Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200210plCC 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 2/10/2020 Document dates: 1/22/2020 – 1/29/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6:34 PM To:French, Amy Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Atkinson, Rebecca; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; UAC; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org Subject:RE: Request for information on wireless Dear Amy, Thank you for this update. Am I correct that if, on January 27th, three or more Councilmembers vote to remove Item 3 from the Consent Calendar, then Crown Castle’s appeal of the Director’s decision to deny approval to the Downtown North cluster will be heard as an Action Item on that date (i.e, on January 27th)? Also, regarding the Barron Park Vinculums/Verizon cluster, I would appreciate it if you would tell me 1) what an “entitlement” is in this context, and 2) what it would mean if Vinculum/Verizon’s request to extend the entitlement were to be denied by Planning Director Lait. As always, I appreciate your help. Jeanne   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6:03 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>  Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan  <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Request for information on wireless  Importance: High    Ms. Fleming,  As you may be aware, Council adopted updates to the objective wireless administrative standards. Attached please find  a signed copy of the December 16, 2019 Council Resolution.  This resolution will be found on the City Manager’s  Wireless Hot Topic website. Two other updates may interest you:    1. Vinculums submitted an entitlement extension request on 1/16/19 for Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 (17PLN‐ 00170). The entitlement would expire February 4, 2020, unless the Director of Planning and Development  Services issues the extension. The Director is reviewing the request. The process is outlined in Palo Alto  Municipal Code Section 18.77.090.  2   2. Crown Castle appealed the Director’s Decisions on Cluster 3 (17PLN‐00450). The 1/27 Council meeting consent  agenda has this:    1/27 Council Agenda:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=51396.56&BlobID=74839   Item 3 Consent Calendar – Crown Castle Appeal City Managers Report:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61012.71&BlobID=74856  QUASI‐JUDICIAL: Deny Appeal by Crown Castle and Uphold the Director's Decisions to Deny Wireless  Communication Facilities on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way (For Lease to Verizon, Known as  Crown Castle Cluster 3) in Six Locations Within the Downtown North Neighborhood [File 17PLN‐00450],  Zoned Public Facilities. Locations are Adjacent to These Zones/Addresses: RM‐30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson,  243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM‐D (NP) (482 Everett and 301 Bryant); RM15 (201 High). The Project  is Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Public  Resources Code Section 21080.        Amy French| Chief Planning Official  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2336| E: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!       From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 3:46 PM  To: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed  <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board  <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; UAC  <UAC@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org  Subject: Updates to residents regarding wireless applications    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Amy and Rebecca, With the thought that perhaps you never received it, I am re-sending the email I sent you on December 6th, 2019. This email asked whether, going forward, the City’s Wireless Hot Topics Webpage would be systematically updated. I would be most appreciative of a response to my question. As you are aware from the volume of email Council receives from residents and from our presence at Council meetings, the wireless issue remains of great interest to many Palo Altans. If City Staff is not going to keep the Hot Topics page systematically updated, please consider this my formal request for information regarding all cell tower application submissions, resubmissions, reviews, approvals, appeals, hearings (or any type of consideration by Council, the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission or any other body), permits, scheduled installations, completed installations, compliance reports, tolling agreements, shot clock extensions and the like since November 1, 2019. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 3 Please let me know if you have any questions. As always, thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 4:05 PM  To: 'French, Amy' <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Atkinson, Rebecca' <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: 'City'' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Clerk, City' <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Shikada, Ed'  <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Lait, Jonathan' <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; 'Architectural Review Board'  <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org; UAC@cityofpaloalto.org; board@pausd.org  Subject: Wireless Hot Topic Page Updated    Dear Amy and Rebecca, Thank you for letting me know that the Wireless Hot Topics Webpage has been updated and that, other than the upcoming consideration of the revised Wireless Resolution by Council, there is no additional wireless-related news. I was glad to see the Update. Will you now be updating the page as you did in the past, that is, will you now be systematically reporting on cell tower application submissions, resubmissions, reviews, approvals, appeals, hearings, permits, installations, compliance reports, tolling agreements, shot clock extensions and the like? As always, thank you for your help. Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 6:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Consent Calendar-January 27th. Please uphold the Planning Director's Decision about the Verizon Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait made the correct decision so please uphold his decision. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to design an installation that is acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. Thank you for considering my request. Best regards, Ron Wilensky Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 6:45 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Re: Consent Calendar-January 27th. Please uphold the Planning Director's Decision about the Verizon Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait made the correct decision so please uphold his decision. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to design an installation that is acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. Thank you for considering my request. Best regards, Ron Wilensky Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Lilley <Myjuno91@Sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:deny approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, Please uphold  Planning Direvtor Jonathan Lait’s decision to den;y approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to  install in the Downtown North neighborhood.    Sincerely,  Barbara Llilley  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Melody Song <shanghaimelody@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:19 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Council Meeting on 01/27 Regarding Crown Castle/Verizon CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Jing Song  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Celia Boyle <swcie@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:23 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Jay Hopkins Subject:Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision regarding denying approval of Verizon cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, This Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Celia Boyle and Jay Hopkins Barron Park, Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Janet Gu <janetlipingding1120@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:deny approval please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    1 Baumb, Nelly From:jason dong <bigjason413@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:01 PM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:deny approval please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Jason  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Devony Sofia Taylor <devonystaylor@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 7:56 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Application in Downtown North CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that on Monday, January 27th, you will be making a decision regarding Crown Castle/Verizon’s application to install six cell towers in the Downtown North Neighborhood.    I urge you to support and uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny the application. The decision to deny is in the best interest of the city and residents. Let Crown Castle/Verizon reapply with a design that meets their needs and is compatible with the neighborhood’s needs for safety and design.      Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Devony Taylor                Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 10:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bulldozing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The city staff, the ARB and residents found the cell tower application from Crown Castle/Horizon to be inappropriate.   