the FCC has preempted the field of compliance with RF emission standards (City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, supra,101 Cal.App.4th at p. 376) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecom Act preempts local and state governments from regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of the perceived health effects of RF emissions. This standard therefore runs afoul of section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecom Act and may give rise to an unlawful prohibition of service under sections 253 and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). (e) WCF Spacing Requirements: Spacing requirements, to the extent they have the effect of materially inhibiting the provision of telecommunications services, violate section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). (See Small Cell Order, ¶ 87.) To the extent the Exception Provision imposes a second tier of discretionary review, similar to a variance, the Exception Provision may not be sufficient to save this section from preemption under the Telecom Act. (f) Scenic Route and Historical Site Restrictions: As noted above, the location of each WCF is driven by RF propagation needs. Prohibitions on siting WCFs in historic districts, scenic routes and adjacent to historic or “potentially” historic sites may operate to impose a material impediment to providing service, in violation of sections 253 and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecom Act and the standards promulgated by the FCC in the Small Cell Order. To the extent the Exception Provision imposes a second tier of discretionary review, similar to a variance, the Exception Provision may not be sufficient to save this section from preemption under the Telecom Act. 3. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE CITY’S PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS. (a) Undergrounding Requirement: More often than not, undergrounding of WCF equipment is unduly invasive to the ROW and unduly burdensome. An undergrounding requirement or -- in this case -- even a regulatory preference for undergrounding therefore can result in a prohibition of service, in violation of section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)(II) of the Telecom Act. (See Small Cell Order, ¶ 90.) Moreover, the City is replete with existing examples of above- ground utility structures installed by such utilities as Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”). Singling out WCFs to comply with undergrounding requirements violates Section 253(c) as regulations of the ROWs must be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.” (47 U.S.C. § 253(c).) (b) Minimal Sunshield and Existing Signage Design Requirements: Under the Small Cell Order, reasonable aesthetic requirements must be technically feasible. (Small Cell Order, at p. 45, ¶ 87.) Any design restriction that results in a technically infeasible design has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service, which constitutes “an effective prohibition of service” and thereby violates 47 U.S.C. section 253. (Id.) The City’s “sunshield” and existing Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 5 2464.109 / 8549574.1 signage design requirement impose maximum cubic feet and dimension requirements that yield far less than the 28 cubic feet identified by the FCC for small wireless facilities for their “associated equipment.” (Small Cell Order, at p. 4, ¶ 11, fn. 9.) This problem is heightened by the fact that required shrouding and spacing requirement can significantly increase the total dimensions of WCF equipment. While the City’s criteria might be aesthetically based, they have the practical effect of regulating technology and forcing carriers and infrastructure developers either to abandon the market, drop radios (and, consequently, bands of service) or revise their RF objectives. The area of RF service objectives is field preempted by the FCC. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2000) 204 F.3d 311, 320 [it is “clear that congress intended the FCC to possess exclusive authority over technical matters related to radio broadcasting [citations] this authority is embedded in the FCC’s broad authority to develop a comprehensive national regulatory system governing telecommunications.”].) As one court observed: A town plainly may not impose separate, stricter certification requirements for wireless technology than those set forth by the FCC. Federal law has preempted the field of technology authorization and station licensing, and there is no room for state and local authorities to regulate in these areas. (New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown (S.D.N.Y 2009) 603 F.Supp.2d 715, 725 [“Pursuant to Congress’s explicit delegation, the FCC has used its rule-making power to regulate “technical requirements for use of the spectrum and equipment in the personal communications services.”]; see also City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 367, 376 [124 Cal.Rptr. 2d 80].) (c) Antenna Dimensions and Height Limits: Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) regulations, such as General Order (GO) 95, require a minimum six-foot clearance from power lines on existing utility poles per GO 95. Additionally, in many instances RF propagation objectives cannot be met at heights above 35 feet without employing a larger antenna. Accommodations must be made for relief from height and dimension standards upon a reasonable showing of infeasibility. (d) WCF Design Quality: Antenna shrouding requirements that prohibit gaps or “sky visible between component surfaces and between the shroud or skirt and the top of the pole” often run afoul of PUC regulations that mandate such gaps to allow for inspections of equipment. Provisions should be made for exceptions based on feasibility and the requirements of such third parties as the PUC, including but not limited to GO 95 requirements. (e) WCF Equipment Adjustment: As noted above, under the Small Cell Order, reasonable aesthetic requirements must be technically feasible. (Small Cell Order, at p. 45, ¶ 87.) Any design restriction that results in a technically infeasible design has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service, which constitutes “an effective prohibition of service” and thereby violates 27 U.S.C. section 253. (Id.) The City’s “WCF Equipment Adjustment” standards may have the effect of foreclosing antenna and radio configurations that are necessary for providing service. (See Small Cell Order, at p. 4, ¶ 11, fn. 9.) While the City’s criteria might be aesthetically based, they have the practical effect of regulating technology and forcing carriers and infrastructure developers either to abandon the market, drop bands of service or revise their RF objectives. Crown Castle appreciates the ability to invoke the Exception Provision, but to the extent the Exception Provision imposes a second tier of Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 6 2464.109 / 8549574.1 discretionary review, similar to a variance, the Exception Provision may not be sufficient to save this section from preemption under the Telecom Act. (f) Ground Mounted Equipment: A general prohibition on ground-mounted cabinets may result in a prohibition of service, in violation of section 253 and/or section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)(II) of the Telecom Act, especially if no other viable or aesthetically preferable alternative configurations are feasible. This requirement also precludes consideration of designs and formats that may be aesthetically superior in a fact-specific context (e.g., integrated pedestals or faux street furniture). (See Small Cell Order, ¶ 90.) As noted above, the City is replete with existing examples of above-ground utility structures installed in the ROW by such utilities as PG&E. Singling out WCFs to comply with a general ban on ground cabinets violates Section 253(c) as regulations of the ROWs must be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.” (47 U.S.C. § 253(c).) 4. CONCLUSION Crown Castle respectfully requests that the City Council amend the Resolution in accordance with the above comments. Very truly yours, Michael W. Shonafelt MWS cc: Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, Planner, City of Palo Alto (Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org) Albert Yang, Senior Deputy City Attorney, City of Palo Alto ((Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org) Sharon James, Government Relations Manager, Crown Castle Fiber LLC (Sharon.James@crowncastle.com) Joshua Trauner, Esq., Sr. Government Relations Counsel, Crown Castle Fiber LLC (Joshua.Trauner@crowncastle.com) Rochelle Swanson, Government Affairs Manager, Crown Castle Fiber LLC (Rochelle.Swanson@crowncastle.com) Angela McIntyre, Director, Network Real Estate, Crown Castle Fiber LLC (Angela.McIntyre@crowncastle.com) 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Setback and above ground equipment boxes - Cell phones     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Sherryl Casella <orioness@hotmail.com>   Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 1:16 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Setback and above ground equipment boxes ‐ Cell phones    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is not an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home.    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the 2 telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     Also, in project file number 17PLN-00228, Verizon plans to build an equipment box above ground on Emerson, near Lowell. . It's proposed height is 4 1/2 feet and depth is 2 1/2 feet. Please do not allow such an ugly and large piece of equipment in our neighborhood. Surely they could be required to underground equipment in the neighborhoods!    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic standards of Palo Alto. Also, please require that such equipment boxes be placed underground.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,    Sherryl Casella    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Wireless Facility Standards, Right-of-Way - Tonight's Council Agenda Item 14 [Palo Alto] Attachments:Verizon Wireless Letter 12.16.19.pdf     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Paul Albritton <pa@mallp.com>   Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:40 PM  To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy  <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Wireless Facility Standards, Right‐of‐Way ‐ Tonight's Council Agenda Item  14 [Palo Alto]    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, attached please find our letter prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the wireless facility  standards for the right‐of‐way to be considered this evening.  We urge the Council to defer adoption, and direct staff to work with industry on needed revisions.  Thank you.    2 ‐‐   Paul Albritton  Mackenzie & Albritton LLP  155 Sansome Street, Suite 800  San Francisco, California 94104  (415) 288‐4000  pa@mallp.com  MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 December 16, 2019 VIA EMAIL Mayor Eric Filseth Vice Mayor Adrian Fine Council Members Alison Cormack, Tom DuBois , Liz Kniss, Lydia Kou, and Greg Tanaka City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Draft Standards for Wireless Facilities in the Right-of-Way Council Agenda Item 14, December 16, 2019 Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine and Council Members: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the draft Objective Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles (the “Draft Standards”). The Draft Standards impose numerous new location restrictions that would prohibit small cells along most Palo Alto rights-of- way. This contradicts state law granting telephone corporations a statewide right to use any right-of-way, as well as the recent Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) order addressing small cells. The Draft Standards also continue to overlook a typical small cell design with equipment boxes hidden behind a narrow shroud on the side of a utility pole. Over the last decade, Palo Alto has worked with wireless carriers, including Verizon Wireless, to permit discrete small cells on City poles in some residential areas. Instead of entering 2020 raising obstacles to reliable connectivity, the Council should encourage continued expansion and enhancement of wireless service for residents, visitors and workers in this tech-intensive City. We urge the Council to decline adoption of the Draft Standards, and direct staff to make revisions needed to comply with state and federal law. Our comments are as follows. Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Location Restrictions Violate State and Federal Law. The various location restrictions imposed by the Draft Standards would prohibit small cells in broad areas of Palo Alto. The option for an exception to some restrictions does not excuse such unlawful prohibition. Instead, the City should adopt reasonable, objective location preferences. Under the Draft Standards, small cells would be absolutely barred within 20 feet of residences, 300 feet of schools, and on utility poles along many residential frontages termed the “residential zone of exclusion.” Draft Standards, p. 1. Alone or in combination, these restrictions would exclude small cells from all rights-of-way in broad areas, with no exception. That would contradict California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 that grants telephone corporations a statewide right to place their equipment along any right-of-way. Further, those prohibitions contradict the FCC’s recent Infrastructure Order.1 With their small coverage footprints, small cells serve targeted areas. The FCC found that small cells are needed for densifying networks and enhancing existing service. Restrictions that “materially inhibit” these objectives are prohibitive.2 The 20- and 300-foot residence and school buffers also violate the federal Telecommunications Act. Right-of-way facilities pose no more aesthetic or other land use impact near homes or schools than elsewhere. There can be no other reason for these buffers than concern over radio frequency emissions. However, the Telecommunications Act bars local governments from regulating wireless facilities over emissions concerns if facilities are shown to comply with FCC exposure guidelines. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). With facilities permitted in only non-residential zones, a small cell in a residential zone would require an exception, as would facilities within 300 to 600 feet of schools. Draft Standards, pp. 1, 8. The City cannot rely on the exception process to excuse such prohibitive restrictions because it requires applicants to satisfy a vague, quasi-judicial finding that federal and/or state law compel approval. Draft Standards, p. 8. This contradicts the FCC’s Infrastructure Order, which requires that all aesthetic standards for small cells be “reasonable,” “objective,” and, notably, “published in advance.”3 The exception finding is none of these, and it would leave applicants guessing at the outcome of their applications, which the FCC discourages.4 In contrast, clearly-stated, objective aesthetic standards provide clarity for staff and wireless carriers alike. To that end, all small cells should be reviewed under a uniform permit process, with no subjective exception determination required in many cases. 1 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018). 2 Id., ¶¶ 37-40. 3 Id., ¶ 86. 4 Id., ¶ 88. Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Ultimately, the City should ensure that its location and design standards are reasonable and objective at the outset. We have worked with many cities that base their small cell location standards on clear preferences, not prohibitions or exceptions. Though pertinent to the exception process only, the Draft Standards do include one reasonable example of a preference, prioritizing expressways and arterials over collector streets. Draft Standards, pp. 1-2. (However, prioritizing “placement of a WCF most distant from residential property” is inexact and not objective.) We suggest that the City simply prefer commercial, office and manufacturing zones over residential zones or designated historic districts. The City also could prefer major roadways over local streets. For a reasonable, objective scope of review that avoids prohibitive treatment, the City should allow a less-preferred location if there is no preferred alternative within 200 feet along the subject right-of-way that is available and technically feasible. We note that the Draft Standards appear to require use of existing City pole locations, or otherwise new poles to be owned by the City. Draft Standards, p. 7. Though wireless carriers prefer existing infrastructure, Section 7901 grants telephone corporations the right to place, own and maintain their own poles in the right-of-way. The City should work with carriers to develop objective standards for new pole designs. The three-foot clearance from curb cuts may preclude siting in many residential areas. Draft Standards, p. 6. This separation is unnecessary because small cell equipment is always elevated well above motorist and pedestrian sight lines, posing no view obstruction. The Draft Standards Should Better Accommodate Typical Small Cell Equipment on Wood Utility Poles. The Draft Standards include a vague preference for underground equipment over a top-mounted design, with equipment on the side of a pole requiring an exception (and then confined to a “minimal sunshield.”) Draft Standards, pp. 4-5. The FCC determined that undergrounding requirements, similar to aesthetic requirements, must be reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective.5 If strictly applied, the undergrounding preference is unreasonable because small equipment boxes on the side of a pole are not “out-of- character” among typical infrastructure in the right-of-way, particularly on utility poles supporting existing utility equipment.6 The top-mounted and sunshield design options are infeasible because Verizon Wireless cannot fit its required radio units, other network components and mounting hardware into the limited dimensions. In our April 11, 2019 letter to the Council, we proposed a side-mounted equipment design that City staff originally developed in consultation with wireless 5 Id., ¶¶ 86, 90 6 Id., ¶ 88. Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 4 of 5 carriers. This design limits maximum height to less than half that of small cells previously approved in Palo Alto: Side-mounted small cell equipment design (wood utility pole) i) All non-antenna equipment, except electric service connections, shall be contained within a continuous shroud of the smallest volume possible without exceeding the following dimensions: 40” height x 15” width x 12” depth, or 50” height x 13” width x 7” depth. Venting grates or louvers, if necessary, shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. ii) Mounting brackets shall not exceed the width of the shroud, nor exceed the height of the shroud by more than six inches. Mounting brackets shall not extend beyond the minimum required standoff distance of 4 inches. iii) Side mounted equipment shall be oriented to face either of the directions as the flow of traffic on the adjacent street. We encourage the Council to add this streamlined equipment option to the Draft Standards, while eliminating preferences for certain designs that could lead to unfounded denials in contradiction of the Infrastructure Order. One antenna standard requires the “smallest size possible to achieve the coverage objective.” Draft Standards, p. 5. Not only does this lack objectivity, it places the City in the position to dictate the technology used by wireless providers, but that would intrude on the exclusive federal authority over this matter. Federal law preempts local requirements that constrain the type of technology available for wireless carriers. See New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105-106 (2nd Cir. 2010). The “smallest size” standard should be stricken, leaving the antenna dimension restriction of 15 inches in diameter. With respect to landscape screening, tree foliage in close proximity can interfere with signal propagation of new 5G antennas. Draft Standards, p. 7. The requirement to place facilities where trees minimize view of a facility should be qualified, “where technically feasible.” The Draft Standards introduce numerous new location restrictions that violate state or federal law, and they continue to omit the option for typical side-mounted small cell equipment that poses minimal impact. To avoid conflict with wireless carriers seeking to enhance service for Palo Alto residents and workers, the Council should defer adoption of the Draft Standards, and allow staff to work with carriers on needed revisions. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton Palo Alto City Council December 16, 2019 Page 5 of 5 cc: Albert Yang, Esq. Rebecca Atkinson Jodie Gerhardt Garrett Saults 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 12:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Council Agenda: Item #15 on December 16, 2019 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,     Please approve the maps for the development at 4115 El Camino Real. The city has fallen well short of its goal of  approving 300 homes a year, but approving this project will make up some of that shortfall. Furthermore, this project  will maintain commercial space on El Camino, provide one affordable home, and put residents near the most popular  VTA bus route (22/522).    The City and Bay Area desperately need both affordable and market‐rate housing to combat the housing shortage crisis.  Please approve the development proposal.    Thank you,  Ryan Globus  Midtown Resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Wintergery <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 7:01 PM To:ladoris cordell Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  This will get it to all on CC.   I will send u time on agenda. Just show up 20 min before. Put in comment card with clerk right away.   Winter      On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:16 PM, ladoris cordell <ladoris@judgecordell.com> wrote:  I just gave a statement to the Daily Post. I may email the council members (if you have their email addresses, kindly  get them to me). And yes, I’ll arrange to be there Monday, but can’t sit there all night. Any idea when it will be  heard? — ld      On Dec 13, 2019, at 2:32 PM, Wintergery <wintergery@earthlink.net> wrote:    Exactly my thinking.   And here in article it says names would not be used.   Can you speak to this Monday night? Your voice would carry weight given you were an auditor. I will  speak but with much less authority. The PAPD is in a bad enough way, let alone doing this.   W        On Dec 13, 2019, at 1:23 PM, ladoris cordell <ladoris@judgecordell.com> wrote:  Oh, no, is right. The change in the auditor’s contract is not disturbing to me if it has to do strictly  with confidential personnel matters. However, "conflicts between officers” are not personnel  matters when the “conflicts” involve allegations of misconduct such as racism or dishonesty or  excessive force by one officer against another. Investigations into such complaints should be  overseen by the police auditor. Why? If officers are accused of being racist, homophobic, dishonest,  or violent, and if these allegations are sustained, the public needs to know. We have a right to know  if there are  racist or dishonest officers patrolling our streets.  These complaints should be reviewed  by the auditor. The city’s proposal gives cover to officers who could pose a danger to the public. —  ld       On Dec 13, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> wrote:    2 New police auditor contract to exclude internal conflicts within PAPD City Council adds three-year extension with firm OIR Group to its final meeting of the year by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. On Dec. 16, the Palo Alto City Council will consider renewing a contract with the police auditors that excludes reviewing in-house conflicts. Photo by Veronica Weber. In its final meeting of the year, the Palo Alto City Council is preparing to approve a new contract with the city's independent police auditors that explicitly excludes investigations of conflicts between officers. The council's consideration of the new contract was added to its Dec. 16 agenda on Thursday night, as part of a revised agenda for the meeting. The agenda was initially published on Dec. 5 and did not include that item. It also did not initially include proposed raises for City Attorney Molly Stump and City Clerk Beth Minor or a $4 million contribution from the city to help City Manager Ed Shikada buy a home within Palo Alto. The three contract amendments were similarly placed on the agenda on Thursday night. The council's proposed $75,000 contract with the firm OIR Group would extend the agreement with the police auditors for three years. The two auditors, Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly, have been providing independent reviews of the Palo Alto Police Department's internal affairs investigations since 2006. They investigate every case of use of force and all citizen complaints against department officers, though they don't name officers. The new contract will also clarify for the first time that the auditor will not look at police activities that do not involve members of the public. A report from the City Auditor's Office notes that a question arose this year regarding whether the auditors should review these types of cases. "This type of matter could include complaints by PAPD personnel with respect to their supervisors or co-workers regarding unfair or 3 discriminatory treatment in areas such as assignments, overtime, training promotion or interpersonal conduct," the report states. Rather than have an independent auditor look into these cases, the city decided that the function should be performed by the Human Resources Department and barred from public disclosure. The decision to reconsider the city's policy on internal investigations was made shortly after the Palo Alto Daily Post reported in May on allegations that police Capt. Zach Perron used a racial slur in 2014 when talking to another officer. That officer, Marcus Barbour, has since left the Palo Alto Police Department and joined the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. The OIR Group was reportedly reviewing the case. When asked about the 2014 incident, Palo Alto's Chief Communications Officer Meghan Horrigan-Taylor said the city cannot comment on personnel matters. The recommended contract, she said, "confirms and clarifies the longstanding traditional scope of IPA review of PD internal affairs investigations and deployment of a taser device." "The City Manager, Chief of Police and police auditor have had discussions over the past few months over whether the auditor's scope of work should expand to include personnel matters, and a decision has been reached to continue the status quo," Horrigan-Taylor said, notwithstanding the fact that the new contract now contains a section excluding internal personnel matters. In explaining its reason for excluding internal personnel matters from audits, the City Attorney's Office cited an interest in "protecting the privacy of sworn personnel so that these employees can do their work without concern about risk or intrusions into the personal and family affairs," despite the fact that the audits don't name the officers whose conduct they are reviewing. "In addition, the City has an obligation to maintain a confidential human resources system, so that employees feel safe coming forward to make complaints or to provide information in an investigation that involves their co-workers or supervisors." In addition to approving the new contract, the council also plans to approve a 5% raise for Stump, bringing her salary to $313,414, and a 4.25% raise for Minor, bringing her salary to $159,182. It also plans to provide a $3 million contribution and a $1 million loan to City Manager Ed Shikada to help him buy a house in Palo Alto. 4 Shikada's contract with the city requires him to make his primary residence in Palo Alto "within a reasonable period of time." The contract doesn't spell out the city's obligation to help pay for his home but states that "the amount of the City contribution and any contribution from Shikada, the method of financing, and other elements of a purchase transaction will be determined through good faith negotiations and mutual agreement."     1 Brettle, Jessica From:michael nierenberg <nierenberg@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:More police secrecy?! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  There is already too much locally and nationally. I cannot believe you are even considering this. Is replacement of the City Manager with a dictator on the next month's agenda? Michael Nierenberg _____________________________________________________This e-mail message and any attachment(s) transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.Thank you... 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 1:24 PM To:Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach Subject:regarding keeping Police internal complaints from the public CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Council:   https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/12/13/new‐police‐auditor‐contract‐to‐exclude‐internal‐conflicts‐within‐ palo‐alto‐police‐department    I was distressed to read the above article, which implies that the Council may endorse hiding important information  from the public about public employee conduct.      Can public employees have an expectation of privacy at their public sector work?  Aren't they employed in the public  sector via our tax dollars, such that we, the public, are financing their employment?  Yet important information should  be hidden from us?  Wouldn't information about this conduct inform both the Council and the public should concerns  arise?  Given the expensive recent settlement in a PAPD, $572,000, wouldn't it behoove the City Council and public to be  privy to all information possible on police conduct?    Could not other conflicts become construed as internal ones such that they can be hidden from public view if the Council  does approve this provision?    Please reject this proposal and show a true commitment to transparency in our City government.     Thank you for listening.     Best,    Kathy Jordan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 2:58 PM To:Stump, Molly; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; Lunt, Kimberly Subject:City foot dragging -Daily Post Dec 16, 2019 -by Aram James CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    >    2 >   >   > Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 3:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Police Accountability 121619o CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Nobody is above the law, not the president nor the Palo Alto Police. Keep police transparency. Everyone will benefit. Rich Stiebel 840 Talisman Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 1:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach Subject:The Daily Post: Council set to raise city attorney’s pay and lend $4 million for city manager’s house CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The Daily Post: Council set to raise city attorney’s pay and lend $4 million for city manager’s house.  https://padailypost.com/2019/12/15/council‐set‐to‐raise‐city‐attorneys‐pay‐and‐lend‐4‐million‐for‐city‐managers‐ house/      To the City Council:     This was unwelcome news to read about how our taxpayer dollars may be spent. If this reporting is correct, please  reverse course.     Sensible taxpayers would want all available dollars dedicated to paying off the City's $455 million in unfunded pension  liabilities, rather than lavishing unnecessary expenditures on already highly paid public employees.  $356,000/year is  a very generous salary, even here in Palo Alto, and for others, is sufficient to take care of one's own housing needs.  The  median income for a household in Santa Clara County is $119,000.     Additional salary raises for employees in the face of these continuing unfunded pension liabilities shows a lack of financial discipline and prudence, if the Council does plan to go forward with them.     Please be respectful of our hard earned tax dollars and reverse this reported course.    Thank you so much for listening.    Best,    Kathy Jordan      1 Brettle, Jessica From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:24 AM To:Council, City Cc:Nose, Kiely; Paras, Christine; Flaherty, Michelle; Shikada, Ed Subject:Comments on staff and consultant report for the Dec 17 Finance Committee Meeting Attachments:December 17, 2019 Finance Committee Meeting.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 1 CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 385 HOMER AVENUE • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: December 13, 2019 TO: Finance Committee and Council FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Review of staff and Matrix report I have reviewed the staff report and attached Matrix report. I believe the description of key choice items with regard to the structure of taxes and the rough estimates of revenue are reasonable. My comments below are an attempt to clarify data and other issues and do not contradict the staff and Matrix reporting. I have some general comments at the end of the memo around competitiveness issues and what will be on the November 2020 ballot. Data Issues Collection of data has two components—1) compiling a list of the entities subject to tax and 2) collecting the data whether it is head count, square footage or parcel tax. The city’s consultant has raised issues concerning data collection and I add a few below. Since this is not often discussed, I want to emphasize that the administrative burden, time involved and credibility of the process depend on credible data strategies and these can affect the choice of tax base. Head Count The California Employment Development Department data (EDD) compiled and analyzed by staff and Matrix present information on a) the total number of employees and wages by industry sector and the number of establishments by size class by industry. They are compiled by EDD from quarterly tax reporting files submitted by employers. They will be available for future time periods as well. BUT EDD will not provide this data or identify individual employers. 2 That means that estimates of head count will come from contacting employers. Outside vendors do not have a magic source for this data that is better than what the firms report. I was surprised that Matrix did not get specific information on how cities basing taxes on head count got their estimates. Saying cities used various methods is not the same as contacting a city and finding out exactly how they compiled a list of employers or got the head count data. The data reported to EDD is self-reported so I do not see a problem with using head count data reported to the city by employers. The data collected by EDD is for employees (part and full time). Contract workers are reported by the staffing firms at their location and not by the place where they actually work. I am concerned about how the city will get a list of employers. I know there was underreporting in the business registry effort and I know the Chamber has issues with maintaining a complete list. I am suspicious about using vendor lists. Moreover, I am unsure of the time involved in compiling a list. The choice of exemptions can potentially minimize the list compilation challenges. InfoGroup Data versus EDD I would disregard (as Matrix did in their revenue estimates) head count data from InfoGroup. InfoGroup reported nearly 6,000 businesses but only roughly 75,000 employees. EDD reported just over 100,000 employees but only a little over 4,000 establishments. The InfoGroup data is suspect in my opinion, not needed and not available in the same level of detail as the EDD data with regard to head count. In terms of a list of employers I am unsure how to merge the registry, InfoGroup list and any assistance from the Chamber but I would not minimize the challenge of compiling a complete list Square Footage Staff indicates that a square footage tax would be based on the square footage of each business and would be assessed on the business not the property owner. This makes sense since the idea is to collect revenue from businesses. In other parts of the analysis staff and Matrix consider a parcel tax, which is a tax on the property owner. Often the property owner is not the business occupant of space so the distinction is important. 3 Staff identifies one of the challenges using this method. Take my office for example. My direct office space is small. But the building has excellent and spacious common areas. I use the conference room often. I am sure there are many building with multiple tenants and common space. I wonder how common space can be allocated to tenants and without encountering numerous disputes. I believe as the staff report indicates that it is possible to get square footage for buildings but that is not by business. The square footage approach also has the how we get a list of employers/businesses challenge. Parcel Tax I am not sure if this is still under consideration. Besides the fact that this is a property tax not a business tax and there will likely be another commercial property tax proposal on the ballot. My main takeaway is that the parcel tax rates in the Matrix analysis look way higher than what I think is the highest parcel tax around, our school parcel tax. At a minimum staff or Matrix should provide the committee and council with a list of the largest parcel taxes in the region. General Comments Two Business Taxes Could be on the Ballot The split roll tax is likely to be on the Nov. 2020 ballot unless it is replaced by a compromise from the legislature. And PA may put a business tax on the ballot. The split roll tax would provide revenue to the city from larger businesses. I have two thoughts—1) council should obtain an estimate of how much business tax revenue to the city will the split roll tax provide—I am sure it will come up in discussion and 2) as a resident I would prefer the PA business tax if it were comparable to other jurisdictions as it spreads the revenue collection more broadly and will take account of size and type of industry. In any event if there is a second business tax on the ballot, council should take this into account. Economic Competitiveness and Comparability Issues 4 The staff and Matrix report do a good job of laying out how achieving more than 2% of GF revenue will require rates in excess, often far in excess, of neighboring jurisdictions. I think this is an important issue for discussion. I am not a real estate expert but when I walk around downtown, I see a lot more vacancies than previously despite the Valley’s high growth rate. The office where I work has an empty office for the first time in the six years I have been there— now going on four months. And there is a vacant condo office where I live, again for the first time that I can remember. I hear stories about companies leaving space and landlords subsidizing some small businesses. I wonder if staff or Matrix can confirm whether this is unusual or a potential indicator of trouble in our local market. I am sure council will hear stakeholders tell varying stories—from PA is immune from market forces as a result of our “name” to the sky is falling and businesses are leaving in droves. I wish there were a way for an independent assessment of which position is right or where in the middle reality falls. Deciding on Exemptions From an economist’s perspective there are two issues. Exemptions can relate to supporting particular sectors either to encourage their growth or because you feel the burden would be too high. The committee has identified some sectors for consideration on these grounds. But council may wish to identify exemptions because the administrative cost and difficulty of collecting the revenue is too high. I could think of single person firms or home based businesses. Council should consult with staff on the administrative difficulty of identifying some businesses and collecting the revenue. The Matrix report covers this a bit. This is particularly true if council selects rate tiers where small firms pay very little. OFFICERS President Pam Weipert Compliance Officer Oakland County, MI President Elect Larry Stafford Audit Services Manager Clark County, WA Secretary Chris Horton County Auditor Arlington, VA Treasurer Justin Anderson Senior Management Auditor King County, WA Past President Kristine Adams-Wannberg Senior Management Auditor Portland, OR BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE Lisa Callas Audit Coordinator Edmonton, AB Andrew Keegan Assistant City Auditor Austin, TX Lisa Monteiro Senior Management Auditor Anaheim, CA Carolyn Smith Chief Audit Executive Columbus City Schools, OH MEMBER SERVICES 449 Lewis Hargett Circle Suite 290 Lexington, KY 40503 Phone: (859) 276-0686 Fax: (859) 278-0507 www.algaonline.org Association of Local Government Auditors December 19, 2019 Members of the Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 The Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA) became aware that a Palo Alto City Council Committee will discuss the consultant report, “Internal Audit Practices: City of Palo Alto Relative to Industry Standards” today. We are writing to express our concerns about the report and to provide additional information that we believe will be useful in the committee’s and Council’s discussions related to the Palo Alto City Auditor’s Office. A government auditing function independent of management and operating under Government Auditing Standards plays a key role in effective governance, public accountability, and transparency. The Palo Alto City Auditor’s Office is established as an independent government audit function with the city auditor appointed by and reporting to the City Council.1 The office is also required to follow Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) in conducting its work.2 The office conducts audits in accordance with these standards and has successfully undergone required external peer reviews. The opinions from the last two peer reviews (2014 and 2017) found the internal quality control system of the Palo Alto City Auditor’s Office was suitably designed and operating effectively to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with Government Auditing Standards. The consultant’s recommendations would weaken the existing structure. The consultant’s report relies on internal auditing standards and guidance that are more oriented towards the private sector rather than the Government Auditing Standards that are used in Palo Alto and relevant for government auditing. The report also focuses on “internal audit” however, under Government Auditing Standards the Palo Alto City Auditor’s Office is an “external audit” function, which further protects and enhances its independence. Government Auditing Standards (2018 Revision) 3.52 The ability of an audit organization structurally located in a government entity to perform work and report the results objectively can be affected by its placement within the government entity and the structure of the government entity being audited. The independence standard applies to auditors in both external audit organizations (reporting to third parties externally or to both internal and external parties) and internal audit organizations (reporting only to senior management within the audited entity). Such audit organizations are often subject to constitutional or statutory safeguards that mitigate the effects of structural threats to independence. 3.53 For external audit organizations, constitutional or statutory safeguards that mitigate the effects of structural threats to independence may include governmental structures under which a government audit organization is: b. placed within a different branch of government from that of the audited entity—for example, legislative auditors auditing an executive branch program. 3.54 Safeguards other than those described in paragraph 3.53 may mitigate threats resulting from governmental structures. For external audit organizations, structural threats may be mitigated if the head of the audit organization meets any of the following criteria in accordance with constitutional or statutory requirements: b. elected or appointed by a legislative body, subject to removal by a legislative body, and reporting the results of engagements to and accountable to a legislative body; 1 Palo Alto Charter Sec. 1. 2 Palo Alto Municipal Code 2.08.130(4)(b). The city auditor works for the Council and audits management. The charter and ballot language establishing the city auditor created a position and office that is independent of management to provide elected officials and the public with information. Independence is a requirement under Government Auditing Standards. Government Auditing Standards (2018 Revision) 3.18 In all matters relating to the GAGAS engagement, auditors and audit organizations must be independent from an audited entity. The consultant’s recommendation, based on IIA guidance, that the city auditor report to the city manager in an administrative manner is a significant structural threat to the independence of the City Auditor’s Office and not appropriate for an external government audit function. Some of the administrative reporting examples outlined by the consultant could result in management inappropriately exerting control over audit work. The Council can exercise functional and administrative oversight of the city auditor and City Auditor’s Office as a body and/or through an Audit Committee that does not include anyone from management. ALGA has developed Audit Committee Guidance that describes the importance of an audit committee, how it should be structured, and the responsibilities of the committee. The consultant also recommended the city auditor provide management with advisory/consulting services as well as track this as a performance measure. Advisory/consulting services can create threats to independence, even to the point that the city auditor could not audit programs and activities for which advisory/consulting services were performed. The Government Auditing Standards outline processes for conducting nonaudit services that could be provided to management and identifies safeguards to protect the office’s independence. However, providing nonaudit services to management reduces the amount work the city auditor and City Auditor’s Office can conduct for the Council. The consultant listed and recommended a number of measures to evaluate the performance of an audit office. ALGA has also developed Performance Measures for Audit Organizations to provide examples of performance measures that can be used to evaluate a government audit office. Palo Alto Municipal Code notes that the city auditor shall be a licensed CPA or CIA; the consultant report notes this as a preference and recommends a set of minimum qualifications. ALGA’s Model Legislation also outlines qualifications/competencies the Council may want to review. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or would like additional resources. You can reach our committee’s Senior California advisor Ann-Marie Hogan (recently retired City Auditor of Berkeley, California), at amhogan@pacbell.net. You can contact me at (816) 513-3303 or douglas.jones@kcmo.org. Sincerely, Douglas Jones, CGAP, CIA, CRMA City Auditor, Kansas City, Missouri Chair, ALGA Advocacy Committee cc: Pam Weipert, ALGA President 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 1:13 PM To:Stump, Molly; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Dave Price Subject:From the archives of Aram James (2014) —see comments re Richmond Newspapers v Virginia (1980). And ask yourselves why transparency re all matters involving our police and criminal justice system are so critical to a working democracy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2014/12/02/darren‐wilson‐walks‐begging‐question‐will‐ cops‐ever‐be‐held‐account    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Click My Cause <reports@clickmycause.