Sadly the applicant, without modification, is appealing these decisions.  It is requested this appeal be denied.    Residents are consumers and it is surprising that a commercial concern would merely ignore their objections.    Thank you    Paul Machado  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Eugene Spevakov <spevakov@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 11:16 AM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Crown Castle/Verizon cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed cell towers are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” A slightly better cell signal or a faster data transfer is not worth the risk to our health. Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Eugene Spevakov 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 12:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org Subject:Downtown North cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.   Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Jeanne Fleming  Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151           1 Baumb, Nelly From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 2:37 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Subject:Crown Castle / Cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,  Please uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon  have applied to install in Downtown North.    Rather than work to accommodate resident, ARB, and staff concerns, Crown Castle/Verizon has stonewalled.    Your, your staff's, and your constituents' lives are too valuable to squander on a hearing. Crown Castle/Verizon knows  what we're asking of them, and they've means to provide it.     Thank you for considering this request.    David Schrom   ************* Magic, 1979-2019: forty years of valuescience leadership ************** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Christine Selberg <christineselberg@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 3:26 PM To:Council, City; ARB@citypaloalto.org; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,  I submitted a letter prior to the 12/16/2019 Council Meeting, spoke at the meeting about my concerns and plan to attend the meeting on Monday, January 27th about my concerns of cell towers in the Downtown North neighborhood of Palo Alto.   I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  2 Christine Selberg  Palo Alto, CA 94301 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Francesca Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 9:50 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Uphold the Planning Director’s decision to deny approval to Crown Castle’s proposed cell towers in Downtown North CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Francesca Kautz  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell towers in Downtown North CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanette Bahn <jeanettebahn@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:I am a Downtown North Resident, voicing my concern CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,  Jeanette Bahn  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:It’s time to deny the cell towers! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Yours truly, Ardan Michael Blum - Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:24 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:re: City Council acts on this Monday 1/27/20 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s  decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North  neighborhood.  Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one.    These cell towers are badly designed and badly located.  No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning  Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public.  Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the  Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that  “Staff recommends that the City Council  deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the  record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic  and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision.  In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster  of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with  what would be acceptable designs.  But the applicants have chosen to do nothing.  It’s time to deny the cell towers they  have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,  ‐Phil Coulson  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Cathy Berwaldt <cberwaldt@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:42 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 Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your attention to this matter.    Sincerely    Cathy Berwaldt    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:43 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 Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood, and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely yours,    Barbara Kelly    Palo Alto, CA 94301      Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:45 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; 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 Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,  I hope that you will uphold Mr. Lait's decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in  the Downtown North neighborhood.  The telecommunications companies are trying to make it as cheap as possible for their  installations at the expense of neighbors.  As Mr. Lait and the ARB have already spent considerable time on this issue, Crown  Castle/Verizon need to make an effort to bring a suitable proposal.  They have not done so.  Please uphold Mr. Lait's decision.  Nancy Steinbach  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 4:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, J Nimkar  2 Barron Park    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Samuel W Brain PhD <samb@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 4:38 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision to deny Crown Castle/Verizon's application CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,    Samuel W. Brain, Ph.D.   ‐‐  Sam Brain, Ph.D., Stanford Cancer Center, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5847. P:650-723-6967 & C:650-850-2127   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Amira Rawashdeh <amiraxba@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 4:45 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”   Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Amira Bachir         1 Baumb, Nelly From:Trail tracker . <saharaspider@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 5:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Tower CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly  Yaser Rawshdeh   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sharon Espar <sharonespar@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:23 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.  Please honor Director Lait’s decision  Thank you  Sharon Espar  Palo Alto resident for 50 years  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:52 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.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Richard and Carol Heermance    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:(ARB@cityofpaloalto.org; Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org; board@pausd.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    2 Lynn Hollyn    ‐‐   lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129     1 Baumb, Nelly From:April Eiler <aprileiler42@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 5:33 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 Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,     Please uphold Planning Director Lait's decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to  install in the Downtown North neighborhood. These cell towers are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood  for safety and aesthetic reasons.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  April Eiler  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Heypalermo <heypalermo@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 5:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:deny approval to Crown Castle’s proposed cell towers in the Downtown North neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Karen and Amol Saxena 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Christine SELBERG <christineselberg@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 7:27 PM To:Council, City; ARB@citypaloalto.org; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Feinstein Op-Ed. On 5G & Cities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am attaching this Op‐Ed Senator Feinstein wrote for the Mercury News on January 16, 2020.  Senator Feinstein writes that municipalities—not the FCC, not the telecom companies should decide where cell towers  should go and what they should look like.    >  2 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 9:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Deny approval to 6 cell towers in Downtown North neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka    On Monday, January 27th, I understand that you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait's  decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North  neighborhood.    Please support Mr. Lait's decision.     Over the year or two that I have been writing letters and attending council meetings on this topic, it has been made  clear that no one thinks that the towers are acceptable. The list is long: Planning Director Lait, the Architectural Review  Board, and the public. In this specific appeal, City Manager Ed Shikada also recommends that City Council deny the  appeal from Crown Castle.     