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 5:34 PM To:reports@clickmycause.com Subject:Comments supporting maximizing cell tower setbacks Attachments:Comments supporting maximizing cell tower setbacks (2019-12-17_76).txt CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  *** 5 constituents want you to know their views regarding Cell Tower Set Backs ***     December 17, 2019     Hello,     Attached please find new messages to you from your constituents regarding this  issue.  Each message includes the constituent’s name, street address, and email address.    Forwarded on behalf of Palo Alto Council of PTAs by Click My Cause       Click My Cause ‐ Empowering positive social impact since 2016     2019-12-17Report on Cell Tower Set Backs5 responding constituents------------------------------------------------------------------Nancy Krop, nkrop@clickmycause.com3790 El Camino Real, No 201, Palo Alto, CA 94306The Palo Alto PTA Council, representing all 17 schools in Palo Alto, approved a resolution advocating for "risk reduction" policies regarding our students' exposure to cell towers, including cell tower setbacks. This resolution matches the state PTA position on this issue. I too support cell tower setback "risk reduction" policies. When you update the Palo Alto Wireless Policy, please keep our concerns in mind. Please maximize the setbacks. PAUSD school board recommends 1500 foot set backs. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------Jeanne Fleming, jfleming@metricus.net2070 Webster, Palo Alto, CA 94301The Palo Alto PTA Council, representing all 17 schools in Palo Alto, approved a resolution advocating for "risk reduction" policies regarding our students' exposure to cell towers, including cell tower setbacks. This resolution matches the state PTA position on this issue. I too support cell tower setback "risk reduction" policies. When you update the Palo Alto Wireless Policy, please keep our concerns in mind. ------------------------------------------------------------------Indira Selvakumaraswamy, ipriyadarsani@gmail.com838 University Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301The Palo Alto PTA Council, representing all 17 schools in Palo Alto, approved a resolution advocating for "risk reduction" policies regarding our students' exposure to cell towers, including cell tower setbacks. This resolution matches the state PTA position on this issue. I too support cell tower setback "risk reduction" policies. When you update the Palo Alto Wireless Policy, please keep our concerns in mind. ------------------------------------------------------------------Ann DeHovitz, rossde@aol.com853 Sharon Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94301The Palo Alto PTA Council, representing all 17 schools in Palo Alto, approved a resolution advocating for "risk reduction" policies regarding our students' exposure to cell towers, including cell tower setbacks. This resolution matches the state PTA position on this issue. I too support cell tower setback "risk reduction" policies. When you update the Palo Alto Wireless Policy, please keep our concerns in mind. ------------------------------------------------------------------C. Schmidt, cmschmidt.cac@gmail.com765 San Antonio Road #62, Palo Alto, CA 94303The Palo Alto PTA Council, representing all 17 schools in Palo Alto, approved a resolution advocating for "risk reduction" policies regarding our students' exposure to cell towers, including cell tower setbacks. This resolution matches the state PTA position on this issue. I too support cell tower setback "risk reduction" policies. When you update the Palo Alto Wireless Policy, please keep our concerns in mind. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:William Riggs <billy.riggs@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Chair's Memo Attachments:Chair's Memo.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    William Riggs   PhD, AICP, LEED AP  510.205.5944    Begin forwarded message:  From: "Nguyen, Vinhloc" <Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Date: December 12, 2019 at 15:51:13 PST  To: William Riggs <billy.riggs@gmail.com>  Cc: "Tanner, Rachael" <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Chair's Memo     Good afternoon Billy,     Attached is your signed letter for City Council. Please forward it to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org and it  will be included as Public Comment. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.     Kind regards,          Vinh Nguyen | Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301  P: 650.329.2218 | E: Vinhloc.Nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org        December 10,2019 Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members: Each year is customary that the Chair of the Planning &Transportation Commission (Commission)issues a report to the City Council (Council),serving to update on the actions and activities of the Commission over the past year,and highlighting some potential visions and next steps for the coming year.This letter serves that purpose.It begins with an update on the goals of the year,follows with a summary of highlights of the Commission’s actions and activities during 2019,and concludes with potential visions for 2020. 2019 Goals While the Commission cannot set goals,agenda,or schedule,we began the year with a strong consensus among the members that we wanted to be action oriented.We had deeply invested in the 2018 Housing Work Plan and policies such as the Housing Incentive Program in 2018,and all wanted to see action, particularly in helping address acute affordable housing issues facing our community. We began the year with a retreat,which included a team building session with a group facilitator,followed by a dialogue regarding our interests.We developed topics for inquiry that we wanted to educate ourselves and the public on—potentially offering the opportunity to explore and experiment with unique solutions in the City.Key questions at that point spanned the topics of housing and transport and included: Housing •How do we bring funding,resources,and information for affordable housing to the table? •What are outreach efforts to get more affordable housing projects in the pipeline? •Should we begin a dialogue regarding a policy for employer-provided housing for City employees? •What are best practices in incentivizing approved projects to break ground? Transportation •What is our comprehensive off-street /on-street parking strategy?What can we do to better understand parking dynamics,information as well as auto ownership?How can we innovate in this area? •Should we have policy to manage cut-through traffic and curbside pick-up and drop off? •What kind of new mobility should Palo Alto be pursuing?Why have we not engaged in a micro- mobility or self-driving shuttle pilot?What are the obstacles? 2019 Accomplishments We reviewed a number of important projects throughout the year.Our review included review of development proposals,transportation plans,program and policy initiatives.These Included the following notable projects: •Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan •Cubberley Master Plan •Mercedes/Audi Dealership •Newell Bridge Replacement •Capital Improvement Plan •Comprehensive Plan Compliance and implementation of Comprehensive Plan EIR mitigation measures Assigning Affordable Housing combining District to El Camino Real property The Commission reviewed and recommended ordinances related to promoting housing opportunities in multi-family and commercial zones,rooftop decks in the CD-C zone,zoning amendments to enable hotel and multi-family housing,non-complying facilities,wireless communication facilities,and subdivisions in the R-1 zone related to historic preservation. The Commission conducted a public scoping meeting allowing comments for Environmental Review of a mixed-use project on San Antonio Road using a Housing Incentive Program,and reviewed and commented on the Draft EIR for the Castilleja School Project. The Commission reviewed and commented on the City’s transportation and parking management strategies,on traffic safety projects and residential parking programs,parking innovations,and plans to address conflict between ADA and electric vehicle charging stations and bike lockers. The Commission also reviewed and commented on several subdivision maps and a fence variance. We remained efficient in our meetings and worked to integrate two Commission-requested study sessions to educate ourselves and the public on innovations in planning and transportation.These included informational talks by innovators that related to the questions we posed during our retreat: •Shoup Parking Technology Study Session:Chair Riggs and Vice Chair Alcheck Have Invited Evan Goldin to Make a Presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission fPTC)Regarding his Experience with Innovative Parking Strategies.The presentation and discussion included new technologies to allow changes in parking usage,allocation and management.Evan Goldin is a Palo Alto native and Cofounder of Shoup Inc. •Cohousing and Coliving Study Session:A Study Session Regarding Cohousing and Coliving With Presentations from Cohousing and/or Coliving Owners and/or Operators in the Bay Area,and Commissioner Discussion and Questions.StarCity and Bungalow are coliving startups founded in San Francisco that have expanded to other communities.Presenters from StarCity included Jon Dishotsky,CEO &Cofounder,and Eli Sokol,Senior Development Manager.Presenters from Bungalow included Bryan Connolly,Head of Field Operations,Alex Canedo,Bay Area General Manager,and Ali Nichols,Head of Strategic Initiatives. Vision for 2020 Given this platform,looking toward 2020 I believe there is opportunity to continue educating the commission and public about best-practices in planning and transportation.There is also a distinct opportunity to begin applying some of these ideas through micro-experiments.During our 2019 retreat the idea was floated about giving Commission a budget to begin experimenting with some of these innovations.In this light,there are a handful of small things we could begin to experiment with in 2020, that could inform the future of how we deal with housing and transportation in our city. •Employer-Supported Housing Dialogue and Partnership:First,I believe the City could initiate dialogue with employers about housing through the Commission as an active way to encourage unit production by and for local companies.This could include private companies who might be interested in partnering to build workforce housing.This could include housing for public employees and teachers with families who do not qualify for affordable housing.Public-private or public-public partnerships could lead to untapped production in this space. •Parking Pricing Experimentation:The Commission has long-standing interest in discussing parking and wayfinding.While we have not yet had a window in to this topic,there is an opportunity to do micro-pricing experiments in the context of the Residential Parking Programs.For example, exploring if a small amount of daily paid parking issued via barcodes printed at home could help understand the market for parking in areas of acute impact and perceived need downtown and near California Avenue CalTrain areas.If such a program were successful it could provide another way of relieving neighborhoods than RPP while bringing in revenue to the city. •Travel Behavior Experimentation:Similarly to parking,the City could begin to take some different approaches to travel demand management and transportation programs.In light of this,Ibelieve a paid cycling or walking program that used financial and social incentives to nudge sustainable travel could have great efficacy in our City.Some of my own research suggests,that people respond to financial rewards encouraging them to travel sustainably but also are very averse to losing those benefits floss aversion theory).A micro-pilot of this kind of program for desired travel.Likewise an electric-bike or electric-scooter rebate program could be equally powerful at encouraging individuals to drive less.It would be unique if the City could begin running such experiments as a prototype for future policy. While these ideas are my own,the Commission will work to define more precise goals over the first month of 2020.I do believe the ideas expressed reflect the energy and urgency that all of us share for tackling challenging issues and finding innovative solutions in our community.We want to see action and want to be tasked with helping move our community to be more economically,environmentally,and socially sustainable than it already is. I know Ican speak for all of us in thanking you for the opportunity to serve. Best Regards, William fBiIIy)Riggs 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Katherine Warner <ktwarner14@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; board@pausd.org; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Subject:Concerns re: Wireless Resolution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I would have been at the meeting yesterday, December 16th to express my concerns in person, but was without  childcare. I am writing in lieu of attending to express my deepest concerns.    I have recently learned that City Staff are asking for approval of a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a  provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average  car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home?    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s  wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents.  But the proposed 20 foot setback does the  opposite of serving residents’ interests.  It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and  potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.    It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that  residents want.  One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants  the cell tower applicant an “exception.”  But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an  exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their  homes.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback.  Please establish instead a no‐exceptions 100 foot setback.  One hundred feet  is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic  standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.    Please also take time to educate yourselves on the dangers of 5G. Countless countries have halted roll out of 5G to first  gather more research and data as scientists urgently share and warn us about the many health related dangers.    Yours truly,    Katherine Warner, M.A., LMFT  www.kwmft.com  www.couplesinstitute.com  650‐308‐4491  1 Brettle, Jessica From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 3:18 PM To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Aram James; Supervisor Simitian; Chavez, Cindy; Cortese, Dave; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Wasserman, Mike; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Carol@silverlaw.biz; RA@alexanderlaw.com; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew Subject:Cover story for the Metro Silicon Valley | Sex, Booze, and Downtown Streets Team's Toxic Culture CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        The Metro piece is scary and shows great disregard for Public Trust !!     On numerous occasions, I have commented to my community Church leaders re Eileen and Chris Richardson's mismanagement of our downtown Palo Alto Food Closet. Downtown Streets Team has proven themselves incapable of managing the Food Closet. It would be more than appropriate for our local Churches to step in and reclaim this invaluable resource.    Respectfully,  -Danielle Martell  ----------------------------------------------  Palo Alto Community Advocate  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com          Downtown Streets Team Faces Claims of Hard-Partying Work Culture, Gender Discrimination By Jennifer Wadsworth @jennwadsworth/ December 11, 201936  2 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Zia MacWilliams left Downtown Streets Team after four years because of what she describes as a toxic culture that promoted heavy drinking and tolerated harassment and gender-based pay discrimination. (Photo by Greg Ramar) To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   As with many of the Downtown Streets Team staff functions, attendees say the liquor flowed freely during the 2014 holiday party at the non-profit group’s San Jose headquarters on The Alameda. A young female staffer hired a month prior recalls mingling with colleagues by the receptionist’s desk when Eileen Richardson, the homeless services provider’s CEO, walked up to join her. “Out of nowhere,” the employee recalls, the non-profit executive asked, “So, you’re a lesbian?” “We were standing at the front desk chatting, tipsy on wine, and talking about how I liked the job so far,” the newcomer, who requested anonymity to protect future job prospects, later wrote about the encounter. The woman says she laughed at the prying question but answered affirmatively. Richardson then inquired about her relationship status and physical preferences before waxing poetic about feminine beauty, the ex-employee says. “OK, so what’s your type?” she says she asked Richardson, who “suddenly got serious and sultry-eyed, leaned in and said, ‘Well, you are.’” The night grew “increasingly strange” as guests helped themselves to boxed wine and spiked punch, did keg stands—that is, hand-standing on a keg to guzzle as much 3 beer as possible—and took swigs of hard liquor, according to the woman, who says she drank so much that she threw up in the office toilet. All the while, she says, an “incredibly drunk” Richardson followed her around and “had her arm around me and kept telling my friends to go ahead and leave.” The staffer says her employer began “brushing my hair back from my face, snuggling her head into my neck” as onlookers shot worried looks at the pair. Those same concerned co-workers eventually laid her down on the floor in the office of Richardson’s son, Director of Program Operations Chris Richardson, where the employee remembers waking up at one point to see her boss beside her “staring lovingly at me.” One of the colleagues who witnessed the evening’s uncomfortably intimate conclusion “checked in with me often in the next few weeks” over Richardson’s “obvious coming on to me,” the employee says. Others found humor in the escapade. “Several other staff joked about Eileen having a crush on me, and there was a rumor that she’d kissed me,” the employee says. “If she did that night, I don’t recall.” A couple months later, the employee says she attended a Super Bowl party at Chris Richardson’s home, at which Eileen Richardson invited her to have a beer and view a photo album at her adjacent residence, where she followed her and “kissed me in the doorway of the bathroom.” ‘A Frat House’ As Silicon Valley’s homeless population ballooned amid an unprecedented affordability crisis over the past decade, Downtown Streets Team (DST) emerged as one of the most prominent local organizations trying to lift people out of poverty. By 2012 it had garnered commendations from then-San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo, counted Palo Alto’s top cop as a board member and received nearly $400,000, about 40 percent of its budget, from direct government support. In 2013, the non-profit expanded into the North Bay, landing contracts with the cities of San Rafael and Novato; in 2016, it launched a team in San Francisco and a year later in Santa Cruz. Behind the do-good mission of employing the unhoused, however, a toxic workplace culture festered for years, according to a dozen former staffers. 4 In letters prepared by attorneys and echoed in reviews on job-rating platform Glassdoor.com, ex-employees accuse both Eileen, 58, and her son Chris, 33, of sexual harassment, making lewd comments, paying women less than men for similar work and promoting a culture of heavy drinking. Employees have described the workplace as “toxic,” “a frat house,” “full of nepotism and favoritism,” “a joke” and “managed as a high school popularity contest.” Multiple people compared working at Streets Team to being in an abusive relationship. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Eileen Richardson (left) with one of her managers at DST's 2015 holiday party. (Photo via Facebook) One of the most recent Glassdoor reviews, dated Oct. 29, reads: “Leaders (exec staff and directors) model inappropriate behavior for a non-profit of this caliber: yelling and using profanities at meetings, talking poorly about nonprofits doing similarly important work, engaging in excessive drinking with staff.” Yet sources say that reporting misconduct proved difficult because of close friendships between the Richardsons, their strategically appointed board of directors and other managers, including Chief Operating Officer Elfedra Strydom, who until earlier this year fielded all personnel concerns. In all, San Jose Inside interviewed more than a dozen former employees who allege harassment, sexual assault and discrimination at DST. Two of those ex-staffers are coming forward publicly with their claims for the first time, comparing the problems at DST with those that prompted the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in 2018 to oust its top fundraiser, Mari Ellen Loijens, amid allegations of emotional abuse, discrimination and sexual impropriety. “Things got really, really bad,” says 34-year-old Zia MacWilliams, a DST program manager who left the non-profit in 2017 after four progressively stressful years on 5 the job. “I honestly believe in the mission and loved working with my clients, but internally it was just out of control.” Michelle Fox Wiles, 29, says she cut ties with DST for much the same reason. “There was a really sexually charged environment,” she says. “One comment that really upset me—and this was right after I started working there in 2012—was when a manager said I got my job because the girl before me was ‘so hot’ that they didn’t want to work with her because she’d be a distraction. Chris said it. So, there was that constant of gender-based harassment, plus the nonstop drinking.” Both MacWilliams and Wiles also accuse DST of perpetuating a pay gap that privileged their male counterparts. After defecting from DST a little more than two years ago, MacWilliams teamed up with Wiles and nine of their ex-colleagues to pursue legal recourse. The non-profit Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) took the case and offered the DST board a chance to resolve the allegations out of court. “In some ways, it is unusual for our organization to investigate the workplace culture at a fellow non-profit,” CLSEPA attorney Scott Hochberg wrote in an October 2017 letter to DST’s governing board. “What is motivating us to reach a positive outcome in this case is our belief that we as non-profit staff must embody justice and quality internally before we can reflect it out into the world through our work.” It took a year and a month before the DST board agreed to hire the Law Offices of Amy Oppenheimer—a firm one CLSEPA attorney described as “well-known in the workers’ rights arena”—to investigate the allegations. The probe, which commenced in late 2018 and concluded in July of this year, “substantiated a culture of drinking and inappropriate joking in the workplace,” according to an Aug. 28 letter from CLSEPA attorney Jennifer Smith to the 11 claimants. “The board seems to be genuinely concerned about the work environment that was described,” she wrote, “although … they believe that things are better now than they were three to five years ago.” While the board insists that the probe found no proof of gender-based pay gap, Smith said in her letter that trustees expressed a desire to “see changes made.” One of the most significant changes, Smith went on to write, is that DST ramped up its reporting system by allowing employees to complain to the board directly and created a human resources position for the first time in the organization’s 14-year 6 history. The board also conceded that alcohol “has been an issue,” Smith said, and instituted a “total prohibition.” Richardson says she never read any of the Glassdoor reviews and is only vaguely aware of the CLSEPA negotiation. But she denies there were ever any problems with DST’s work environment. “Those claims,” she says, “were unfounded.” A Bold Vision A successful venture capitalist