Keep Palo Alto beautiful. Support residents. No one wants these unattractive, poorly designed, noisy, and potentially  unsafe towers next to homes. Don't allow them in Downtown North. Support Planning Director Jonathan Lait's decision  to deny approval to the six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon aims to install in Downtown North.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,    Annette Evans Fazzino  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 12:41 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Jeanne Fleming Subject:For Monday, January 27th Council meeting Wireless Towers update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….” Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, L. Povolotsky Palo Alto resident of 28 years  For United Neighbors  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 3:44 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:1/27/2020 Council Mtg: Item 3 related to Wireless Communication Facilities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     Please approve Item 3 on the Consent Calendar to deny approval to Crown Castle’s proposed cell towers in Downtown  North.    Last October, Planning Director Jonathan Lait, based on the recommendations of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board,  denied approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle (for lease to Verizon) are asking to install in Downtown North. These  facilities are badly designed and located and don’t belong in our city.    Sincerely,  Mary Dimit  Palo Alto owner and resident        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Lum <annelum@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 7:18 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Fwd: Cell Tower Update: City Council acts on Monday CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,      I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    2 Anne Lum  Homeowner at                  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 8:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: City of Palo Alto - Crown Castle Cluster III Attachments:Ltr to Mayor Fine and City of Palo Alto re Appeal of Cluster III.PDF; ATT00001.htm     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: Saturday, January 25, 2020 12:37 AM  To: Bilir, Aylin <Aylin.Bilir@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy  <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth  <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: City of Palo Alto ‐ Crown Castle Cluster III    Hello all,  Please see the attached letter from Crown Castle regarding their appeal scheduled for Monday.   Regards,  Rebecca  Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Rosa Lopez <Rosa.Lopez@ndlf.com>  Date: January 24, 2020 at 4:54:13 PM PST  To: "Fine, Adrian" <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: "Atkinson, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Yang, Albert"  <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "mark.hansen@crowncastle.com"  <mark.hansen@crowncastle.com>, "Joshua.Trauner@crowncastle.com"  2 <Joshua.Trauner@crowncastle.com>, "Rochelle.Swanson@crowncastle.com"  <Rochelle.Swanson@crowncastle.com>, "Angela.McIntyre@crowncastle.com"  <Angela.McIntyre@crowncastle.com>, "Michael W. Shonafelt" <Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com>, Ruby  Williams <Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com>  Subject: City of Palo Alto ‐ Crown Castle Cluster III    2464.109 / 8600709.2 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 January 24, 2020 VIA EMAIL Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council City Hall Fifth Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment Decision on Six Pending Applications for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.070(f) – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (7PLN-00450). Dear Mayor Fine, This office represents Crown Castle Fiber LLC (“Crown Castle”) in the above-referenced matter related to six applications for wireless communications facility (“WCF”) permits in the public rights-of-way (“Applications” or “Project”). This letter presents Crown Castle’s grounds for its appeal of the October 8, 2019, decision of the Director of Planning and Development Services (“Director”) to deny the Applications (“Denial”). The six WCF nodes at issue are as follows: (1) Node 20, CPAU Pole #6474 (adjacent to 205 Everett Ave and also near 251 Emerson St) (2) Node 21m1, CPAU Pole #6362 (adjacent to 301 Bryant St and also near 311 Everett Av) (3) Node 22m2, CPAU Pole #6288 (adjacent to 258 Waverley St, replaced Node 22 near 386 Everett) (4) Node 23, CPAU Pole #6350 (adjacent to 482 Everett Avenue) (5) Node 24, CPAU Pole #6378 (adjacent to 243 Hawthorne Avenue) (6) Node 32, CPAU Pole #6492 (adjacent to 201 High Street). The above WCF applications collectively are referred to as “Cluster Three,” as they are part of a three-cluster series of applications permits to install a larger network in the City. The appeal was timely filed pursuant to the written requirements prescribed by the Director, pursuant to City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) section 18.77.070(f). A brief summary of the grounds for the appeal follows. Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 2 2464.109 / 8600709.2 1. INTRODUCTION A. The Project The Project proposes to install six small WCF nodes (“Node” or “Nodes”) on existing wood utility pole sites, each located entirely within the public right of way (“ROW”) of the City of Palo Alto (“City”). Together, the Nodes integrate with one another (and with pre-existing infrastructure) to provide critical telecommunications services within the City. 1 Each Node consists of a canister antenna and three remote 40 watt radio units for three bands of service (700, 1900 and 2100) (“RRUs”). RRUs convert light from fiber optic cables into radio frequencies (“RF”), which is then broadcast from the antenna to provide signal to mobile users. As proposed, each Node’s RRUs would feature radios mounted to the side of the pole. The antenna would be mounted at the pole-top. Here is a depiction of node 22m2, with the existing condition on the left and a photo simulation of the Project, as built on the right: Combined photo-simulations and construction drawings for each Node are included as Exhibit A. 1 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has described development of telecommunications infrastructure as “critical.” See generally Accenture Strategy, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, (2017); attached to Letter from Scott Bergmann, Vice Pres. Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H, Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 16-421 (filed Jan. 13, 2017). Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 3 2464.109 / 8600709.2 B. Factual Backdrop After extensive preliminary work with City planning staff and residents, including a number of site walks to scout out locations for the Nodes, the Node concepts first came before the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) in an optional public study session on September 21, 2017. At that meeting, staff praised Crown Castle for engaging in the study session to facilitate “early public comment and transparency.” See Minutes of September 21, 2017, ARB Meeting, at p. 2.) Crown Castle took comment and input from the ARB and the public regarding the design revisions and Crown Castle set out to incorporate that input into revised plans for the Nodes. Crown Castle submitted the Applications for filing on or about December 13, 2017. After filing the Applications, Crown Castle’s engineers and project manager continued to work closely with staff to make modifications to the designs and usher the Applications to a decision. After rounds of review and revision, the Applications came before the ARB again on January 17, 2019, with a staff recommendation of approval. At the January 17, 2019, hearing, the ARB took comment from Crown Castle and the public and voted to recommend denial, based on vague concerns about the pole-mounted equipment. No other feasible alternative to the pole-mounted equipment was proposed or offered. On October 9, 2019, the Director issued a written denial of the Applications based on the ARB’s recommendation. Crown Castle timely filed its appeal of that Denial. C. Critical Telecommunication Services for the 21st Century It is often incorrectly assumed that Crown Castle’s networks are intended only to enhance specialized data needs, such as video streaming and online gaming. The Project actually provides essential infrastructure to support critical voice telecommunications and broadband services to residents, visitors, and other mobile users in the City. Networks like Crown Castle’s are replacing traditional wireline telephone service and soon may constitute the only form of telephonic infrastructure. 2 Without a reliable wireless telecommunications network, the City could be left without adequate telephone service -- including 911 service. The Project is critical for the following reasons, among others: (1) The world is going wireless. In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in wireless broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, and France. 3 (2) Over 50 percent of all homes in the U.S. are now wireless only. 4 That trend will continue until the entire nation conducts its telecommunications exclusively through wireless networks. 