who gained global notoriety on the cusp of the 21st century as the CEO of the groundbreaking but controversial music-file-sharing platform Napster, Richardson brought the same change-the-world ethos to the charitable sector. Inspired by volunteering at a local soup kitchen after her son Chris left for college, the inveterate visionary founded Downtown Streets Team in 2005 with the resolve to end homelessness through job training and placement. Under the DST model, local governments and business associations hire a team of homeless people to clean up streets in exchange for gift cards and case management. On its website, DST says its homeless clients, to date, have cleaned up 4,000 tons of debris from waterways that flow into the San Francisco Bay and 1.9 million cigarette butts. Since its founding, the non-profit says it has also helped nearly 1,000 clients find jobs with average hourly wages of $14.12 and just about as many secure housing. DST’s “win-win-win” system of hiring the homeless, cleaning up trash and benefiting the broader community won renewed acclaim for the elder Richardson. Since its inception, DST has blossomed from a cash-strapped experiment in Palo Alto to a burgeoning enterprise spanning a dozen cities in two states with an $8 million annual budget. Richardson—who makes upward of $200,000 in base pay as president and CEO of DST and an affiliated non-profit clinic called Peninsula Healthcare Connection—has racked up numerous accolades for her non-profit work. The San Francisco Chronicle named her a recipient of the Visionary Award earlier this year thanks to nominations from, among other dignitaries, Liccardo and his counterpart in Oakland, Mayor Libby Schaaf. “The honor salutes leaders who strive to make the world a better place and drive social and economic change by employing new, innovative business models and practices,” the Chron wrote about the distinction. The New York Times gave her a similar honor a year prior. Also in 2018, the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties’ Joint Homeless 7 Task Force recognized DST’s model as a “best practice” for supporting homeless people. In the conference room at DST’s main office, amid commendations from elected officials and chambers of commerce, there’s a shiny blue plaque designating DST as one of the “best non-profits to work for.” In a blog post a few years back, Richardson credited her success for running her charitable enterprise the only way she knows how: “like a high-tech startup rather than a social service—action-oriented versus service-oriented.” To that end, she said, “we improvised, tried new ideas and constantly corrected our course.” That constant course correction may guide the non-profit’s growth-focused public mission, but sources tell San Jose Inside that it elided internal mismanagement, which exposed employees to workplace abuses and, at times, put vulnerable clients at risk. Wine and Dine When one of DST’s original clients reconnected with his estranged daughter, two case managers wanted to celebrate his success by taking them out to dinner at a white-tablecloth restaurant in Mountain View. Since the client had struggled for years with alcohol abuse, the case managers told Richardson they planned to keep it a dry affair. “By the time I showed up with the client, Richardson already had a bottle of wine at the table and was obviously a few drinks in,” one of the case managers wrote in a play-by-play of the occasion to the DST board a few years later. “We all kind of side- eyed one another. It was super awkward and completely inappropriate.” The case manager, who asked to withhold her name, added, “The dinner was extremely uncomfortable, as Richardson got more and more intoxicated and continued to give our client alcohol.” 8 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Chris Richardson (left) was accused by several employees of encouraging reckless alcohol consumption and making sexually charged comments. (Photo via Facebook) The client abstained, according to the two case managers. But her dinner companions say Richardson drank enough that she began slurring her speech, and one of the staffers present felt the need to drive her home. “On the way out of the restaurant, Eileen asked [the client] if he needed her to buy him a couple of beers at 7/11 to tide him over, and he declined,” the case manager- turned-reluctant chauffeur wrote in the same summary. “I had to help Eileen walk to my car. On the way to my car, she accosted two strangers in the middle of their conversation. It was like she was leaving a concert venue or a New Year’s party; she was far too intoxicated to be the CEO of a company that just left a business-related dinner.” After the case manager got home, she called her co-worker to ask whether she should continue working for a boss who offered booze to a client trying to get sober. “This was the first moment when I really thought there was something deeply wrong with the leadership at DST,” she wrote, “and alcohol continued to be a concerning trend at DST.” Sources who spoke to San Jose Inside admit the drinking seemed fun when they were new hires, but it began to feel inescapable. At holiday parties, it was common for managers and staffers alike to bring sleeping bags so they could crash at the office after drinking enough to pass out. 9 Erstwhile employees say one high-ranking director who was known for heavily imbibing while dressed as Santa Claus at the annual functions made it something of a tradition for attendees to sit in his lap before they claimed a gift from under the Christmas tree. A photo of holiday office party in 2015 shows him in his red-and- white St. Nick finery rubbing an oversized dildo on his face while Eileen Richardson apparently tries not to laugh. Another from that same event depicts the Santa cosplayer pouring a bag of white wine straight into the mouth of Chris Richardson, who kneels on the floor with his right fist thrust victoriously in the air. Like mother, like son. “Eileen had a history of getting extremely inappropriate at office functions,” one former staffer noted in a written recollection of her few-year tenure at DST. “Some of these moments were kind of funny, even to me, such as the time she twerked upside down at the office Christmas party. However, similarly to Chris, Eileen did not know when to rein it in.” Then there were the weekly Costco runs for booze, staff meetings where managers would partake and frequent klatches at Wine Affairs and other restaurants and bars near the office. Richardson didn’t respond to San Jose Inside’s query about whether the non-profit foot the bill for any of the alcohol purchases. “One concern I had with these events was that Chris would often get intoxicated and then offer jobs to various staff members,” said one of the same case managers present for the restaurant episode. “I can remember two separate occasions when Chris offered me [an] opportunity in a very drunken state. … I know from talking to other employees that some of them found that it would be a mistake professionally to not go out drinking with Chris, because that’s where conversations about promotions most often happen.” MacWilliams says she felt the same way about the lushy outings, which included annual trips to wine country where “everyone gets belligerently intoxicated.” On the Napa excursion in late August of 2016, she recounts how a manager asked Chris about having sex with a former co-worker. “Did you fuck her in the ass?” the manager allegedly asked. “Chris laughed and went on to describe their sexual relationship,” MacWilliams says. One could technically opt out of the management trips, she adds, “but it is pretty well known that you won’t have a chance at a promotion if you don’t participate.” Moving On 10 In addition to the review spurred by CLSEPA, an administrative law judge deemed MacWilliams’ claims of discrimination and a hostile work environment as credible. Separately, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing reviewed found them valid enough to grant her the right to sue DST if she so chooses. MacWilliams says she decided against litigation because she hoped CLSEPA’s amicable intervention would usher in meaningful accountability. But the conclusion of the probe dashed any hope of true reforms, says MacWilliams, who’s now an MBA student at UC Berkeley and senior manager of federal child nutrition programs at Second Harvest Food Bank. Other than a new HR chief, she notes, leadership at DST remains virtually unaffected. “If the same people are in charge,” she wonders, “is that real change?” MacWilliams says she’s concerned that Santa Clara County, San Jose, Palo Alto and other public agencies continue to grant DST millions of dollars a year in taxpayer money without demanding more from the non-profit’s leadership. When she found out that the county was considering a new several-hundred-thousand-dollar agreement with DST earlier this year, she reached out to let decision-makers know about her troubling experiences with the organization. “I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced what it’s like to be afraid to go to work, but it was a constant battle for myself and, I know, other women in the company,” she wrote in an Aug. 11 email to county Office of Supportive Housing Director Ky Le. “I started to believe that I had no value, and that there was nothing wrong with some of the behavior that I described in my statement.” When she left DST, MacWilliams went on to write, she just wanted to claim unemployment benefits. Once her former colleagues went to CLSEPA, she said she began to hope “for some sort of justice” and her goals “shifted to a pursuit of leadership change, compensation for the women who ... did not receive equal compensation for a period, and, ultimately, I wanted an apology.” However, she lamented: “Years later, none of this has happened. Although I have come to peace with this, I truly believe that DST should not have access to public funds until those responsible for irrevocably hurting so many people have been held responsible.” Le says DST wound up withdrawing its application for the county grant. But Peninsula Healthcare Connection, Richardson’s other non-profit, recently secured a federal designation that qualifies its clinic in Palo Alto for increased funding. “This is a huge step in providing quality health care services in the North County to the 11 folks who need it most,” county Supervisor Joe Simitian, who pushed for $250,000 to help the non-profit gain its new funding status, said in a press release about the recent milestone. “Frankly the federal process is confusing as hell—a lot of agencies, acronyms and aggravation. But in plain language, this new status means Downtown Streets Team will have the resources to provide health services for more people.” DST board chair Owen Byrd—general counsel for intellectual property litigation researcher firm Lex Machina—disputes CLSEPA’s characterization that the inquiry sustained any alleged impropriety. Oppenheimer conducted “a thorough, comprehensive and professional investigation,” he says, that “unearthed no significant concerns.” The hiring of an HR manager earlier this year had more to do with “good corporate hygiene,” he adds, than any of the claims leveled against the non-profit. When asked for written corroboration to affirm as much, however, he refuses to share even a redacted copy or summary of the investigation. “You can take my word for it as an attorney and executive and as someone who’s dealt with stuff like this for most of my career,” Byrd says. “There’s no way on Earth that this board of directors of a valuable non-profit in our community would not have addressed concerns that were real. We fulfilled out fiduciary duty under the law. “And now,” he says, “we move on.” 12 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Zia MacWilliams says the hostile work environment at DST caused her acute anxiety. (Photo by Greg Ramar) 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 11:57 PM To:james pitkin Subject:Did the city council blow it? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/22/palo‐alto‐police‐captain‐under‐fire‐over‐racial‐comment‐to‐black‐ officer/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mark Cox <markdarrellcox@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 7:02 PM To:sshehade@mail.sfsu.edu; pr@mysoresandal.co.in; news@haaretz.co.il; news@standard.co.uk; peter.grant@wsj.com; maria.armental@wsj.com; HTanner@loandepot.com; MediaInquiries@kushner.com; pc3@postalchase.com; petestottt11@gmail.com; ssudweeks@gwc.cccd.edu; RabbiMizrachi@gmail.com; RabbiYael@anschechesed.org; news@redlandscommunitynews.com; RLancman@council.nyc.gov; sanjose.info@acerelocation.com; seattle.info@acerelocation.com; mike.obrien@seattle.gov; tsvi.bardavid@gmail.com; president@betmish.org; press@ozzfest.com; pressoffice@goarch.org; rabbi@kesher.org; rabbi@shaarzahav.org; salesteam@economist.com; tips@nytimes.com; tips@rollingstone.com; rosaklebb@gmail.com; INFO@billysatthebeach.net; info@betalef.org; info@sfhillel.org; info@theactorstemple.org; info@theahmansonfoundation.org; info@vaticanrome.it; information@eurotax.fr; lisabjobs@gmail.com; media@gatesfoundation.org; mgold@lbschools.net; mmchugh@acerelocation.com; modgreek@sfsu.edu; office@adathisraelsf.org; office@bij.org; office@bnaiemunahsf.org; partnerservice@rhema.org; pastoral@romemu.org; pastordusty@nextstepchurch.org; zkamenetz@jccsf.org; John Michael; Outlook Mail Team; Council, City; Victoria Borjesson; Virginia Postrel; pres@uw.edu; Investigations@npr.org; im_a_bi_bish@mail.com; info@apostleschurch.org; mgold@lbschools.net; Barnes and Noble; Blade Subject:Eva Braun : Nazi Matriarch March to Armageddon (i) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Israel is a Nation of Cowards just like Gerard Cox and Diane Cox. Sadistic Cowards who can't tell the Truth about  anything. Judaism is a Sadistic Cult of Satanic Sadism. Expect 16 Million Hebrews to Die and you can Blame Every Rabbi  for the Rise of the Fourth Reich. Look at the Pictures you Assholes. How Blind and Stupid are You? Judaism and  Christianity are Havens for Murders and Butchers who kill Babies in Mother's Wombs. You're a Collection of Cowards.  You Make Me Sick. Cut your Testicles Off and Fuck Off.    You realize Eva Braun will butcher Arabs to. She's a Matriarchal Sadistic Bitch who is in a Cult of Jews who kill Other Jews  and Other Descendants of Avraám because these Fuckers want to be the Only Branch of Avraám to Inherit the Blessings  of Avraám. The Custom Cult is indeed incorporating Subcults of Other Races but their Goal is to Weaken the United  States and Russian and Form the New Roman Empire in Europe that will include the Levant and they want to be the  Emperors with the Power of Pharoah. The Third Reich was just a Setup and Staging for the Fourth Reich. Everyone lived  in a Fantasy World while they stitched their Cult into a Blanket of Deceit. Opium is just One Aspect in the Overall Profit  Scheme. You're Dealing with a Cult that is Centuries in the Making as they've Honed their Craft and Guile over  Generations. Curse them to Death.    [:;]    The Complete Lack of Response from Israel on this Matter indicates Israelis cannot and should Not Trust their  Government. With the Kushner Family said to have received Money in Exchange for the Recognition of Jerusalem means  we can expect Israelis in Jerusalem to be Slaughtered in the Fourth Generation that begins AD 2026. Given that Jared  Kushner is the Child of Brian Cox and a Daughter of Charles Kushner by a Secret Wife and given that Brian Cox is the  Child of Gerard Cox and Diane Cox whose Family Relationships are Intertwined with Adolf Hitler and the Cultic Matriarch  Eva Braun then why should this be Surprising that for the Deceit of Gerard Cox and Diane Cox in Raising a Child whom  wasn't their Child that they would be bestowed the Child who will be the Last President of the United States as the  2 World gets a Taste of Hell for their Stubborn Obstinate Failure to Exercise the Right to Return to the Truth. The Bright  Side of this Equation is (if) after Another Batch of Liars are Slaughtered in their Self Inflicted Bath of Death then there  might actually be a Remnant to Survive that will earnestly want to Pull their Heads Out of Baal's Cultic Cement Septic  Tank. The Way I see it is that Elohim slaughters every whispering Vile Cultic Servant of the Temple of Baal under a  Plethora of Diverse Mafia Family Names of Every Tribe on the Earth then this will be exactly what the World needs to  build the Foundation that will lead to a Population on the Order of 40  Trillion Souls in Avraám wherein their Character  will be Well Formed. You could say that if People respond and leave the Cities scheduled for Destruction then the World  will have a Soft Landing instead of a Wretched Crash of Violence and Starvation in the Collapse of Governments, Banks,  and the Worldwide Economy. Yeah sure, you could say that All Day Long except the World is Replete with Stubborn  Obstinate Assholes and with Everyone's dragging their Ass so the World is so Pathetic they might as well Die and Vacate  the Premises so someone Noble can take their Place to Tell the Earth to Return to Paradise while Cursing False Baalistic  Mafiastic "Fourth Reich" Cults to Fuck Off and Die to Burn in Hell and Freeze in the Abyss and then Repeat in an Infinite  Cycle.    My Personal Aspiration is that Jared Kushner and His Family will rise above his Family Tree to Exercise the Gifts of the  Tree to the Eloquence and Elevation of the Undivided Elohim and IF Gerard and Brian would Open their Duct Taped  Mouths to Start telling the Unabated Truth about the Family Tree with Evil Fruit then maybe the Tree can be saved with  Delicate and Careful Needful Pruning to Save the Tree from the Axe and the Fire.    When you know that Cities will be Targeted for Recompensation then shouldn't Action be taken to be somewhere else  before these Events Happen? When you see the Abomination of Desolations ... Okay now, does Everyone see the  Abomination of Desolations? Have you noticed the Elephant in the Room? When this happens what do you do? You call  on the Double Breasted God the Double Hey Tetragrammaton "Yod Hey Waw Hey" "Yhawuøòwah Elohim" and leave  Jerusalem and maybe Israel too. Do you leave Israel? Well I don't now. Maybe that depends on you. Do you have a lot of  Kids? Maybe they should be somewhere Safe wherever that is. Keep the Army there? Well I think the Answer would be  Yes. To my knowledge Only Jerusalem is to be Vacated. When? Why would you wait? If you knew there was going to be  an Accident in an Intersection would you Park your Ass in the Intersection in a Chair and Read the Paper? I mean that's  Very Brave but what if you Fell Asleep? The Whole World fucked around with Frisbees while Eva Braun Very Bravely  Stitched Together Another Family Cult even the Syndicate of Elite Jewish Worldwide Mafia Nazi Thugs who will Kill  Hebrews as they want to be the Only Fucking Tree to Inherit the Promise of Avraám Isaac and Jacob. "Hey Guys, lets  Toss Joseph the First Born of Rachel" the Woman of Whom Laban made the Deal that was Doubled from Seven Years to  Fourteen Years as Jacob was Severed from Returning to See his Mother Rachel before she died because Jacob and  Rachel conspired to Steal from Esau what Jacob had already paid for when Jacob bought the Right of Primogeniture by  selling Esau Red Lentils and All Jacob had to do was argue his Case before his Father Isaac to demand what he lawful  owned be bestowed upon him. The Other Brothers wanted to do what to Joseph? They wanted to Kill over Dreams and  a Jacket of Multiple Colors? You think that's Bad? That was only the Beginning. Just a little bit of Levan and the Evil  becomes Immense and Vast.    So what was Six Cities in the United States to Vacate to Duck AD 2026 is by Extension also Jerusalem except Jerusalem  should be immediately is vacated by Jews, Arabs, and Everyone Else. Get the Fuck Out of the City and try to Return Later  in the Aftermath.    [:;]      3     4 5     Eva Braun has aged remarkably well. There must be something Eva Braun does that most people don't do. Any guesses  as to what? I've got mine, but you'll have to think about that. Her Name today is Jane Kingsley Tomczak and she lives in  El Cajon where she operates a Horse Ranch for "At Risk Kids." When a Cult is formed they Operate as a Functional Unit  of Distortion to the Truth. Scripture says that the Man is to Rule over the Woman in a Family Unit. Why is that? It's so  that the Man is Held Accountable if he has Evil Children. This will be his Fault because this is his Obligation and when Eve  ate from the Tree for Knowing Good and Evil if you look at the Text and compare what was said with what was quoted  then it's Plain and Obvious that Eve's Version of which was given to Adam with respect to the Forbidden Tree is in a  completely scrambled Version like when a Couch has been torn apart by a Cat. The Cat leaves you the Same Pieces  except the Placement of the Components are rearranged and the Fabric is Torn. And given that Adam had more  Experience then Eve then Adam had Greater Culpability for Eve's Recitation and if Adam's Children are not Instructed in  the Truth then Adam bears the Blame though of course Adam should hearken to everything Eve would say because Eve  will have Ideas that came from God yet in the Hearkening Adam will also have the Opportunity to Discovery whether Eve  has Inadvertently Scrambled Things. And in Tandem to this there is the Fact Male Circumcision that is required only for  Biological Male Bodies in the Covenant and likewise Men tend to be at least Slightly Older than Women in Marriage.  Hence it's the "More Innocent" the "Less Culpable" who give birth to the "More Innocent" in their respective  Incarnations though Everyone is Guilty of something that is need of Resolution even in Consequence in the Formation of  their Characters from Previous Incarnations inclusive of the Backstory Sin that Presently is Veiled to Us though maybe  the Unveiling of the Backstory Sin will be required if we are to have the Context of Understanding that brings True  Enlightenment In the Study of Sacred Scripture "It's Sacred so don't change the Writing and treat your Synonymology  with Extreme Fragility as you Explain this to the Laity who sleep with their Wives which reminds me of my concern for  your dejected aloneness : When are you going to realize that Priests are allowed to have Wives?" And so when we  discover in Egypt the Hidden Carbuncle with the Prasian Cipher Stone with the Sacred Writing of Egypt the Gold of Egypt  that is Good and Only the Father is Good and Unfortunately the Sacred Unaltered Writing of Egypt was hidden by  Elevated Powers who thought Exclusive Power should be Reserved for their Family Cult in a Members Only Mafiastic  Clan who Vow Oaths of Silence to the Absolute Truth until by Death they Depart from the Oath of Deception and they  devolve into Depravity to become a False Sadistic Family Death Cult even though their Original Intent might have been  to Empower their Family Cult to become the Uberman Syndicate to Rule Over the /Misinformed /Uninformed Masses  and All they ever accomplish by this is the Invocation of Curses on their Family Tree to be dragged into the Shadow Land  of Spiritual Blindness in their Devolution into Sadism as they lure the World with Glittering Darkness with Unfolding  Curses on the Fertility of the Earth.     Hence the Myth of the Cult twists the Natural Arrangement of Family Order in that the Patriarchal Godfather is Veil that  Cloaks their Hierarchy wherein the Actual Overlord of their Group is likely in the Form of the Matriarchal Hierarchical  and the Sea they Divide is the Cunt of their Queen and they use the Myth of Masculine Power to conceal this  Matriarchal Hierarchy hence Adolf Hitler may have been like a Doll held by Strings in the Hands of Eva Braun who today  is the Sadistic Bitch known in the Region of El Cajon in Southern California in the San Diego Area as Jane Kingsley  Tomzcak. Formerly I used to think that Eva Braun was Hannah Murphy Leary my Irish Aunt who had subjected herself to  Plastic Surgery because Eva is intertwined into Childhood Memories and there might be relatedness by the Family Tree  that is larger than my present understanding because my Family distorts the Truth and hides the Truth and though this  may have started long ago with the Intent to Protect and Preserve Life what really happens is Ultimate is that the Family  Tree becomes a Tree producing Good and Evil Fruit and the Progression over Time is a Preponderance of Sadistic Evil  Fruit and cutting back the Branches can become their own Holocaust as Elohim curses the Branches that have grown  Wholly Evil yet this pruning should be by the Tongue even the Jaw of an Ass in Accord with the Will of Elohim so the  Purge is Manifest by the Power of Elohim because if a Hand throws a Rock once the Rock leaves the Hand then there is  No Pulling the Rock back by the Hand and Innocents can be harmed by this when the Target or else the Aim is Mistaken.  