2 See, e.g., Robert Channick, Illinois OKs End of Landlines, Chicago Tribune (Jul. 5 2017). <https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-att-landline-end-illinois-0706-biz-20170705-story.html. (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 3 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, Broadband Statistics (June 2010) <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Releases of Estimates from the National Health Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 4 2464.109 / 8600709.2 (3) An increasing number of civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite a lack of robust wireless networks as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that more than 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones and that percentage is growing. 5 (4) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven-fold increase by 2021. 6 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL Infrastructure development, like the Project, is essential to establishing a robust national and statewide telecommunications network. Accordingly, the Project arises under a unique confluence of federal, state, and local law. Given the national and state-level interests at work, both federal and state regimes restrict local land use authority to promote the rapid development of advanced telecommunication networks. A. Federal Law (1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) deliberations on the Project are governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) (“Telecom Act”). In enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent “to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” (Telecom Act, Pub. L. 104 (Feb. 8, 1996) 110 Stat. 56.) As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte (D. Kan. 2007) 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47.) One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications Interview Survey, July-December 2016 (2017) <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201705.pdf> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 5 Federal Communications Commission, 911 Wireless Service (2018) <http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 6 Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index, Forecast and Trends 2017-2022 (Nov. 18 2018) <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.html> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 5 2464.109 / 8600709.2 facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) [“Section 332” or “§ 332”].) Section 332(c)(7)(B) limits the general authority reserved to state and local governments. These limitations include: (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(I).) (b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the “effective prohibition clause”). (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) (c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(ii).) (d) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii).) (e) No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv).) Additionally, 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) (“Section 253”) states: “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.” Section 253(a) preempts local ordinances and regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services. (Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 571, 578.) Implementing regulations and policies to the Telecom Act also guide local governmental actions, including the following. (2) The FCC Shot Clock In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued the “Shot Clock Order” to provide a specific timeline for what constitutes a “reasonable period of time” to act on a wireless telecommunications permit application under section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Telecom Act. (Fed. Comm. Comm’n., Petition for Declaratory Ruling (“Shot Clock Rule”), 24 F.C.C. Rcd. 13994 (2009) (“Shot Clock Order”.) It did so in light of significant delays caused by local governments in issuing permits for telecommunications facilities: Personal wireless service providers have often faced lengthy and unreasonable delays in the consideration of their facility siting applications, and [ ] the persistence of such delays is impeding the deployment of advanced and emergency services. (Id. at 14004-05; see also id. at 14006 [“[t]his record evidence demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the personal wireless service facility siting applications process have obstructed the Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 6 2464.109 / 8600709.2 provision of wireless services.”].) Under its 2018 Small Cell Order, the FCC refined the previous Shot Clock rulings and shortened the Shot Clock time frame: (1) from 150 days to 90 days for new facilities, and (2) from 90 to 60 days for collocations. (FCC’s September 2018 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in the matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (2018), FCC 18-133 (“Small Cell Order”).)7 The FCC also altered the remedy for violating the Shot Clock. Failure to act within the Shot Clock timeframe now amounts to a presumptive prohibition of service in violation of the Telecom Act. The FCC’s recent ruling underscores the critical impacts of delay on the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure. (3) The FCC’s Constraints on Local Aesthetic Controls In the Small Cell Order, the 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. 7 The Small Cell Order is comprised of two parts: (1) a declaratory ruling on the appropriate interpretation of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7); and (2) a third report and order. The declaratory ruling portion is the definitive interpretation of the statutory requirements, applying to all pending permit applications, while the third report and order promulgates new regulatory requirements that take effect on January 14, 2019. Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 7 2464.109 / 8600709.2 (Id., ¶ 88.) On the whole the Denial rests on discriminatory aesthetic requirements, many of which are difficult, if not impossible, to meet in a manner that allows deployment of a workable network. 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 Denial rests on regulations that single out wireless telecommunications carriers and infrastructure developers, prescribing onerous aesthetic and engineering restrictions that do not apply to other utilities in the ROW. Those regulations also contain 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. B. State Law In addition to the federal statutes, regulations, and policies, state law also controls the City Council’s deliberation on the Project. Public Utilities Code sections 7901, 7901.1, and Government Code Section 65964.1 are the most pertinent and applicable California statutes. (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and 7901.1 Under state law, Crown Castle is a “competitive local exchange carrier” (“CLEC”). CLECs qualify as a “public utility” and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the California Public Utility Commission’s (“CPUC”) issuance of a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” (“CPCN”), CLECs have authority under state law to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments” without having to obtain the equivalent of a “local franchise.” (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has “the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities.”].) The CPUC issued a CPCN authorizing Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle’s special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to “construct … telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State” and to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]” (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: … “[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council January 24, 2020 Page 8 2464.109 / 8600709.2 adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]” … Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 [quoting County of L.A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384].) Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited “right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,].” Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to “erect poles” in the ROW. That is because “the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair.” (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, “to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner.” (Ibid.) On the basis of Crown Castle’s status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle’s rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. By enacting AB 57, codified as Government Code section 65964.1, the California Legislature echoed the courts’ oft-repeated declaration that “the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair.” (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Under section 65964.1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964.1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) 3. THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION RESULTS IN A VIOLATION OF THE TELECOM ACT’S PROHIBITION OF SERVICE PROVISION. As noted above, section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 8:24 AM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Downtown North cell towers - please deny Crown Castle/Verizon approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I fully agree with the letter below, drafted by United Neighbors, imploring the city to deny Crown Castle/Verizon permission to install cell towers in Downtown North. The radiated RF emissions, acoustic noise, and ugliness of these installations are unacceptable for hanging above our houses and sidewalks.      I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.  2    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Dan Adams    Palo Alto  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 2:06 PM To:Clerk, City; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Subject:Opposition to cell towers in the Downtown North neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello to the Palo Alto City Council: I express my opposition to the placement of cell phone towers in the Downtown North neighborhood. Thank you, Kathleen Martin 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul Martin <paul.manjun@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:26 PM To:Fine, Adrian Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Mayor Adrian Fine's Counterfeit letter to State Senator Scott Wiener Dear Mayor Fine:      The letter you wrote was clearly counterfeit because it said “City of Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor and City Council” but  it was neither approved by City Council nor was it on proper City stationary, these are the facts whether you like them or  not!      Regarding SB50, your statement below equating SB50 with housing near Caltrain is disingenuous and misleading.    Nearly the entire city of Palo Alto, due to good jobs and good schools, would be at the mercy of developers who could  pick and choose which zoning rules to follow and which to ignore as they profit from 75 foot apartments sprinkled into  Palo Alto R1 neighborhoods.      A better solution is to look at how we got to this jobs/housing imbalance on the peninsula in the most recent decade.   Root is years of cities rolling out incentives to companies to build huge campuses with thousands of jobs in an area with  limited housing.   SB50 continues this pandering to “big tech“ with idea of “We will build a new house for every new job  that comes.”  What we need is to turn entire SB50 thinking on its head.   Instead of “A house for every job”, we need “A  job for every existing house”.     Very specifically this means:    1)   Companies should be incentivized to put jobs where housing already exists.  Why can’t Facebook put a campus in  TriValley, Morgan Hill, Sonoma or Oakland where today people spend wasted hours in traffic commuting to jobs on  peninsula?   Opportunity zones for existing housing rich areas are good for companies, people and environment.      2)  Corporate taxes, per employee, should be raised in areas with limited housing to incentivize companies to leave areas  where jobs & housing are not balanced.  Great work Palo Alto City Council Monday night:‐)    3)  Local cities should retain full control of zoning.   Sacramento “one size fits all” is the antithesis of good planning and  sells out to developers the quality of life we enjoy and deserve in Palo Alto and throughout the state.    4)  State of CA should focus on educating existing CA children and adults with skills to serve the jobs created where they  live.  CA is by our Governors own admission 41st among states in per pupil spending and 2nd in number of students per  teacher.  Sacramento can’t even do this one basic thing and yet they can find time, energy and money to jump into  taking over local zoning in areas like Palo Alto where we have in fact made sacrifices to prepare our children for the  future.   My advice to Sacramento “If you can’t do what you are already tasked to do well, don’t take on more  responsibility!”    R1 is foundation of CA quality of life.  It has been such for generations and can serve generations to come.  Note that in  2018 CA population grew at slowest rate in nearly 100 years, 0.3%, and yet GDP for CA grew at more than 4%.  We don’t  need every possible new job, we don’t need more housing, we don’t need to plan for 50M Californians unless we  continue to pander to builders and big tech Who will destroy CA as we know & love it.    We need to reverse the  incentives so that jobs and housing will find a proper balance with existing housing stock.  If Big Tech wants to move jobs  out of state all the power to them.   Too many jobs is what got us into this imbalance in the first place, not too few  houses!    2 Sincerely,  Paul S Martin    Sent from my iPad    > On Jan 28, 2020, at 8:44 AM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  >   > Hi Mr. Martin,  >   > The letter was not counterfeit; you may disagree with its content, but let’s please stick to the facts.  >   > As for your second point: I’d be happy to talk about the substance of the bill and it’s content.  >   > I support SB50 because cities like Palo Alto have clearly shown that they use local control to block housing, not to  provide for a growing community. I also support it because it enables housing growth where we need it most and where  it makes the most environmental/economic sense: near jobs and transit.  >   > Another way of looking at the bill is: if we don’t want 4‐5 story multi family buildings next to Caltrain, then _where_  should that housing go?  >   > I’d love to hear your objections about the bill and any ideas you have so Palo Alto can make a good faith effort of  reaching our comprehensive plan goal of about 300 housing units per year. We’ve been averaging about 50‐60 per year,  so the goal figure is actually closer to 400 units per year now.  >   > Regards,  > Adrian  >   >> On Jan 28, 2020, at 08:34, Manjun Martin <paul.manjun@gmail.com> wrote:  >>   >> Hello Mayor Fine:  >>   >> Thank you for your email, but I’d like to make crystal clear:  >>   >> 1)  The letter you wrote on counterfeit city letterhead was wrong.  >>   >> 2)  You were elected by city council as Mayor of Palo Alto.   Politics is the art of compromise and yet because you can  not find a political solution in Palo Alto, consistent with your personal views on rezoning Palo Alto housing you have  chosen to support giving up to the State of California key zoning responsibilities now within the power of the City of Palo  Alto.   This duplicitous behavior needs to be clearly called out.   If you do not want to work with people of Palo Alto to  find a political solution in Palo Alto to Palo Alto zoning then you should resign and let someone who wants to find a  political solution supported by substantial majority of Palo Alto residents take over.  >>   >> Sincerely,  >> Paul S. Martin  >>   >>>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:  >>>   >>> Hi Mr. Martin,  >>>   >>> Thank you for the message. I understand that bills like SB50 are contentious and that not everyone supports (or  opposes) it.  >>>   3 >>> But, I see the bill as one of our best solutions to the ongoing housing crisis, and that’s why I wrote my letter.  >>>   >>> To be clear, the council never voted against SB50. You may be thinking of a vote last year where the council majority  endorsed principles from the city association of Santa Clara county. In that meeting, I expressly asked if the principles  would be used to oppose SB50 and the response was no. Nonetheless, the mayor sent a letter opposing the bill on city  letterhead.  >>>   >>> In 2018, the same thing happened: the mayor sent a letter opposing SB827 (the predecessor bill) without a council  vote.  >>>   >>> What I’m saying is that there’s clear precedent here, and I was within my rights to send a letter expressing my own  personal opinion on city letterhead. In no way does my letter represent the views of the city or the council.  >>>   >>> I appreciate your input, but I wanted to clear up a few things. I welcome your thoughts and comments, or any ideas  about how we can solve our housing crisis.  >>>   >>> Regards,  >>> Adrian  >>>   >>>   >>>>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 08:54, Manjun Martin <paul.manjun@gmail.com> wrote:  >>>>   >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking  on links.  >>>> ________________________________  >>>>   >>>> Dear City Council:  >>>>   >>>> The letter of January 17th 2020 from Mayor Fine to State Senator Scott Wiener in support of SB50 is written on  letterhead that states “City of Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor and City Council”.   The last time the city council voted on  SB50 was more than a year ago and the vote was 4‐2 against with 1 abstention.   The letter is in fact a crude counterfeit  because it lacks support from the City Council and yet it states “City of Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor and City Council”.  >>>>   >>>> An apology by Mayor Fine for sending a counterfeit letter presented on Twitter IS NOT sufficient.   I’d like to see  the City Council follow up with following 3 actions:  >>>>   >>>> 1)  A formal vote on Censure of Mayor Fine for counterfeiting a Palo Alto Mayor and City Council letter to express  his personal opinion should be passed.   What Mayor Fine did is wrong and likely illegal regardless of if one agrees or  disagrees with his personal opinion.  >>>>   >>>> 2)  A formal vote by City Council on SB50 as it now stands before the State Senate should be taken.   I’d like to  know prior to next Novembers voting who does and who does not support SB50 on our current City Council.  >>>>   >>>> 3)  A formal vote by City Council to put on the November 2020 ballot a Palo Alto City proposition to directly elect  the Mayor of Palo Alto.   The current method which resulted in Adrian Fine being selected as Mayor and then his poor  judgement in counterfeiting no behalf of “City of Palo Alto, Office of the Mayor and City Council” is clear evidence that  Palo Alto needs more direct involvement of citizens in selection of Mayor.  >>>>   >>>> Sincerely,  >>>> Paul S. Martin  >>   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ding Erin <erinding9@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:03 PM To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Re: deny Vinculums’ request please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that this Monday, January 27th, you will be deciding whether to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny approval to six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon have applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood.     