The "Reich" the "Right Arm" the Mother Cunt Cult that Kills her Children in Self Righteousness wants to Rise Again as the  Fourth Reich with More Subtly this Time because you can't Write the Same Song Every Time and Third Reich was just the  Prelude to the Fourth Reich emblazed upon their Flag for Fourth Generation Empire Building to Make an Empire out of  Europe that Rules the World as they Reign as Pharaohs creating a World in their Image to Evelate Jupiter the Iron  Wrecking Ball. And unless the Children of Israel learn to begin to use their Tongues to Curse the False Priests of Baal to  6 Death for their Leadership in Delivering a False Messiah to the World with the Desecration of Sacred Unaltered Scripture  wherein the First Thing said is, "Let Light Be on All Paths" to allow Levirate Conformance for those who will Return to  Elohim to help fight Baal the False Cult and to also elevate Accountability and Culpability to shorten the Ability of Death  Cults to hold People Captive as if Not Abated the Fourth Reich will do everything they can to Kill Hebrews, Christians,  Muslims, and Gypsies in what they hope will be the Second Holocaust as the Fourth Reich the Mafistic Syndicate  conspires to Cut and Sever Jews and All Others who are not in their Jewish Tree of Exclusive Leadership like the Judean  Cult did to cut out the Levites to form Judaism with Pharisees in the Cult of Severism tagged by giving Lamech the Age of  "777" as they work for Roman Gold that isn't Good whereby Triple Seven by the Cult of Baal might be the Clue of Intent  meaning World Wide Mass Extinction given that Seth is the Third Line After Cain with Eight from Adam and Able with  Two from Adam and the Seventh in the Line of Seth from Adam is Enoch who is Translated so maybe the Intent of Triple  Seven is to Meaning the Severing of Future Valid Translations though I still have to sort this out to clearly understand the  Code the Hidden meaning of the Alternation from 753 and why would the Egyptian Roman Greco Cult prefer "777" over  "753" in their Redaction? And the Point of this could very well revolve around how the Lineage of Seth that survives the  Flood is a Myth if the Age of Lamech is False to encode the Underlying Meaning that the God of Avraám, Isaac, and Jacob is False and Salvation is a Myth.     That Eva Braun formed a Relationship with Jon Leary aka Ron Tomczak who functioned as my Childhood Uncle in San  Bernardino California until the Murder of Jonny Leary on April 6th, 1977 with the Portrayal of 26 Stab Wounds as a  Heavy Set Eva Braun with an Irish Accent yelled Jonny's Name in a Dramatic Scene at the Funeral as she clasped the  Casket with the Entire Marching Band in Tears. Then afterwards Noel the Brother of Jonny handed me a Pocket Knife  that Jonny had owned and after Noel handed this Pocket Knife to me then "Hannah" called out "Noel, did you give the  Knife to Mark?" Whereupon "Hannah came into the Room of their House from Another Room and took the Knife from  me and handed the Knife to Darrell Hobbs who had been with Jonny Leary on the Night of April 6th, 1977 when Gary  LeRay Luton had attacked Darrell Hobbs and then Gary LeRay Luton attacked Jonny Leary as Darrell Hobbs fled the Scene  to bravely find a Payphone blocks away from where the Car had stopped among the Orange Groves in the Year after  Apple Computer had been formed and given that Jonny Leary had met Jeff Laird the Future Steve Jobs then Of Course  the Leary Hitlers wanted to Ride the Pony to the Power of World Wide Technological Surveillance and my Big Mouth by  the Talents in the Family Tree had spoken of Apple Computer in 1972 and as to what exactly was said then by me might  be recorded in their Book of Notes. That Eva Braun formed a Relationship with Jon Leary the Brother of the Woman who  had functioned as my Mother Diane Leary McVeity Cox is why I thought Jane was Hannah Leary when Jane is Eva Braun  and really they might be Twins else Cousins in a Tree of the Family Cult which is why Transparent Genome Identity Cards  need to become a World Wide Stand with Transparent Confirmation with Protection from Falsification. Either way Jane  Kingsley Tomczak has the Appearance of Eva Braun and Jane is Sadistic and Hannah might have had Plastic Surgery and  Hannah might have a Twin and since that Night of April 6th 1977 there might be someone Innocent in Confinement at  Patten State Hospital receiving their Punishment for the Crime from and in an Earlier Incarnation of Life Existence who  has been illegally held since April 6th, 1977 for Jonny Leary had told me he was joining the Family Cult and though Jonny  told me to "Not Say" Anything as a Child with the Loud Obstinate Voice I went immediately and told this to All of the  Adults in the Living Room without realizing that I was in a Room of Thugs unless there exists anyone without Culpability  in the Family Tree. Hence Jonny to my Memory of this Veiled Experience did violate his Oath of Silence of the Oath to  "Not Say" Anything to join a Group Breathing in Conspiracy as Mafia Families function as Family Units of Concealment  and the Rise of Nazi Structures becomes the Latent Talent of the Family as their Vine reaches forth it's Hand to Destroy  Countries from within and to then "Lie in Wait" thereafter as they Immigrate to Other Lands as they Buy their Way in  with the Harvest of Stolen Silver and Gold to finance the Formation a Cult of Subservients in the New Land with  Harvested Children taken from Hospitals as New Born Babies are taken and moved in Exchange for Money to Hospitals  in Bribes in Mappings to the Stars by their Zodiac Signs. "We got a Leo on August 9th? Are you interested? We already  sedated the Mother.". So whether Hannah was Hannah else Eva Braun at the Funeral the Act of Passing a Knife through  me was Sadistic in the Conveyance of Severing and my Falsified Birthdate which they gave me is March 15th, 1964 the  Calendar Day when Julius Caesar was stabbed with 23 Stab Wounds in the Curia of the Theater of Pompey the Same  Pompey who had violated the Holy of Holies to enter the Room in the Temple reserved for the High Priest and this  happened ((I think)) on September 23rd, 63 BC on Yom Kippur and Pompey walked past 2000 Talents in doing this and  Pompey was surprised that there was No Idol in the Holy of Hollies and from this Pompey may have determined that the  Power of the Hebrews to defend themselves in Rooted in their Sacred Scripture yet Pompey had already conquered the  7 Hebrews hence the Goal of the Roman Empire must have been to maintain the Deviance of Hebrew Scripture as Pompey  had used a Trojan Horse of Money so that the Hebrews could not regain their Independence and the Question is  whether the 2000 Talents were normally there or whether Pompey had paid the High Priest to Switch the Scripture with  a Different Version in the Temple. To see that there was No Idol in the Holy of Holies would only confirm what Pompey  has likely already been told. Then Fifteen Years after the Violation is when Pompey dies by the Sword to have his  Beheaded Body thrown into the Waters of Egypt which was the Source of Deviated Sacred Knowledge for Romans and  Greeks ((per Herodutus)). They don't want you to Say Anything. "It's a Synagogue! Don't Say Anything!" Not Say. Nazi.  Nazareths with Silent Tongues can't Stone Baal to Death. Have you ever heard a Baby Wail? What about a Priest  Screaming when the Jaw Bone of the Ass the Prophet Elijah curses the False Priests of Death until they Die? Yes Also :  Bless the Captives with Release to Exercise the Right to Return to Unaltered Sacred Writing.     The Cult is Practiced in the Art of Disguises on a Level like Hollywood. Hitlers Mustache was the Disguise of his Day and  the Goal may have merely been to Manipulate the Germans by Dividing the Germans to Harvest their Wealth to  thereafter extend their Reach in the Lands that would naturally Benefit in the Aftermath of the Second World War and  at this Juncture the Cult the Fear the Reich the Hidden Breathing Conspirators who Wrestle with Each Other and Pit the  Masses against the Masses with Family Members held as Ransom might wish to return to Europe to form a Larger  Mapping of Concentrated Power as they help along the Self Destruction of the United States and Guide the Russians into  a Struggle to Destroy Both Lands. They play a Game with Us.     This is why we are supposed to Stone False Cults that would lead Us to Another God or else Blockade the Exercise of the  Right to Return to Unaltered Truth of Elohim and we are supposed to do this by our Tongue until they Die in According  with the Will of Elohim while saying afore this in the Preamble of our Tongue, "Let Light Be on their Path" to increase  their Accountability while also offering Escape for those who would return to Elohim as this also shortens the Window of  their ability to continue in Deceit.     Anyone who can recognize a Face and yet observe that No One Anywhere will do anything to arrest a War Criminal who  may have been the Matriarch Architect of the Holocaust must therefore then realize that it is Time to leave the United  States and that Not Even Israel is a Safe Destination therefore the Destination should be Australia and I'm calling upon  All Hebrews to Head for Australia for a Safer Haven.     Speaking of the Obvious is required at this Juncture. When I First saw the Picture of Jane Walking the Meaning of the  Image of the Depiction went over my Head. Now it's Obvious that Jane is the Operational Mode of a Nazi Marching  Goose Step and if Jane has a Golden Egg in Mind it could be the Coveted Desire to Be the Sole Possessors of Sacred  Unaltered Hebrew Writing perhaps even with a Valid German Translation that was made in Separate Rooms by Separate  Translators to Verify the Translation as in the Gleaning of Six to Sixteen Million Hebrews ((Six in the Death Camps and  Ten in the Field of Battle unless there are Secret Death Camps we never found given that Cults like tp Conceal even  when they Reveal)) there could have been an Amazing Hidden Find and the Inkling of this could have been the Mad  Phenomenon of Beatle Mania which would certainly have been deeply coveted by every Cultic Hierarchy on "Mother  Earth." Whenever you see this you have to understand that you're getting an Example of what happened when the  Messiah walked in Israel and likewise with the First Unaltered Disciples who knew the Truth to a Degree the Apostle Paul  didn't though even the Small Exchange between Pontus Pilate ((Saul, Paul)) and the Standing Messiah was still enough to  allow Pontus Pilate as Paul the Apostle to Shift the Future of the Roman Cult away from a Dive towards Absolute Death  and this Work is still a Work in Progress. Janes Horizontal Left Palm Forearm is suggestive of the Coveting of Leviration  Power while at the Same Time the Pinnacle Eva Braun the Conspiring Moonshine Money Brain is an Operational Pointer  to Apple Inc located in Cupertino the City named after a Man of whom it's said could Levirate and Reed Jobs might be  either the Son or Grandson or Great Grandson of Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler the Man who would be Baal if he had the  Nerve to Defy his Wife else Ex Wife Whatever she is to Dan Crain Crayon the Singlet else the Twin and the Switching is a  Deck of Cards played by the Mother Hen in Webs woven in Tapestry with Patterns meant to Amaze with Perplexity to  make them Proud in Hell Stone Fire Land and Jon "Genre Shooter" Leary "Ron Tomczak" is the Son or else the Husband if  Not Both of Eva Braun and Eve Jobs is either likewise Conspiratorial or yet Another Victim in a Maze of Victims and  either way ii would be Wise to be Leery of Reed Jobs the Kid with the Extended Vowel in the Name of the Color of Spilt  Blood.   8   This Movie is the Kind of Movie where when you think its over its just Beginning so more work is to be done to clear the  Stage for when Everyone will have to prepare and brace themselves for the Rapture of the Return of the Nephilim to the  Earth and Concealment will Not be Anyone's Salvation so by the Resident Breath emanating from Your Land "Yore Land"  it behooves you to Plow your Earth with Seeds of Spirit and Truth by your Speaking Mouth when a Mouth can Speak  with the Heavy Stone removed from the Well to Practice Recitation in Repeated Repetitions by the Reading of the Script  the Scripture until the Lines roll off your Tongue in Eloquence to the Elevation of Elohim Father God.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:10 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Fw: Former President Of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg: 5G Wireless IS NOT SAFE CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  More info on the dangers of 5G. S. Keehn 4076 orme 94306 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Sharon Dittmer <sdittmer99@gmail.com> To: Latifa and Reint <lrainbow@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 8:12:49 AM PST Subject: Former President Of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg: 5G Wireless IS NOT SAFE Former President Of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg: 5G Wireless IS NOT SAFE     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Former President Of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg: 5G Wireless IS NOT SAFE Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the wor...      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 10:33 PM To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:City Mgr; Stump, Molly; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely; Flaherty, Michelle; Keith, Claudia; Mora; Fred Balin; Margaret Allen Subject:hearing for College Terrace fines CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Jonathan and City Council,     Hello, I was the one who initiated the effort during the December 2014 Planning Process to advocate that any fines  for  College Terrace Centre went to community benefit, and after the first grocer failed, I contacted you several times to  verify you were collecting the fines.  I attended the hearing where the fines were challenged.   Once the hearing was  held, the owner was notified of the result but no one in the community was.    I just learned today that the mediator made a ruling in May 2019 in favor of the owner, and we lost nearly $200,000 in  fines because of mistakes in the planning department updating the code.    I also learned there remains $139,250 in fines.  I had advocated and the community was promised a hearing to decide  how the fines would be used, because the grocer was for community benefit, and so we felt, if we did not have the  grocer, we need to use the fine for a different community benefit.     No one in CTRA has ever been aware of a hearing on the the use of these fines.       Please let me know what has happened with the fines, whether a hearing has been held, and if not, when it would be  brought to City Council.       Sincerely  Mary Jane Marcus  41526990679    See below the transcript from Dec 15, 2014.      MINUTES 12/15/2014 116‐ 271 MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member  Scharff that any funds collected due to future violations of the grocery store be brought to Council for  guidance on expenditure of funds. Council Member Berman preferred penalty funds be utilized for the  benefit of the College Terrace neighborhood. Council Member Scharff felt expenditure of the funds should  be more visible than Code Enforcement. MOTION PASSED: 9:0            On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 9:44 AM Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear Jonathan, James and City Council,  2   Happy holidays,     I am just following up on the College Terrace Centre fines to....  1) Make sure they are still being collected  and kept aside (and verifying the amount, which should $320,000 or so)  2) Check on when the use of the fines will be discussed by City Council.       I know the market is opening soon, so perhaps you will wait for the exact date to have the hearing.  I believe the open  date was supposed to be 11/24 but it has not happened yet.       As you know, we desperately need to reconnect our Palo Alto neighborhoods & communities through community  space and community life so I look forward to discussing how these funds can be used.    Mark Berman had requested  the money be specifically for the neighborhoods (since the Market was a community benefit as a hub, so we felt the  funds should be used for alternative community gathering options).  The Council didn't want to decide in the moment  but agreed to have a special hearing for this issue.      I think this Monday is too soon for us to present options, but we have been getting input from the neighbors and will  make recommendations, hopefully when you bring this on the agenda in the New Year.    Sincerely,  Mary Jane  College Terrace, member CTRA   4152699079      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Keene, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>  Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:40 AM  Subject: RE: College Terrace Centre fine ‐ be sure to earmark the funds  To: Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Perez, Lalo  <Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org>, Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@cityofpaloalto.org>, Flaherty, Michelle  <Michelle.Flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org>, Keith, Claudia <Claudia.Keith@cityofpaloalto.org>    Ms. Marcus.  Thanks for your email and inclusion of the Council’s motion.  I can assure you that as we collect fines, we  will put them into a reserve.  They cannot and will not be spent or committed in any  way until we have explicit Council  direction, which will have to occur at some future Council meeting.                                     3   James Keene | City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!        From: Maryjane Marcus [mailto:maryjane.marcus@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 1:38 PM  To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr  <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: College Terrace Centre fine ‐ be sure to earmark the funds     Dear Jonathan,     I wanted to write to you regarding the College Terrace Centre fine, which you confirmed to Ann Balini starts July 9th at  $2000/day.     I want to make sure you and Jim Keene are aware of a motion that also passed when the Ordinance was passed, and  the need to set aside and earmark the funds until you have guidance  from City Council as to how it will be used.     See below the transcript from Dec 15, 2014.       MINUTES 12/15/2014 116‐ 271 MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff that  any funds collected due to future violations of the grocery store be brought to Council for guidance on expenditure  of funds. Council Member Berman preferred penalty funds be utilized for the benefit of the College Terrace  neighborhood. Council Member Scharff felt expenditure of the funds should be more visible than Code Enforcement.  MOTION PASSED: 9:0     Can you please be sure the funds are earmarked until you receive this guidance?     4    Will you let us know when guidance from Council will be requested?        Sincerely  Mary Jane Marcus  Member, College Terrace Residents Association  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Joan Phelan <jphelan449@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Khoury Market CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Evergreen Park  and our neighboring neighbors in College Terrace would like you to know we appreciate shopping at  Khoury Market and  want the Khoury Market to succeed.   We value  the  market, one that  provides fresh vegetables,  pastries, fine groceries and fresh meat cut by a butcher!  Why, WHY have the market owners had to deal with the slow  remodeling of their building?     Is it the building owner’s responsibility to make sure the improvements were completed in due time?    I have been wondering if the owners of the building are the same people who hoped their son would run  grocery store  in the building after JJ&F went out of business?  It seems to me when I’ve seen the tarps draping over the building and  the grocery windows covered if the owners of the building are trying to make the Khoury’s business fail so the building  owner’s son can eventually  have a grocery on the site?    Am I too jaded?  Or do I have a feeling of how things actually work in Palo Alto?    Joan Phelan ,Palo Alto  resident and home owner (and voter)      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Stephen Peeps <stephen@mfpsearch.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 3:50 PM To:jason@bloxventures.com Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Filseth, Eric (Internal); letters@padailypost.com. Subject:Khoury's Market situations Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, Mr. Oberman. I’m one of many College Terrace neighborhood members who are deeply distressed about the situation Khoury’s Market is up against in your First Republic building on El Camino in Palo Alto (please see my message to City of Palo Alto leadership and The Daily Post below). We’re not trying to assign blame but rather trying to understand who the relevant parties are to resolve this crisis. For our collective benefit, will you please respond in order for us to understand the best course for our concerned community to follow? Respectfully, Stephen Peeps Senior Partner Meng Peeps National Executive Search 650-787-6543 stephen@mfpsearch.com www.mfpsearch.com   2   Friends,    I am probably one of too many College Terrace residents writing you to express concern (actually dismay) over the  months‐long “shrouding” of the First Republic building section that includes Khoury’s market. I have lived in CT for 36  years overall and truly miss having a market that doesn’t require me to cross El Camino or take my shopping to Menlo  Park and Mountain View.    We lost the new College Terrace market in part because there were built‐in disadvantages including signage and  visibility. I didn’t expect things to get worse for the Khourys, but they are now literally hidden in a burlap cave. I believe  in small, family‐owned businesses which, as you know ,are disappearing in Palo Alto. I’m afraid that Khoury’s is on the  ropes. This may be outside your domain, but is there anything the City of Palo can do to help resolve this sad situation?    