Mr. Lait’s decision was the right one. These cell towers are badly designed and badly located. No one thinks they’re acceptable for our city—not Planning Director Lait, not the Architectural Review Board, and not the public. Indeed, City Manager Ed Shikada writes in the Staff Report he submitted to you in preparation for Monday’s meeting that “Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal from Crown Castle and uphold [Planning Director Lait’s] decision. …There is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed [cell towers] are not compatible with the Downtown North neighborhood; and for … aesthetic and safety reasons….”    Please uphold Planning Director Lait’s decision. In the year since the Architectural Review Board hearing on this cluster of cell towers, the City has been more than generous in allowing Crown Castle/Verizon every opportunity to return with what would be acceptable designs. But the applicants have chosen to do nothing. It’s time to deny the cell towers they have proposed and tell them to go back to the drawing board.     Thank you for your consideration.       Ding Erin <erinding9@gmail.com> 于2020年1月28日周二 下午10:59写道：  Dear Planning Director Lait,  2   I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:41 AM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Lait, Jonathan; JFLEMING@metricus.net Subject:Planning Director Lait Was Right and City Council Did The Right Thing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Warm greetings, I want to thank our City Council that voted last night to uphold Planning Director Jonathan Lait’s decision to deny the approval to the six cell towers that Crown Castle/Verizon had applied to install in the Downtown North neighborhood. A logical and needed vote! Bravo!! Now: I want you to imagine a large canvas ready to be re-painted. This canvas has been retouched in each generation since this town was founded. It is a living view of our Palo Alto. The artist has the option to use mixed media and stick silver forks onto the canvas for every cell tower that will be set up. After a while the forks will look like prison bars. And the painting will in no way match the beauty of previous versions. Palo Alto is not "asking to be decorated with forks". We are in charge of our canvas! Let them know! I remain hopeful that now that we have stood our ground in Downtown North, the residents of Barron Park ** and other sections of our extended canvas be painted on with great care. Best regards, Ardan Michael ** Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020.     1 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 10:50 AM To:Council, City Cc:Nose, Kiely; Guagliardo, Steven; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle Subject:Business Tax CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I was one of the residents who was polled so I was especially interested to see the results. Here are my takeaways. The more difficult items are at the end of this note. --a majority of residents do not think there is a strong case that the city is short of funding yest are willing to add taxes if someone else pays for them. My perspective is that we are seeking investment funds and I am willing to support a business tax depending on the details as i outline below. --The cost of housing followed by traffic congestion are listed as our greatest needs and traffic infrastructure followed by funding for low income housing are the clear priorities. I support these priorities --a majority of residents feel that businesses have some responsibility for funding solutions. I agree BUT I think residents also have a responsibility and should be asked, perhaps, through a housing bond or parcel tax, to chip in. For a variety of reasons, I could support a tax on head count but would be more reluctant for other tax bases. --residents, like the Finance Committee, favor a number of exemptions. I support the exemptions but have a suggestion. I think small businesses should be exempt from the main tax BUT I think they should be required to file and pay a minimum tax (not to exceed $100) so we get the information. As a registry user I strongly suggest that at least small businesses get a much easier form to fill out. Here are the two tough issues. --Residents favor a specific tax not a general tax and favor having rates that are comparable to neighboring cities. Fewer than 1/3 (32%) favor tax rates that are higher than comparable cities. This is a 100% deal breaker for me. Comparable rates (for neighbors from Redwood City to Santa Clara) or I vote and campaign vote no. 2 Having a specific tax is important to make sure the money is spent on housing and congestion relief. Finally, I see a growing number of vacancy signs on commercial and retail buildings where I walk including offices vacant for 7 months in our condo and where i work. Please study competitiveness issues before putting a tax on the ballot. Stephen Levy Palo Alto Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lenny Siegel <lennysiegel@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 7:47 AM To:Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Council, City Subject:Employers should pay their fair share CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor FIne and members of the Palo Alto City Council,     I was pleased to see that tonight you will be discussing the potential for a graduated, or progressive business tax in Palo  Alto. It has been my hope, over the past several years, that all of the job‐rich cities of Silicon Valley would each adopt  such a tax, tailored to local conditions.    As you know, Mountain View voters overwhelmingly (71%) supported Measure P on our November 2018 ballot.  Members of the Mountain View Council who disagreed on other important issues united in their support of Measure P.    By now, most people in the Silicon Valley area are aware that we face twin crises in housing and transportation, and that for now we can expect  little help from the Federal government in addressing those crises. But our crisis is also a crisis of the inequitable distribution of income and wealth.  The Bay Area is home to over 100 billionaires. Four companies with a major presence here are valued at over a trillion dollars, and many mid‐size  companies have amassed significant wealth as well. Our housing and transportation solutions must take inequity into account.    A key element in the success of Silicon Valley employers has been our communities’ historic investment in infrastructure  and education, but both the continuing growth of industry and the quality of life in our communities are threatened by  our inability to match private sector employment growth with public investment.    There is a relatively simple solution: Require that employers pay their fair share of the external costs that they have  imposed through their growth. In Mountain View we chose a “head tax” ‐ a tax based on the number of employees ‐  because in most cases it’s easy to count the number of employees at a company the same time each year. Because the  most successful companies pay their professional employees six‐figure salaries, the tax ‐ even as it increases with  company size ‐ represents a tiny fraction of company payroll.    We also proposed a tax, rather than relying on one‐time fees or voluntary donations from major employers, because  cities cannot bond against fees and donations. The huge capital investments needed to keep up with growing  transportation and housing needs require bond sales, which in turn depend upon continuing sources of revenue.    While I’m sure that some Mountain View residents voted for Measure P because they resented the changes wrought by  our area’s unprecedented employment growth, many more just believe that growing companies should pay their fair  share as local government and the tech industry work together to solve the problems that threaten us all. If we don’t tax  those who have the capacity to pay, our communities will suffer even worse traffic and residential displacement, but  employers ‐ start‐ups as well as big names ‐ will also be stifled because there is no place nearby for their employees,  particularly new ones, to live and no efficient way for those with long commutes to get to work.      Lenny Siegel    -- 2 Lenny Siegel 650-961-8918 Former Mayor of Mountain View, California lennysiegel@sonic.net http://lennysiegel.users.sonic.net/web/ Facebook: mvlenny Instagram:mvlennys       1 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 11:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 12: CTAHS Comments to CC on the initial Biz Tax poll and next steps Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear City Council,  Citizens for Transportation and Affordable Housing Solutions offers the following comments related to your  consideration of the initial business tax poll and next steps.  Overall, the poll showed good support for a tax with strongest support toward funding transportation and housing  affordability. However, the poll did not provide much guidance on the prospective size of a tax, other than showing very  strong support (78%) for a scale at or above “comparable cities”. Below is an analysis of the poll, including key  unanswered questions that should be addressed in a subsequent poll or research prior to decisions on a tax.  To date, other than “funding for grade separations” the CC and staff have not agreed on, or even focused their  discussions on, what community needs would be addressed by a business tax.  On grade separations, the amount of  local revenue needed to complement Measure B funds has not been discussed. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have  a good sense of those needs until grade separation alternatives have been preliminarily selected in April/May and rough  cost estimates made subsequently. Even then the designs will not include what to do north of Embarcadero at Palo Alto  Ave and related impacts.    