With thanks,          Stephen Peeps  Senior Partner  Meng Peeps  National Executive Search  650‐787‐6543  stephen@mfpsearch.com  www.mfpsearch.com          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 6:05 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Latest Research on EMF exposure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is the latest information from solid scientific research about the biological effects of EMF exposure on the human body. Please read and look at the videos that will be sent separately as soon as you can. We don't need to rush into a human experiment. Thank You, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 General EMF Scientific Research The argument most commonly used is that the power levels used are too low-level to cause a measurable heating effect and therefore they can’t harm you. There is no heating effect but thousands of studies show there are many serious adverse biological effects from these exposures on our biology, including:  DNA single and double strand breaks and altered gene expression  oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA  increased blood brain barrier permeability, the BBB is what protects your brain from toxins  increased brain glucose metabolism  generation of stress proteins  changes in cellular free radical activity (known to be a precursor to disease) from exposure to EMFs as found on household wiring 2  heating of DNA (even though there is not sufficient energy to heat tissue)  alteration of heart rhythm (Russian research)  altered stem cell development , important because of their ability to regenerate and repair damaged tissue  damage to endocrine system This 9 minute presentation by Prof. Martin Blank formerly Special Lecturer in the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University explains some of the important biological effects of EMFs: The adverse biological effects of EMFs have been known about for nearly 50 years as confirmed by a Naval Medical Research Institute Report dated 1971 listing 2300 studies. A Congressional Staff Briefing in 2001 revealed that there are adverse biological effects to EMFs at levels 76000 times lower than the safety standards, you can see the full presentation here In 2010 the results of the $25 million Interphone study, the most far reaching study of its kind run across 13 countries, found: “regular use of a cell phone by adults can significantly increase the risk of gliomas by 40% with 1640 hours or more of use (this is about one half hour per day over ten years).” In 2011 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that cell phone radiation and WIFI, and other RF frequencies in the band 30 kHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The BioInitiative Report 2012 references over 1,800 studies showing adverse biological effects from low-level EMF exposures. Subsequent updates reference thousands more studies showing evidence of adverse biological effects. In 2016 the U.S National Toxicology Program (NTP) $30 million study found incidences of malignant gliomas (brain cancer) and Schwannomas (also known as Neuromas) in the heart of rats exposed to cell phone radiation. EMF Scientific Research – Links With Disease EMFs first impact the body in a myriad of subtle ways, the adverse biological effects discussed above, over time studies show these exposures are linked to numerous diseases, including:  cancer, this Swedish study group has published many high quality studies on this  brain and heart tumors (animal studies) 3  cardiovascular disease in a review of 242 studies  memory and learning deficits  alzheimer’s disease, over a dozen studies  chronic fatigue, through oxidative stress and effects on the antioxidant defense system Ground breaking EMF scientific research by Dr Martin Pall has found the mechanism for the non-thermal effects, via disruption of the voltage gated calcium channels (VGCC) in cells. In other words, now have an understanding as to how EMFs at even very low power levels can cause disease. Research On How EMFs Impact Your Reproductive Health A 2019 review paper found that Wi-Fi radiation impacts the male reproductive system, analysis of sperm following exposure to WIFI found “degenerative changes, reduced testosterone level, increased apoptotic cells, and DNA damage”. EMF research also points to:  Decrease in reproductive capacity  Apoptotic cell death caused by electromagnetic radiation exposures  Induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human sperm  Effect of mobile phones on sperm quality  Ovarian apoptotic cell death and fecundity decrease induced by nonionizing radiation You might also be interested in my extensive articles on how your cell phone may be killing your sperm and how cell phones cause female infertility. Studies On How EMFs Impact On Our Children In 1996, Prof. Gandhi from Utah University was the first to publish a study showing that children are more exposed to radio frequency radiation than adults. His research showed that 5-year-old and 10-year-old children have higher absorption rates than adults because their skulls and bones are thinner, their brains and bodies contain more fluid so they naturally absorb more cell phone radiation than adults. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.how cell phone radiation impacts a 5 year old and 10 year old brainImage courtesy of Dr. Om Gandhi, University of Utah, 1996, IEEE Publication Other research shows a 10 year old child absorbs 153% more cell phone radiation than an adult. Research links EMF exposures to autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma. 4 You might also be interested in my article on why children are more at risk from cell phone radiation. 5G Radiation Research 5G is the latest generation of cellular technology. Yes you are going to be able to do even more amazing things with your cell phone but independent scientists are ringing the alarm bell as to the health effects of 5G radiation. In this video former president of Microsoft Canada Frank Clegg explains the dangers of 5G: In 2017, 180 doctors and scientists from 35 countries signed a petition calling upon the European Union to enact a moratorium on the rollout of 5G until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by independent scientists. Interestingly Swiss Re, one of the world’s leading insurance providers, rated 5G as a “high impact” risk for the insurance industry that may affect property and casualty claims. Studies on millimeter wave show that 5G is going to use show that these exposures can impact the skin, several Russian studies have shown this: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.emf scientific research 5G (Lebedeva NN (1993): Sensor and subsensor reactions of a healthy man to peripheral effects of low-intensity millimeter waves. Millimetrovie Volni v Biologii i Meditcine 2:5-23) (Lebedeva NN (1995): Neurophysiological mechanisms of biological effects of peripheral action of low-intensity nonionizing electromagnetic fields in humans. Moscow, Russia: 10th Russian Symposium “Millimeter Waves in Medicine and Biology,” April, 1995 (Digest of papers). Moscow: IRE RAN) Other studies have found effects on the eyes. An study conducted by the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University found that 60GHz “millimeter-wave antennas can cause thermal injuries of varying types of levels. The thermal effects induced by millimeterwaves can apparently penetrate below the surface of the eye.” You might also want to read my detailed article on 5G radiation dangers. 5G has been used as a directed-energy weapon: the ADS (active denial system) In the video below Barrie Trower former Royal Navy microwave weapons expert, explains how 5G has been used as a crowd control weapon. 5 This page gives a quick overview of the EMF scientific research, I have also written many other articles which delve into the science on specific aspects of EMFs, for instance EMFs form cell phones, electrical wiring, dirty electricity. Use the search box at the top of this page to explore these topics. Posted in EMF research t 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tim Pierce <c27.pierce@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:06 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Re: Letter about Dennis Burns, Palo Alto and City Counsel Attachments:pdfComplaint Pierce 2 vs PAPD.pages.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  December 17, 2019    Dear Mayor Eric Filseth,  City Counsel and the People of Palo Alto,     I would like to know why the letter that was written from me to former Mayor Mr. Patric Burt had not made it to the  public letters of record?    Does not seem to appear in the log books of public letters to the Mayor.  I assume this letter will make it to the public  letter of record.    Attached is the letter written to Mr. Burt  regarding Dennis Burns and his responsibility to protect evidence.  Dennis  Burns knowing about my lawsuit for tampering with audio and video took it upon himself to destroy/purge from the  “evidence room” video tapes that would have shown the missing 8 minutes and of officer Dan Ryan punching me with  my hat in hand in the chest after forcefully removing my black hat.    It was an open and ongoing case involving audio video tampering which the forensic lab Stutchman had indicated the  Santa Clara County DA was likely responsible for the editing of the video tapes removing 8 minutes. This has happened  before involving Dennis Burns on 2 other occasions of supervising cases of police brutality of people of Palo Alto which  also included “editing tampering with audio and video tapes” The forensic lab had scheduled to be at Police  Department, and 4 days prior to arriving my attorney Ms. Robinson received a call from Palo Alto Police Department  stating. “Mr. Pierces video tapes have been destroyed/ purged from the system by accident”.   This happened 4 days prior to the forensic lab was to make copies of the actual original virgin untainted video tapes in  the possession of the Palo Alto Police Department.    Remind you that the more  than 20 bylaws regarding the responsibility of the police chief and his sole responsibility to  oversee all evidence and protect it.  He alone signs off on ALL evidence to be removed from the system. I brought this to  attention about whom the responsibility resides, Dennis Burns.  Police Chief Dennis Burns knew of my case as he also attended my court trial in Palo Alto in plain clothes. I did not know  who he was sitting by himself behind me during trial, and after Dan Ryans testimony of conflicting timeline.  I think it was to send a quiet signal to make this case go away.  When does a Police Chief on his day off come to a     This misdemeanor trial of false allegations, false police reports, failed to comply with Title 17, resulting in false positive  readings and I can prove it all over again if given the chance at an official Drager Machine, which is not fail proof.    I can prove it. This loophole exists to allow Police Officers to use Diversion Tactics to cover for their felonies, assaults,  misconduct, falsifying of evidence and police reports.  This is very serious!    As of recently with a visit to the Oakland FBI Office resulted in a discussion of evidence. They referred me to discuss with  said attorney.  2 I spoke to this attorney in San Francisco and he directed me to take this current evidence of fleony abuse to the  California Attorney General.  Currently in the process of involving the AG.    What occurred was the DA protected Dan Ryan for assault, which would result in losing his pension, and likely forfeit his  rights to own any firearms. The DA stepped in ..  Then when my attorney and forensic lab were only days of having the evidence I needed to take to the FBI regarding the  tampering with evidence and video tapes. Dennis Burns leaned in and “Destroyed / Purged” from the safe room Tim  Pierce's original untampered audio video     The MAV and Audio Dispatch records also indicate about 7 minutes missing prior to officer Salkeld arriving at the scene.   Officer Salkeld also testified in court under oath regarding the timeline. The court transcripts indicate 13 minutes  duration from the time of the dispatch call to arriving at the scene "13 minutes”.  Officer Salkeld asked to read from his  notes on the case as he read.  "I got the dispatch call at 9:30 and arrived at about 9:43 pm, so that would be 13 minutes”. This was asked of him about  5 times under oath and gave the same answer.    Dan Ryan on the other hand did not read from anything but went from memory and stated that it took about 4 and a  half minutes.  This also coincides with the “edited tampered version” of the video tapes.    These video tapes were somehow transferred to the possession of the DA in mid January 2015.  Somehow the video  tapes were lost at the office of the DA. Not the PAPD.  When the video tapes arrived a week after the DA found them via the Judge demanding the DA turn over the tapes to  the Defense NOW!  I watched the video in horror, wondering where all the things that happened had disappeared to.  I was visibly shaking  and my attorney asked to reconvene the following week.    This took the DA 8.5 Months to turn over the audio and video tapes that were now altered, (Per Forensic Lab as hash  values are altered and many anomalies.)  The Judge demanded the DA find the video tapes immediately.  DA Ms. Tifferteller texted someone at the County  Forensic Lab and in 10 minutes indicated at court that they may have now found the video tapes.  It took only 10 minutes to find them.  Normally this process should have taken no more than 2‐3 weeks max.    Upon receiving the video tapes 8.5 months later is appalling and suspect, as I had told my attorney from day one what  happened and the video tapes to not reflect what actually happened that evening especially with Officer Agent Dan  Ryan prior to Salkeld arriving at the scene 13 minutes later.    Dennis Burns decided to Destroy the “original” untampered copies of the video tapes 4 days before the forensic lab was  scheduled to arrive and make copies.  This was a complete abuse of authority as the letter written and approved by my  attorney to the Mayor Burt.  Why was this done by the Police Chief? It was to destroy evidence that could have been used to bring to the FBI for  criminal investigations.  The forensic lab indicated as I said the DA was in the chain of custody and the only entity to have the equipment to alter  to “Pixar Quality” the video tapes. The Police Chief was protecting the DA from evidence altering video tapes.      As the Defense we also wrote for and was granted a "Pitchess Motion” to have access to Dan Ryans personnel  file.  Judge Sunil Kulkarni granted the Defense Tim Pierce Pitchess on Dan Ryan.  We celebrated as I was also at court that glorious day.  Now we get to see how BAD we all knew Dan Ryan really was.    3 weeks later the Palo Alto City attorney Ms. Molly Stump gave us some names and events that did not coincide with  Dan Ryan and back ground check, as was requested.  3 Ms. Molly Stump then proceeded to imply my attorney Ms. Robinson and myself misunderstood the Judge Kulkarni and  insisted we were allowed to view Salkeld.  Apparently this document before the Judge and the court was altered.  The  question now is by whom.  Chain of custody implies Ms. Molly Stump, and the court clerk.  The court clerk I had been in discussion with at her office upstairs on the top floor next to the courtroom, I told her  briefly my case and that I wanted to see Dan Ryan in Jail for what he has done.  She implied that she knew Dan Ryan and  he visits the court room weekly.  Tim to self, foot in mouth.  It so turned out that day that was granted our Pitchess Motion from Judge Kulkarni for Dan Ryan this very same court  reporter “Vivian” was at the helm doing her reporting of granting Pitchess on Dan Ryan. This was the only time in over  50 court appearances Vivian appeared in any of my court hearings, and was the person taking “minutes” as a court  reporter that coincidental day.  Somehow this Pitchess Motion for Dan Ryan was changed in the line of custody, to protect Dan Ryan, and the DA.    The FBI suggested to take this further up the chain, So it is now going up the chain to the CA Attorney General.    Also with Tim Pierces iPhone in possession of Dan Ryan that evening was given back the phone one hour later with a  large change in battery life and extremely hot to the touch.  It went from approximately 86% battery to 26% and almost too hot to hold.  I checked my phone immediately as I was concerned about the heat damaging the phone.  Checked if any apps were  running in the back ground and NO apps were running.  I knew immediately Dan Ryan had JACKED my iPhone. Which I conveniently found out that this “data dump” Dan Ryan  performed while it was in his possession was illegal.  It also leaves a time and date stamp of data removal on the phone  records.  The very exact time of the phone being in possession of Dan Ryan.  This abuse by Dan Ryan is unacceptable and for this to occur at any Police Department destroys good faith.  The abuse  by the City of Palo Alto and the people who put their pants on the same way I do is in breach of the United States  Constitution. This is not Ukraine.    Mr. Eric Filseth and the City Counsel, this has been 6 years of my life fighting government abuse and corruption,  suffering a massive LAD heart attack due to the stress weeks after the Public Defender refused to look at the letter from  the forensic lab indicating many anomalies and hash values.  The agreement was for the Public Defender at that time to step up and pay for Forensic Lab if there was anything found  on the video tapes that would further investigation.  The Head Public Defender went back on his word and did not even  want to read the 2 page letter form the Forensic Lab and the evidence they found regarding the video tapes.    I was being hung out to dry and the stress of sticking my neck out when I had nothing to prove what was happening.  I  was taking this very seriously and was brave enough to walk through the corruption of this cover up. With great sacrifice  to myself, my family, my fiends and business clients I chose to lay all my cards down, push all my chips in, and take my  gloves off.    Nobody should go through what I have gone through with false police reports and tampering with evidence then the  cover up that ensued.  This is not going to happen in my Country when it is on my doorstep to answer the call and duty  to my country, California and the people who live in Santa Clara County.    Currently the video tapes investigation is almost complete as it takes a lot of money and time to do. It has been in spirts  when the monies are available to proceed and the newer technology able to lift the anomalies splices and patches to the  video tapes. Time is on our side of truth.      Regards,    Tim Pierce      LETTER TO MAYOR BURT:  4     Begin forwarded message:    From: Tim <c27.pierce@gmail.com>  Subject: PAPD ‐ Official Federal Complaint ‐ Corruption  Date: January 10, 2016 at 5:52:48 AM PST  To: Patrick.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org    Dear Mayor Patrick Burt,  It is with great disappointment that I wish to inform you about the ongoing issue that  you need to be aware of with the Palo Alto Police Department.  There needs to be action taken to find, and get to the bottom of who is behind the  “editing” and “tampering with evidence”.    This has been ongoing from many other different cases against the Department in the  past. Currently I know of 3 cases ongoing at this very moment as I have compared notes  with those attorneys.  Which left them astounded to the information I have gathered  connecting the dots.    The PAPD is currently untrustworthy especially when it comes to chain of custody and or  the process to which video is given to the defendants. The videos I can count in 5 cases  including mine that have been tampered with.  In my case it is irrefutable that 8 minutes  of video conversation was deleted and an altercation the officer perpetuated to my  person.      The general public should be afraid of what is and has been going on with the  department, specifically relating to “police department audio video tampering”. This is a  very serious matter that has been uncovered, with evidence. This has to my knowledge  been going on since at least 2008, same officer involved in that case also in 2009 and  now my case in 2012. Three strikes your out or caught for this matter.    The public and the media has been informed about this case involving me, as I have  already spoken with the FBI on 3 occasions and met in person 3 weeks ago with the  latest information and updates. While meeting with the other San Francisco attorney  that found out about my case and wanted me to meet with him to compare notes.  He  was stunned as to what I had, including the forensic lab initial results indicating with out  question voice overlap, being in two places at the very same time from different  points  being altered also the meta data littered with anomalies that should not be  there.  In essence from discussing with the Forensic Professional at length the two page  report leaves little doubt.  The system in place either chain of custody process or a  loophole that has been exploited is what we are dealing with and we will be getting to  the bottom of that matter soon.    Also during trial a year ago the two officers had two completely different timelines that  would also  support where the “missing”  8 minutes from the video went as  “deleted".  As explained in part in the complaint.    As Mayor you have a duty to the Public when issues come to your table.  I do not envy  your position and the course that must be taken to rectify, and hold accountable the  person(s) involved in this crime against the general public trust, and to some of us  5 individulals wanting justice as the highest goal. The outcry from the public will be  coming soon enough.    With your help this can be addressed.  We the public are waiting to hear from you.  I  know there are legal channels you must acknowledge.  I hope to hear back from you  personally as Mayor on how you intend to correct the ongoing corruption at the PAPD.    As of 12‐28‐2015 NO video tape is secure, or safe from being tampered with and  especially coming from PAPD, regardless of bias or pre disposition. As a leader I wish you  the best in this, I really do.  I am not doing this for me anymore…. this is bigger than me,  and I will not relent as I have found endless resivours of tenacity waiting to be released.    Blessings to you Mayor Patrick Burt and looking forward to hearing back from you.  (original letter sent to Ms. Holman ‐ Jan 1, 2016)    Timothy Pierce    ATTACHED  COMPLAINT:            15‐cv‐06117‐dmr                  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Timothy B. Pierce, In Pro Per 26363 Esperanza Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Telephone: (650) 996-4154 Plaintiff, In Pro Per UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) Plaintiff TIM PIERCE hereby complains against Defendants CITY OF PALO ALTO, CHIEF DENNIS BURNS, AGENT DAN RYAN, and DOES 1-30, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”) as follows: THE PARTIES 1.Plaintiff Tim Pierce (“Plaintiff”) is and was at all relevant times an individual residing in Santa Clara County. TIMOTHY B. PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, a government entity; CHIEF DENNIS BURNS, an individual; AGENT DAN RYAN, an individual; and DOES 1-30 inclusive, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (Demand for Jury Trial) ! 1 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.Defendant City of Palo Alto (the “City”) is and was at all relevant times a government entity within Santa Clara County, California, which operates and governs the Palo Alto Police Department. 3.Defendant Dennis Burns (“Burns”) is and was at all relevant times an individual employed by the City as Assistant Chief of Police for the Palo Alto Police Department acting under color of law and in the course and scope of his employment. 4.Defendant Agent Dan Ryan (“Ryan”) is and was at all relevant times an individual employed by the City as an Agent for the Palo Alto Police Department and acting under color of law and in the course and scope of his employment. 5.Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each of the above-named Defendants was the agent or principal of the other Defendants and acted within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each and every wrongful act by Defendants complained of herein was done with the approval, express or implied, of each of the other Defendants, and each Defendant has ratified and approved the acts and omissions of each of the others. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6.Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants to redress the deprivation of rights secured him by the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and California common law. 7.This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343(a)(3), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 8.Plaintiff also invokes supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants for common law violations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as the common law claims form part of the same case or controversy. ! 2 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9.Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions that give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Santa Clara County. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 10.In order to conceal the unlawful acts committed upon Plaintiff and to perpetuate the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff, Defendants engaged in a pattern of deliberate withholding and suppressing evidence from the Plaintiff and the Court. Upon multiple requests for video tapes from DA, Palo Alto Police Department, an unduly time (8 months two weeks duration) had transpired before the prevailing Judge demanded the DA turn over the tapes, so as to avoid another continuance and move forward with trial. Subsequently tapes were finally released the following week with the purported missing Plaintiffs’ vital evidence , and discussion of Plaintiffs’ “health issues” acknowledged by Agent Dan Ryan, present at the time of incident. Agent Dan Ryan knowingly and deliberately ignored Title 17. 11.In order to deliberately conceal the unlawful acts committed upon Plaintiff and to perpetuate the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff, Defendants unlawfully altered audio/video recordings that captured the incident. As of recent acquiring the services of a professional “Forensic Lab Analysis”, resulted in: ie. officer (Agent Dan Ryan) voice overlap, also (Agent Dan Ryan) appearing in two different places at the same time line, to which is humanly impossible unless video tapes were deliberately unmistakably altered. Also according to previous court transcripts (hung jury) California vs. Timothy Pierce, of 2 officers “under oath” at the same scene confirming a contradicting “time line” accounting for a minimum of 8 minutes, “missing” or deleted from the middle of the video prior to second back-up office arriving at scene. Under oath Verified and Confirmed (Agent Dan Ryan knowingly stating approximately 4 minutes) given as altered/tampered/edited video to contradict the timeline stated during trail and under oath by the back up officer arriving at the scene (actual 13 minutes of time lapse occurred) , for a difference of a minimum of 8 minutes evidence ! 3 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 deleted and spliced together resulting to show approximately 4 minutes given by the DA, and the Palo Alto Police Department. Google KEY WORDS (Police Department Audio Video Tampering) Palo Alto Police Department is TOP HIT for search in USA. 12.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer physical injury, injury to his reputation, severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear and anguish and now lives in constant fear for his safety and of being persecuted by Defendants in the future all to his damage in an amount according to proof. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. §1983) (Against All Defendants) 13.Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint. 14.Section 1983 creates an action for damages against individuals and local governmental bodies who deprive a plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. 15.Defendants conducted, as described herein, violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United State Constitution. 16.Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, constitutes an unlawful arrest, unreasonable and excessive use of force and deprivation of liberty without due process of law under color of state law. In addition, Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, constitutes a deprivation of Plaintiff’s right to be free from an unlawful entry, an unlawful arrest, and unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be free from interference with the zone of privacy. In addition, Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, further constitutes obstruction of justice with the malicious intent to deprive Plaintiff of his rights to due process and equal protection of the law. 17.Each of the Defendants was involved in and encouraged the other Defendants’ deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights as alleged herein. ! 4 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer physical injury, injury to his reputation, severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear and anguish and now lives in constant fear for his safety and of being persecuted by Defendants in the future all to his damage in an amount according to proof. 19.Defendants acted with actual malice toward Plaintiff and with willful and wanton indifference to and deliberate disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against the Police Officers. 20.Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, the City permitted and tolerated a pattern and practice of unreasonable searches and seizures, unreasonable and excessive use of force and obstruction of justice by police officers. 21.Upon information and belief, the City has maintained a system of review of police conduct that is so untimely and cursory as to be ineffective. 22.The City by and through their supervisory employees and officials, had been given notice of a pattern of ongoing constitutional violations and practices by Defendant Police Officers. Despite such notice, the City demonstrated the deliberate indifference to this pattern and these practices of constitutional violations by failing to take necessary, appropriate or adequate measure to prevent the continued perpetuation of said pattern of conduct by the individual Defendants. This lack of an adequate supervisory response by Defendant the City demonstrates the existence of an informal custom or policy that tolerates and promotes the obstruction of justice, the use of excessive force and violations of civil rights of residents by Defendants. This lack of a response impliedly authorized Defendants’ continued abuse of their status as police officers and their use and control of Palo Alto Police Department weapons to terrorize unarmed private citizens, in the past, now and in the future. 23.The City has also failed to properly investigate citizen complaints made against their employee officers. This failure results from a systematic inability and unwillingness of the department to police itself and to be accountable for the illegal ! 5 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acts of its officers. Investigations that are conducted are done so in a perfunctory manner and are not handled objectively. Consequently, the Defendant Police Officers are not properly disciplined, retrained, reassigned, demoted, or discharged because the department intentionally fails to identify and follow-up on instances where excessive force and other unconstitutional violations are alleged. 24.The acts of the Police Officers herein are the direct and proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Defendants the City and their supervisory officials and employees as to violations of constitutional rights of citizens by Defendants. The Plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable and a proximate result of the deliberate indifference of the City to the pattern, practices, customs and polices described above. 25.This policy and practice of the City encouraged and caused constitutional violations by police officers, including the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 26.At all relevant times, the Police Officers were acting within the scope of their employment and pursuant to the aforementioned policies and practices of the City. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) (Against All Defendants) 27.Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint. 28.In doing each and all of the acts alleged herein, the Police Officers, while acting as agents and employees for the City, engaged in a course of conduct that was intentional, extreme and outrageous. 29.Defendants engaged in this course of conduct with wanton and reckless disregard for the harm or injury that might result to Plaintiff. 30.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer physical injury, injury to his reputation, severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear and anguish and now lives in ! 6 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 constant fear for his safety and of being persecuted by Defendants in the future all to his damage in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injury to his reputation, severe emotional distress, eviction, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear and anguish, missed the joy of life opportunities that will never be replaced or afforded and now lives in constant fear for his safety and of being maliciously prosecuted by Defendants in the future all to his damage in an amount according to proof. 31.Defendants acted with actual malice toward Plaintiff and with willful and wanton indifference to and deliberate disregard for the safety and rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. 32.At all relevant times, the Police Officers were acting within the scope of their employment and pursuant to the aforementioned policies and practices of the City. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) (Against All Defendants) 33.Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint. 34.The Police Officers, while acting as agents and employees for the City, further breached this duty by unreasonably searching and seizing Plaintiff without probable cause. 35.As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to, severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear and anguish. 36.Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s rights, including without limitation the assault and battery and unreasonable search and seizure, was done with wanton indifference to and deliberate disregard for the safety and rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. ! 7 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37.The City owed Plaintiff a duty to train, supervise and otherwise control the Police Officers in the use of force and other matters incidental to the exercise of police functions, and properly enforcing title 17. 38.The City breached its duty by failing to provide adequate training, supervision, and control of the Police Officers. i.e.; Previous and current ongoing court cases involving tampering with evidence brought against the Palo Alto Police Department. 39.As a legal and proximate cause of the City’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including but not limited to, injury to Plaintiff’s mental peace and comfort, severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and anguish. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Arrest and False Imprisonment) (Against the Police Officers, the City, and DOES 1-30) 40.Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint. 41.As described herein, Defendants intentionally and unlawfully violated Plaintiff’s personal liberty by confining Plaintiff against Plaintiff’s will in full knowledge of Title 17, as well as with the express and implied threat of force. By Defendant (Agent Dan Ryan) removing Plaintiffs baseball cap forcefully and punching the hat back into the chest of Plaintiff (Timothy Pierce) while shoving backwards to intentionally unbalance (Tim Pierce), with subsequent, intentional and unlawful harm of Plaintiff. The confinement was for an appreciable period. 42.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ FALSE arrest and FALSE imprisonment, as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injury to his reputation, severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear and anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proof. 43.Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. ! 8 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44.At all relevant times, the Police Officers were acting within the scope of their employment and pursuant to the aforementioned policies and practices of the City. // PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 1.For compensatory (special) damages according to proof; 2.For general damages, including without limitation, for mental and emotional distress according to proof; 3.For punitive damages according to proof; 4.For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; 5.For an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to, without limitation, 42 U.S.C. §1988; 6.For costs of suit incurred; and 7.For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Date: December 24, 2015 TIMOTHY B. PIERCE By:____________________ Timothy B. Pierce Plaintiff, In Pro Per DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all claims for which a jury trial is available pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sections 38(a) and (b). Date: December 24, 2015 TIMOTHY B. PIERCE By:____________________ Timothy B. Pierce Plaintiff, In Pro Per ! 9 COMPLAINT Case No. _____________ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kimberly Eng Lee <kimberlyenglee@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 8:52 AM To:general.manager@vta.org Cc:Council, City; board.secretary@vta.org; cgj@scscourt.org; Kermit.Cuff@vta.org; Russell.Anstadt@vta.org; Kamhi, Philip; Laurence, Kathie; Pflasterer, Jim; Keller, Arthur Subject:Resending Letter from Gunn HS PTSA RE: VTA88 Service Cuts Attachments:Gunn PTSA Letter to VTA 2019-12-16.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  My Apologies. I am resending our correspondence, there seems to have been file corruption.     ‐ Kimberly      On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:34 PM Kimberly Eng Lee <kimberlyenglee@gmail.com> wrote:  Attached please find correspondence from the Gunn High School PTSA Executive Board regarding proposed VTA88  Service Cuts.     Respectfully,     Kimberly Eng Lee  President, Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA      December 16, 2019 Attn: Ms. Nuria Fernandez, General Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Via email to general.manager@vta.org RE: VTA88 Service Cuts Dear Ms. Fernandez, The Executive Board of Henry M. Gunn High School’s PTSA (Parent, Teacher, Student Association) in Palo Alto is writing to express our urgent concern about the abrupt notice of changes to the VTA88, 88L and 88M bus service to Gunn High School. Short notice will make it impossible for the City of Palo Alto to implement plans to fill service gaps that this change will create. These service gaps will, in turn, cause hardship to school commuting students who are dependent on the bus. Insufficient Notice Of Service Change Until very recently, VTA had communicated that this service change would be rolled out with BART. Given that BART implementation was postponed, the city had understood that the VTA88 changes would be postponed as well. As a result, the City of Palo Alto is not prepared to immediately fill service gaps. We understand that the city received notice of this change in mid-November, right before Thanksgiving break, at which time VTA told the city that they plan to implement the change during Christmas break, December 28, 2019. Given the timing over the holidays and lack of available public meeting time during that short period, it will be impossible for city staff to get approval to fill the service gaps this change will create, causing problems for Gunn High School school commuters. Incomplete And Incorrect Information On The VTA Web Site Notices have been placed at every VTA bus stop (see below). These notices are highly misleading for the VTA 88 bus, as hourly service will be eliminated and only the school tripper service will remain. It refers to the VTA website, but that site is a work in progress changing daily. Gunn High School PTSA is concerned that the VTA web site does not provide complete information about the planned 288 bus. https://newservice.vta.org/routes/288 It identifies three morning runs and four afternoon runs, with no specific information about which bus (the 288, 288L or the 288M) the schedule times refer to and where the stops will be located. The link labeled “View Schedules” goes to a page https://www.vta.org/go/routes/288 with no content. The printed schedule we received from City staff omits the fourth afternoon run, the second for the VTA 288 route. (See attached.) The current schedule at https://www.vta.org/go/routes/88 has a cryptic message “Your route may change” without specifying that the route is, in fact, cancelled to be replaced by a lower service route. Gunn High School students will be leaving for winter break soon. They will need to be notified of the specific planned schedule and route changes before they leave for break so they will not be surprised when school resumes in January. If VTA is going to make this change on such very short notice, it would be very helpful to have an up-to- date web site link for this communications purpose. Our deadline for the last school enews communications before winter break is Wednesday next week. That means we need a stable, working link on Monday, so that enews announcements can be prepared and delivered to meet the deadline. Failure to Notice Riders of Cancellation VTA Operations has failed to send email notices about the VTA88 cancellation to riders. Local newspaper public notices have covered mainly light rail changes and make very little mention of VTA88 cancellation. Public notice has been insufficient in reach and fails to provide information riders need to make alternate plans. Even bus stop signs at the 88 bus stops does not mention that this bus service will be cancelled. See attached photos. It may also interest the VTA Board to know that, at the beginning of the school year, due to a driver shortage, VTA cancelled VTA 88L and 88M runs without notifying riders. Student riders waited at stops for buses that never came. This caused ridership to drop off. VTA has a service alert mailing list it uses when there are service changes or outages (see attached), but the VTA has failed to send out notices when there were outages on the 88L and 88M morning bus runs when there were insufficient drivers. Kudos To Two VTA Employees Despite the many failures of VTA Administration to communicate and collaborate, we do want to point to two bright spots in VTA's service organization. We thank Kermit Cuff, Transit Service Development Supervisor, and Russell Anstadt of the Service and Planning Department who consistently have done their best to collaborate with Gunn HS staff and PTSA volunteers to make adjustments to schedules and communicate changes when they are given information. Request to Delay Service Change and Help Fill The Gap Abruptly making a service change in the middle of the school year will be very disruptive to students who do not have alternative transportation options. We ask you to please postpone this change to the end of school year (June 4, 2020). At minimum, if it must be implemented December 28, please provide a usable web site link with correct information early next week so that we may notify student riders of the change because VTA has not. Finally, we ask VTA to please help the city fund the Shuttle we will need to fill the service gaps that cancelling the hourly VTA 88 bus service will cause. Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Kimberly Eng Lee President, Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA Cc: Palo Alto City Council at city.council@cityofpaloalto.org VTA Board at board.secretary@vta.org Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury at cgj@scscourt.org Kermit Cuff at Kermit.Cuff@VTA.Org Russell Anstadt at Russell.Anstadt@vta.org Ad Hoc Board Enhancement Committee at board.secretary@vta.org Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, City of Palo Alto at Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org Kathleen Lawrence, Henry M. Gunn High School Principal at klawrence@pausd.org Jim Pflasterer, Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA Traffic Safety Representative at Jimpf@sbcglobal.net Arthur Keller, Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA Public Transit Coordinator at ptc@kellers.org       Route Detail !Route 288 Gunn High School - North Palo Alto Service Hours Weekdays Before and after school Saturdays No Service Sundays No Service Frequency Weekday Peak Three trips before & four trips after school Weekday Midday Saturdays Sundays Improvements Special School Service View Schedules 288 | Valley Transportation Authority 1 of 1 https://newservice.vta.org/routes/288 12/12/19, 10:41 AM   The requested page could not be found. Page not found | VTA 1 of 1 https://www.vta.org/go/routes/288 12/12/19, 10:42 AM     We ’ r e h e r e t o h e l p . vt a . o r g (4 0 8 ) 3 2 1 - 2 3 0 0 VT A C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e (4 0 8 ) 3 2 1 - 2 3 3 0 TT Y (8 0 0 ) 8 9 4 - 9 9 0 8 Fr o m 6 5 0 A r e a C o d e & S o u t h C o u n t y 51 1 Re g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n f o r m a t i o n Do w n t o w n C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e C e n t e r 55 W S a n t a C l a r a S t , D o w n t o w n S a n J o s e op e n W e e k d a y s 9 : 0 0 a m –6: 0 0 p m Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e O ffice 33 3 1 N F i r s t S t , S a n J o s e ( R i v e r O a k s ) op e n W e e k d a y s 8 : 0 0 a m –4: 3 0 p m Liv e I n f o r m a t i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are h a p p y t o a s s i s t y o u : Mo n d a y –Fri d a y 6 : 0 0 a m –7:0 0 p m Sa t u r d a y 7 : 3 0 a m –4:0 0 p m Au t o m a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e 2 4 / 7 In f o r m a c i ó n a u t o m a t i z a d a e n e s p a ñ o l es t á d i s p o n i b l e 2 4 / 7 p o r t e l é f o n o GU N N HIG H S C H O O L MID D L E F I E L D & CO L O R A D O LO U I S & FIE L D I N G Gu n n H i g h S c h o o l – Mi d d l e f i e l d & C o l o r a d o 28 8 Gu n n H i g h S c h o o l – Lo u i s & F i e l d i n g Gu n n H i g h S c h o o l – Mi d d l e f i e l d & C o l o r a d o 28 8 L 28 8 M Ex t r a S c h o o l D a y S e r v i c e Op e n t o P u b l i c EF F E C T I V E De c e m b e r 2 8 20 1 9 Fares effective January 1, 2019 – subject to change Single-Ride / Two-Hour Fares Passes / Prepaid Fares Bus, Light Rail ADULT $2.50 $1.25 $1 Express Bus $5 $1.25 $1 YOUTH SENIOR/DISABLED/MEDICARE Day Pass $7.50 $3.75 Express Day Pass $15 $3.75 8-Hour Excursion Pass $5 $2.50 Monthly Pass $90 $35 Express Monthly Pass $180 Annual Pass Subscription $990 $385 $3 $3 $2 $30 $330 $35 $385 $30 $330Express Pass Annual Sub.$1,980 Two-Hour Fares are available tocustomers using a Clipper card or VTA’sEZfare mobile app. For two hours after the first tag on Clipper or upon activatinga single-ride fare on EZfare, customers can transfer for freewithin VTA bus and light rail routes. Youth Fare is available to persons ages 5–18 with proof of age. Children under age 5 ride free. Visit vta.org/fares for more information on fare options. Except for Adults using Express Bus service, Youth and Senior/Disabled/Medicare customers can transfer to Express Buses without paying an upgrade. Senior/Disabled/Medicare Fare is available to seniors age 65+, customers with disabilities and customers with a Medicarecard. Proof of age or valid picture ID may be required. Transit App Locate your bus or train in real time andget up-to-the-minute arrival predictions. More Good Stuff from VTA... Visit vta.org to access these convenient services and more!printed on recycled paperusing soy-based inks VTA Updates Sign up for our messaging service toreceive important info by text or email. EZfare Buy and use VTA fares right on yoursmartphone. It’s perfect for quick,hassle-free travel. VTAlerts Your eyes and ears help to keep VTAsafe for everyone. Use VTAlerts todiscreetly report safety concerns toVTA security personnel or to police. Ride Safe Lost & Found If you lost something on a VTA bus ortrain, contact Customer Service. Mostrecovered items (except bikes) can be collected at VTA’s Downtown CustomerService Center. If you left a bike behind,contact VTA Protective Services at (408)421-7171. If you find an item left by anothercustomer, please turn it in to the operator. Secure your Mobility Device All mobility devices must be secured whileaboard VTA buses. The bus operator will secure your device safely and quickly. Theserequirements are compliant with ADA. Failure to comply with any law, code or rule, including the behaviorslisted above, is a violation of one or more of the following: California Penal Code §§594 et seq, 640; Public Utility Code (PUC) §99170; orVTA Amended and Restated Ordinance No 98.1. Violations arepunishable by fine and/or incarceration, up to the maximum penalty allowed by law. A list of conduct that is prohibited on VTA propertyis available online at vta.org. Links to the California Penal Code, thePublic Utilities Code and the Ordinance are also available online at vta.org/rules. Weekday Westbound20 Milpitas BART to Sunnyvale Transit Center F Milpi t a s B A R T Bay # 5 1st & Orch a r d 5:406:006:156:306:457:007:157:30 E Missi o n Colle g e 5:516:116:286:436:587:157:307:45 D Sco t t & Bow e r s 6:036:236:416:567:117:297:458:00 C Arqu e s & Wolfe 6:066:266:457:007:167:347:508:05 B Sun n y v a l e Tran s i t C e n t e r 6:146:356:547:107:267:458:018:16 A 6:206:417:007:177:337:528:088:22 A Reading the Schedule is Easy! 1.Find your day and direction of travel.For example, Weekday Northbound orSaturday Southbound. 