Key points:     The CC should use a Finance Committee meetings and a second poll to refine their understanding the  technical issues and community support for the tax to fund prospective grade separations, affordable  housing and traffic relief measures. However, the council needs to recognize that decisions on the scale of a  tax must follow upcoming decisions on needs. In particular, the design of grade separations and rough  estimates of their costs must precede any action on the scale of a tax.    The Council and staff need to have thoughtful discussions of how they realistically expect to fund the grade  separation alternatives being considered.    The Council should target the tax scale on community needs that the tax would address rather than other  reference points, such as percentage of the city’s general fund budget.    The initial poll provided valuable insights, but key questions need to be addressed in a subsequent poll. The  Finance Committee did engage substantively is the design of the initial poll. FM3 is a very capable firm with  background in Palo Alto. However, they do not have strong expertise in the context and specific issues  related to Palo Alto’s business tax. The Finance Committee should have thoughtful discussions and provide  clear guidance about how the next poll will adequately inform the CC decision making.    Council should provide their initial responses tonight and refer the item to the Finance Committee for  more substantive discussion, along with input from the public and stakeholders.    First Poll Observations and Comments Overall, the poll provides valuable insights, but much of the survey was not as well focused as it could have been. Many of the questions either had incorrect or ambiguous framing. Other key questions were not asked. 2 First, FM3 said they planned to compare to the 2016 baseline poll, but did not ask the same questions even when questioning on aspects that were explored in the 2016 poll. Second, pro and con arguments were not clear enough or omitted some of the more compelling arguments.  City Need for Additional Funding (Question #1). o The question asked about general funding needs, which would be expected to not receive strong support, rather than about needs to fund transportation and affordable housing solutions, the focus of CC considerations for the tax.  Problems Facing PA (Question #2). o Asked about housing affordability rather than affordable housing. Housing affordability includes the cost of market rate housing, which is outside of what could be impacted by the tax, rather than the availability of affordable housing which could receive significant funding increases from the tax. The housing issue should be framed in terms of doubling the amount of subsidized housing that could be built in PA under the revenue from the tax. o Responses to “Too much office growth” may reflect community awareness of the city having recently restricted such growth through office caps. o “Homelessness” increased 22 points or a 100% increase since 2016. How does that concern compare to PA increases in homeless populations over that period as opposed to regional or state increases and a corresponding public concern? o Housing affordability, traffic and homelessness ranked as the highest concerns, in that order. Office growth, residential growth and changing community character ranked considerably lower.  General questions about prospective business tax (Questions #3 and 4). o The question asserted that the city is considering a General Tax for a broad range of general city services rather than for transportation and affordable housing, which are the focus of CC considerations. The Council consideration of a General Tax has been one that would be for certain focused purposes. o No framing was provided in terms of Palo Alto currently being an outlier in the region by having no business tax. o The responses need to be grouped so that various traffic relief measures are combined.  Pro and Con Arguments (Question #5). o No framing was provided of the need for new revenue by stating that the city lacks funding to pay for grade separations (essential to avoid future gridlock), expansion of affordable housing and traffic relief. o The argument of “due to a growing number of successful businesses” is less persuasive than “high grow of large tech businesses”.  General vs Specific Tax (Questions #11, 12, 13, 14). o Described the general tax as being for a broad range of uses, rather than the three uses the CC has been focused on (traffic relief, affordable housing and grade separations). o Did not describe the General Tax as having an accompanying resolution committing to use the funds for stated uses along with a citizens oversight committee to monitor compliance with those commitments, as is often done by cities with General Taxes. o Unlike in 2016, the poll asked whether respondents would prefer a Specific Tax over a General Tax. It did not ask the key question of the level of support for a Specific Tax and for a General Tax. o Question #12 shows 8 points higher support for a Specific Tax than a general Tax. However, the approval threshold for a General Tax is 17 points lower (50.1%), making voter approval for a General Tax considerably more likely than for a Specific Tax (66.7%), as was the case in 2016. o Question #13 asked about whether respondents would support a Specific Tax for among three uses. The question was not clear whether it was asking if all three uses were supported or if it was a preference among the three. All three showed high support that was far higher than an earlier question, indicating ambiguity about the question. o Question #14 asked which one of the three uses would be preferred. Far lower support was recorded than is Question #13, apparently suggesting voters support a combination of the three uses over any individual use among the three.  Rates Compared to Neighboring or Comparable Cities (Question #17). o 78% favored rates comparable or higher. If the comparison is to the other exceptionally low business tax cities, typical in Silicon Valley, the total revenue would be modest. If the comparison is to SF or EPA, the revenue would be high or very high.  Rates Based on Building Size (Question #19). o The question referred to rates based on building size. However, only EPA has a rate based on building size. SF has tiered rates based on uses (higher rates for offices and lower for warehouse, retail, etc.).  Rates Based on Number of Employees. 3 o The question claims that businesses would be incentivized to declare workers as contractors. However, other cities address this issue to include contractors. In addition, state law prescribes legitimate definitions of employees vs contractors. Staff should clarify how these issues are addressed elsewhere. Staff Report/Press Reports  The percent of businesses that are small was noted, but the number and percent of employees in large businesses is the key for potential revenue calculations.  The level of support for a Specific Tax was 8 points higher than for a General Tax (consistent with the 2016 poll results).  The report did not make clear that the approval threshold for a General Tax is 17 points lower, making voter approval for a General Tax considerably more likely than for a Specific Tax.  The comparison to tax rates of other comparable communities now includes EPA and SF which show tax rates per employee 3-8X higher than the highest rate being considered for PA.  The numbers of businesses in SF and PA look high and possibly incorrect. Both used the same ABAG data set of projected rather than actual workers.        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment, Item 12 (Polling Results and Possible Local Tax Ballot Measure for the 2020 Election) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    I am writing in support of a general tax, as opposed to a specific one, as well as providing a couple of additional  comments.     Flexibility is critical for addressing our city's challenges  I believe that a general tax is more consistent with the principles of good government, in which we elect representatives  to make decisions and then hold them accountable for those decisions at the ballot box.  A specific tax can be tempting,  but in my experience, it is counter‐productive when trying to achieve a general policy objective like improving  transportation, which almost always requires flexibility and a holistic approach that doesn't neatly fit into a short list of  projects.    One thing that we learned during this painful grade separation process is that almost all problems are more complicated  than just engineering a single intersection.   It is becoming clear that many proposed solutions will require other changes  to our transportation network. To avoid future gridlock, we will also need to work on trip reduction to places like  Stanford Research Park, improved access to the Caltrain stations, optimization of traffic signals throughout the city, and  remediation of existing grade separations, among other issues if we are to succeed in finding affordable solutions that  improve the city rather than tear it apart. I am confident we can do it, but the transportation department will need the  resources, support and flexibility to address many different concerns.    Grade separations are a traffic issue generally, not just a safety project  One concern I had with the survey was its focus on safety instead of congestion as the primary objective of grade  separation projects. More than anything, we have learned about the various ways in which our grade crossings cause  congestion, even without increases in Caltrain service.    We need really good employment data  We still have limited visibility into who is working where in our city and how this may change over time. This information  is important for us to plan our transportation network and to make sure that whatever tax measure comes forward  raises the amount of required revenue.    