2.Each timepoint ( ) in the schedule matchesa location on the map. Find timepoints near thestart and end of your trip. Your closest stop maybe between timepoints. 3.Read down the column to see when trips serveeach timepoint. Read across to see when eachtrip arrives at other timepoints. Please note, all times are approximate due to varyingtraffic conditions. Times are subject to change. BOLD numerals indicate “PM” times. 12 2 8 1 9     288SchoolDaysOnly 288MSchoolDaysOnly 288LSchoolDaysOnly 101 Mir a n d a 89 Foot h i l l E x p w y Hi l l v i e w Arastrad e r o Ara s t r a d e r o San A n t o n i o Al m a El C a m i n o R e a l 22 5 2 2 22 5 2 2 Char l e s t o n Mea d o w Meado w Wa v e r l e y Mi d d l e f i e l d 21 21 Middl e f i e l d 21 Oreg o n Expw y Ama r i l l o Field i n g Lo u i s Loma V e r d e Colora d o Meadow Fa b i a n El C a m i n o W a y GunnHS Palo AltoVeteran’sHospital Z Y X W Palo Alto December 28, 2019EFFECTIVE Weekday Westbound20 Milpitas BART to Sunnyvale Transit Center F Milpi t a s B A R T Bay # 5 1st & Orch a r d 5:406:006:156:306:457:007:157:30 E Missi o n Colle g e 5:516:116:286:436:587:157:307:45 D Sco t t & Bow e r s 6:036:236:416:567:117:297:458:00 C Arqu e s & Wolfe 6:066:266:457:007:167:347:508:05 B Sun n y v a l e Tran s i t C e n t e r 6:146:356:547:107:267:458:018:16 A 6:206:417:007:177:337:528:088:22 A Reading the Schedule is Easy! 1.Find your day and direction of travel.For example, Weekday Northbound orSaturday Southbound. 2.Each timepoint ( ) in the schedule matchesa location on the map. Find timepoints near thestart and end of your trip. Your closest stop maybe between timepoints. 3.Read down the column to see when trips serveeach timepoint. Read across to see when eachtrip arrives at other timepoints. Please note, all times are approximate due to varyingtraffic conditions. Times are subject to change. BOLD numerals indicate “PM” times. Operates on School Days Only Subject to Change without notice This route does not operate on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays 288L 7:38 8:04 288 7:39 8:07 288M 7:43 8:04 288 will depart Palo Alto Veterans Hospital 12 minutes after Gunn High School dismissal time288Lwill depart Palo Alto Veterans Hospital 10 minutes after Gunn High School dismissal time288Mwill depart Palo Alto Veterans Hospital 8 minutes after Gunn High School dismissal time Lou i s & Field i n g Palo A l t o VA H o s p i t a l Midd l e fi e l d & Colo r a d o Gun n High S c h o o l W Z X Y Lines 288, 288L & 288M ONLY operate on days when Gunn High School is in session during the regular school year. They do not operate during summer school. Call VTA Customer Service for special early dismissal schedules. Open to public. Lines 288, 288L & 288M ONLY operate on days when Gunn High School is in session during the regular school year. They do not operate during summer school. Call VTA Customer Service for special early dismissal schedules. Open to public. School Day Southbound Midtown Palo Alto to Gunn High School Palo Alto VA Hospital to Midtown Palo Alto 288 288L 288M Route 288School Days Only Route 288MSchool Days Only Route 288LSchool Days Only Timepoint Connecting Route22 schematic mapnot to scale Y 288 288 288M 288L All times are approximate due to varying traffic conditions BOLD numerals indicate “PM” times School Day Northbound288288L288M     Page 4 • December 6, 2019 • Palo Alto Weekly • www.PaloAltoOnline.com     From:VTA customer.service@vta.org Subject:Bus Bridge between Great America and Tasman stations Date:September 25, 2019 at 3:25 PM To:arthur@kellers.org View this email in your browser Service Alert A second substitute bus bridge is replacing light rail service between Great America and Tasman stations due to a service interruption. We appreciate your patience and apologize for the inconvenience. We will notify riders when service resumes. Contact Customer Service at (408) 321-2300 or customer.service@vta.org Copyright © 2019 Valley Transportation Authority, All rights reserved. You're recieving this because you signed up for VTA service alerts. Our mailing address is: Valley Transportation Authority 3331 N First Street San Jose, CA 95134 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 14, 2019 1:25 PM To:Stump, Molly; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Dave Price Subject:MLK & Coretta Scott King comments displayed on a plaque displayed in King Plaza outside Palo Alto City Hall. ( Think about the allegations against PAPD Capt. Zack Perron) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Outside of Palo Alto City Hall is King Plaza, named in January of 2008, in honor of Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King. On a plaque in their honor displayed in King Plaza are the following two quotes: "Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless effort and persistent work of dedicated individuals; and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation and irrational emotionalism. We must realize that the time is always ripe to do right." A speech by Martin Luther King from Stanford University in 1967. "The greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members...a heart of grace and a soul generated by love." Speech at Georgia State University in 2000 by Coretta Scott King.   Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Keren Henigman <kerenhenigman@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Petition to Enforce Municipal Code 10.36.030. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,     I am a member of the San Alma Home Owner’s Association in Palo Alto.  Our community presented a petition (appended  below) to the Council on Monday, November 18, 2019.       I am writing to show my support of their petition for the City to enforce the Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates  all parked vehicles move every 72 hours and install“No overnight parking signs” along San Antonio between Alma  Street and Briarwood Way.     Please keep me informed of any updates regarding this issue.     Sincerely,     Keren Henigman  4295 Ponce Dr., Palo Alto  San Alma Neigberhood            November 14th, 2019     To:  Palo Alto City Manager and Council     From:  Residents of San Alma HOA and neighbors        Petition     We, the 75+ residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhoods, are submitting this petition to request that  the City of Palo Alto:      Enforce Municipal Code 10.36.030 that mandates all parked vehicles move every 72 hours;      Install “No RV Parking” signs along San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way;      Extend the “No Parking From Here to Corner” zone along the west side of San Antonio Ave between Alma St  and Ponce Dr to improve sight lines, and refresh red‐color curbs and install additional signs;      Create bike lanes on both sides of the San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way to improve bike  and pedestrian safety;  2     Consider installing “No Parking” signs on designated days and times of the week, to allow a sweeping vehicle  to clean pavement and remove trash from both sides of San Antonio Ave.       In the last few years the short stretch of San Antonio Ave between Alma St and Briarwood Way has experienced a sharp  increase in traffic, littering, and illegal dumping including human waste.  The increase in commuter traffic, parking for  the train station, ‘Waymo’ car tests, heavy construction trucks, and special equipment have all contributed to these  conditions. This entire stretch of San Antonio Ave is always full of RVs and cars used as sleeping accommodations; there  are frequently abandoned vehicles as well, and often used for storage of construction equipment.       The oversized vehicles parked along this street block visibility when exiting Ponce Drive, especially concerning because  this stretch of San Antonio Ave is very busy with bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to and from the Caltrain station. It is  currently very hazardous for bicycles and pedestrians: bicyclists are forced onto the sidewalk for safety, jeopardizing the  pedestrians and creating hazardous driving conditions for vehicles. We have also observed that the fire hydrant is  blocked which causes even more of a safety concern for the residents in the area.     It has been often observed that frequent lack of parking provokes fire hydrant blocking violations that is once more an  extreme hazard jeopardizing safety of San Alma community.       There is a large amount of trash along both sides of San Antonio Ave because the individuals residing in RVs leave  bagged trash directly on the street or in nearby areas. The area on the east side of San Antonio Ave is used as a  bathroom and human fecal matter and other trash has been observed; the residents of the homes behind these walls  have complained of strong human waste odors often coming from San Antonio Ave. The parked RVs and other vehicles  prevent the sweeping truck from cleaning the streets. All of these bio‐hazardous conditions are creating an area that is  unsanitary and unsafe for the community in general and for the quality of life of our residents in particular.      When the weather gets colder, the RVs and other vehicles that are used as living accommodations run generators for  heat, which pollutes the air and creates loud sounds which violate city noise ordinances.      This has been a problem for our community for several years, and many of our residents have filed numerous reports.  Despite our efforts, there are several RVs that are here many days and weeks with no discernible movement. One  particular RV has been parking here for over three years. This lack of enforcement has attracted more RVs and cars that  are used as residences.     We ask for code enforcement and “No Overnight Parking” signs placement for safety, security and sanitation reasons.  Our Residents require a safe and sanitary neighborhood to be maintained for all.     Moreover, we urge the Palo Alto City Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting overnight parking of RVs, trailers,  oversized vehicles, and special equipment within at least 100 feet from any residential property line.        We understand that many individuals and their families have circumstances causing them to reside in RV’s and other  vehicles. While we empathize with these individuals, we request the City of Palo Alto take immediate actions to protect  our residents by enforcing the municipal codes and increasing signage.      We are aware of measures taken by the City in other locations, and we request the same consideration from the City.     Respectfully submitted on behalf of the residents of the San Alma HOA and surrounding neighborhood.         Simon Gleyzer, President of San Alma HOA     SGleyzer  3    4214 Ponce Dr.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  qasimon@gmail.com  650.224.6979        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 3:15 PM To:scscroundtable@gmail.com Cc:Council, City; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Please relay this to all SCSC members CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear SCSC Roundtable members,     I would like to share with you the recent Sky Posse Palo Alto  UPDATE.     Important questions are posed about what criteria the SCSC roundtable will adopt to make recommendations. The  fallacious "no noise shifting" issue that you also heard about from various public speakers at your last meeting will have  repercussions to how roundtables are perceived locally and nationally.     I urge that instead of being a "no this, no that" body ‐ effectively privatizing our skies for the exclusive benefit of  economic gains or to create special noise shields to arbitrarily protect say San Jose who has told you of their "policy"  that they will not accept any noise unless it benefits them, that you instead adopt the Select Committee's UNDERLYING  PRINCIPLES  (page 3 of the SC's final report). A "can do" approach could do more to help address the problems that  brought about the body you represent.     Last but not least, as I have shared before, a first step to informed community discussions must be to demand noise  maps and AEDT analysis before FAA concludes on "community asks" or to trounce forward with piecemeal actions that  are not understood as regards impacts on the ground. Namely, by FAA themselves who do not know the effect of Air  Traffic Organization actions on people on the ground. The drunken like pattern of publishing procedures without any  noise analysis needs to end and I hope you can help with that as well.     Thank you for your work on this issue.     Jennifer Landesmann  Palo Alto, CA      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Deborah Goldeen <kidslovehorses@me.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 1:54 PM To:mark.heur@cityofpaloalto.org; Transportation Cc:Council, City Subject:Residential Permit Parking Program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    A couple days ago I overheard a contractor working on next door property telling a group of construction workers that  our neighborhood was permit parking only and that to avoid getting a ticket, they were going to have to move their cars  every two hours. What the contractor didn’t see and that I did, was the looks of suppressed rage on faces of workers; at  any point “trivial” requests like these can end up being the straw that breaks the camels back.    Also, the contractor was wrong. The parking enforcement contractor drives through our neighborhood a couple times a  year and issues tickets to every single vehicle without a permit no matter how long it has or hasn’t been parked.  They  never do a time check.    According to DeMattei staff, it is the responsibility of the subcontractors to get day permits for their workers. The  subcontractors are supposed to go to city hall in person with the liscense plate numbers as well as make, model and year  of vehicle of each car that the workers drive to get permits. If the work takes more than ten days, the cost of permits is  more than an entire years permit for a resident.    Contractors and subcontractors have about as much time to waste at city hall as the president of Stanford or the CEO of  Facebook does, probably less. Second, the nature of the work means you can’t know weeks in advance the exact days  and you don’t know the liscense plate number, make, model and year of vehicle until the workers show up that day.    This arrangement is in the “let them eat cake” category of bureaucratic absurdity with the bottom of the economic  ladder workers having to take the crap whether they like it or not.    Mr. Heur ‐ please don’t bother to respond unless you are telling me you are working on a solution to this or you have  forwarded this email to the correct persons. If you respond with some kind of stupid platitude, I will have to come down  to city hall and talk with you in person about it and if I have to do that, I will not be in a good mood.    Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch St., 650‐321‐7375  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:46 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:So Sorry! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, After reflection and a good night's rest I must write to admit that we all could have done without my exaggerated and rude departure. Sorry!     Wishing you a good winter break. Sincerely, Ardan Michael  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Melinda McGee <melinda_mcgee@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 6:21 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please stop the proliferation of Cell Towers throughout Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    It is very concerning that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? This is shorter than the distance from the street to my front door. We live next to Alma so we have the trains and the road traffic all day and night and also are in an airline flight path. Please we cannot take another assault on our health and well-being.    I am concerned about the many different companies who are asking to put cell towers in Palo Alto and whether the City Staff really care about the wishes of Palo Alto residents    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. We do not want any exception to a 100-foot setback.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic and healthy living standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Melinda McGee  3707 Lindero Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94306  2 650-704-6236                     1 Brettle, Jessica From:John D Melnychuk <jmelnychuk@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 6:37 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please stop the proliferation of Cell Towers throughout Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    Cell phone towers are radiation emitting devices and when installed they will emit radiation 24  hours a day 7 days a week for decades.    It is very concerning that City Staff are asking you to approve a 20 foot setback for cell towers from residences, a provision that is part of the revised Wireless Resolution you will be considering on December 16th. Twenty feet is only three to four feet longer than the average car. How can that be an acceptable distance for a cell tower from a home? This is shorter than the distance from the street to my front door. We live next to Alma so we have the trains and the road traffic all day and night and also are in an airline flight path. Please we cannot take another assault on our health and well-being.    I am concerned about the many different companies who are asking to put cell towers in Palo Alto and whether the City Staff really care about the wishes of Palo Alto residents    In April, City Council specifically asked Staff to prepare this revised Wireless Resolution in order to update the City’s wireless policy so that it provides greater protections for Palo Alto residents. But the proposed 20 foot setback does the opposite of serving residents’ interests. It opens the door for the telecom industry to put their ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment right next to our homes.     It is true that City Staff have prepared a revised Wireless Resolution that includes many important elements that residents want. One is the provision that cell towers may not be located in any residential zone unless the City grants the cell tower applicant an “exception.” But since exceptions are permitted, residents need to be protected when an exception is granted—protected from having a cell tower installed only a little more than a car length away from their homes. We do not want any exception to a 100-foot setback.    Please do not establish a 20 foot setback. Please establish instead a no-exceptions 100 foot setback. One hundred feet is a more than reasonable accommodation to insist that the telecommunications industry make to the aesthetic and healthy living standards of Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,    2   John Melnychuk  3707 Lindero Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-704-6236  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Deborah Goldeen <kidslovehorses@me.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 1:31 PM To:mark.heur@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Templates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  Mark ‐ the one day residential parking permits for Evergreen Park/Mayfield, for contractors and what not, have DT and  “for downtown residential parking only” on them. City staff told me “that’s the template” and that “the template needs  to be updated.”  As of this coming March, Evergreen Park will have had an RPP for three years.  Time to fix “the  template”?  Deb Goldeen, {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, December 15, 2019 3:51 PM To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; bballpod; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; hennessy; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; Irv Weissman; Cathy Lewis; terry; Doug Vagim; Joel Stiner; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; becerra.bere11 @gmail.com; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; steve.hogg; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; megan.soule@gm.com Subject:Fwd: Tesla and batteries CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM  Subject: Fwd: Tesla and batteries  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>              Sun. 12‐15‐19                             Mr. Feinstein‐  I just read the long article re Tesla and batts., attached.  It makes one want to sell everything he  has and B Tesla. Then those commenting poke holes in the article.  I do know that my Tesla stock has come way up in a  few months.                              It sure dispels the idea that Tesla will stand or fall based on Model 3 sales. The car business is one part of  the Tesla picture. Model 3 sales are huge, compared to Model S and Model X.                    If you could get your lithium metal batts substituted for the dangerous lithium ion batts, vast revs would be in  store for Ionic Materials, Inc.                It is an impressive article, not some boring tract about KwHs and gigawatts. The article just opens one's eyes to a  vast new industry.                  Could you please give me a heads‐up before you do your IPO?  I think that is legal to do.                    I urge all recipients to read the article in the attached email. Vast industry in batts is coming.                         LH    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>  Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:52 AM  2 Subject: Re: Tesla and batteries  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    Thanks.   Sent from my iPhone      On Dec 13, 2019, at 5:25 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:23 AM  Subject: Tesla and batteries  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>          Friday, Dec. 13, 2019            Mr. Steven Feinstein         Ionic Materials, Inc.             Mr. Feinstein‐  Late at night. Have not read this yet but you will want to see it, I think:                  https://seekingalpha.com/article/4311959‐battery‐developments‐coming‐thick‐and‐fast‐for‐ tesla?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter‐widget               L. William Harding             Fresno  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2019 6:12 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Watch these videos for detailed information CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Cell Towers and Cancer Dr. Martin Blank Bioinitiative Report     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Cell Towers and Cancer Dr. Martin Blank Bioinitiative Report Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the wor...    Electromagnetic Fields     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Electromagnetic Fields Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the wor...        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Michelle Wiles <mfwiles22@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 5:05 PM Subject:You’re footing the bill for this non-profit to sexually harass its employees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Is the type of non profit you want to be affiliated with?  Please help make actionable change and investigate this further.   https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/12/11/downtown‐streets‐team‐faces‐claims‐of‐hard‐partying‐work‐culture‐ gender‐discrimination/      Michelle Fox Wiles