The number of employees that would be subject to a tax seems likely to be significantly lower than the estimate, which  is not an observed data point but  a forecast using a model that clearly has some issues. While reasonably good  employment data on the county level exists, it is a harder task than one would think to apportion out those jobs  between specific jurisdictions.    The last preferred "observed" number is 101,000 in 2010. The model predicted a giant surge (25% increase) in 2015 and  then a small decline, inconsistent with other jurisdictions.  It also does not appear to zero out the many healthcare  workers, non‐profit employees and Stanford employees located in Palo Alto jurisdiction or differentiate part‐time from  full‐time employment.     2     Thank you very much for your consideration.    Elizabeth Alexis    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Geri Spieler <gspieler@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 3:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Media Center CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        “As a resident of/someone who works in Palo Alto, I encourage the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda because [insert a personal reason why Midpen Media is important to you]. Thank you, Geri Spieler  ‐‐         Geri Spieler  Silicon Valley Freelance Writer    Author of Taking Aim At The President: The Remarkable Story Of the  Woman Who Shot At  Gerald Ford (St. Martin's Press/Macmillan)  "Taking Aim" has been optioned for the big screen by award-winning writer/producers, Taylor Allen and Andrew Logan, who wrote and executive produced the film Chappaquiddick, which opened in theaters nationwide on April 6, 2018.   Trailer for the movie Chappaquiddick   See my blog: Huffington Post  Regular contributor to Truthdig.com    650 269 2102  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Fred Bockmann <grandpa@mac.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 3:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:PEG Services Agreement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    As a 24 year resident of Palo Alto, and a huge supporter and consumer of MidPen Media Center community services, I  cannot encourage you strongly enough to vote FOR the PEG Services Agreement at the next council meeting.    This is a community resource that adds so much to our lives, and it depends on your continued support.    Thanks for your support    Fred Bockmann    Palo Alto CA 94303        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:SAUL WASSERMAN <wasss@aol.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 4:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Midpen Media CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I write in support of Midpen Media’s PEG Service agreement. They were very helpful when I wanted to produce an  educational video for my child psychiatric practice. This video is now widely used; Midpen’s capabilities made it possible.   Thank you.  Respectfully,  Saul Wasserman MD      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Judy Hulse <hjudy64@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 4:51 PM To:Council, City; info@midpenmedia.org Subject:City Council Meeting Monday CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Members - There is a Council meeting scheduled for Monday, Jan 27th. I have a note I want to send you which is VERY important: As a resident of Palo Alto I encourage the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda because we are the recipients of all issues. We need to have the details, and also to be informed what issues affect the residents! That is why we vote for you. Thank you, Judy Hulse - resident of South Palo Alto. Thank you for all you do! J. Hulse (mother and Grandmother) 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ken@Allen21.com <ken.allen.ca@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 4:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:PEG Agreement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    As a longtime active member of the community and strong supporter of locally produced video programming in Palo  Alto and for the surrounding communities, I believe I can speak with some authority from my experience and  involvement. I encourage the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda. There are no  other local full‐service production and broadcast/streaming services quite as capable as Midpen Media.    For over 25 years I have personally produced and contributed, at no cost to the community, through the Media Center  and its predecessor, educational, sports, entertainment and cultural programming of local interest. The Media Center is  a priceless local resource.    Thank you,    Ken Allen  (Grove Ave.)  Ken@kenallen.TV    ‐Community Producer  ‐Former Board Member and Officer of Cable Co‐op ‐Former Neighborhood President and PAN delegate ‐CERT    www.kenallen.TV    1 Baumb, Nelly From:David Simon <desimon@earthlink.net> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 8:41 AM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:PEG access services agreement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable members of the city council:  I am a part‐time staff member at Midpen Media, where we help people in the community get  their messages out to the public at large through our classes, our equipment, and our studio.  I encourage you to approve the five‐year PEG Access Services agreement, authorize the City  Manager to executeand MOU between the Cable Joint Powers, and authorize the City Manager to  arrange to use PEG fees for the support of the Council Chambers Upgrade Project.  Thank you for your consideration.  ‐‐‐‐‐ David      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike Fischer <mike@fischerc.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 10:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:PEG Services Agreement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council,  As a resident of Palo Alto, I encourage the Council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the Council’s agenda because this is a vital service provided by a well-functioning organization. We are lucky to have this community asset, and I personally value being able to view Council meetings.   Thank you,  Mike Fischer   -- Michael C. Fischer Palo Alto CA 94303 650 855 9816 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:lauren thinkgardens.net <lauren@thinkgardens.net> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Please vote for the PEG Services Agreement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a resident of Palo Alto and mother of a 16 year old passionate about film & tv, I would like to urge the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda. Midpeninsula Media is very important to our family because it will provide a way for my son to become familiar with the tools of the craft of television making before he goes off to college. This will be invaluable experience for him. Please continue to support PEG services by voting for the agreement.     Sincerely,    Lauren Burton  North Downtown Palo Alto Resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nina Goldschlager Perry <ngoldschlager@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 8:41 AM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Please approve PEG Services Agreement on January 27 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a resident of Palo Alto, I encourage the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda tomorrow (Monday, January 27). The Midpen Media Center fosters community and compassion, and whatever we can do to support the organization would be beneficial to our city and beyond. The endeavors of Midpen are sorely needed in these times of division and isolation. Thank you. Nina G. Perry Coproducer and host of the Midpen television show Peninsula Backstage, which promotes local, live theatre 1 Baumb, Nelly From:tom@phototrainer.com Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 12:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Mid Pen Media CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Ciouncil Palo Alto,     I am a long term resident of Palo Alto (c.1982) I am a commercial photographer, educator, artist and videographer. I am also a long time volunteer at the Media Center. This city supported facility and group is unique in the nation and provides myriad public services at a very high level of professionalism. World Class, I’d say. Their access to education about video production and the actual means to create and produce shows for us “little people” is to be celebrated as a jewel on the crown of Palo Alto.     Who did the videos for the palo Alto Hisotry musuem? Who covers your City Council meetings? High school Sports, and so many more too numerous to mention?    The Volunteer base at the Media Center is like a second family to me, and we tend to be a happy crew as we are in our element in a creative space. This esprit de corps is pervasive and beneficially infectious. The synergy the city of Palo Alto has with the Media center must not be forgotten or overlooked, you have something here that truly exemplifies Public Access, and does so in a very nice supportive professional and engaging way.     I support the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda because Midpen Media is great community asset and is important for everyone active in this community.       Sincerely,  2   Tom Upton  Tom Upton STUDIO    Palo Alto, CA 94306    Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 9:46 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Midpen Media - Item # 13 - Council Agenda - Monday, January 27 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members:    One might say I have a 360° appreciation for Midpen Media. I began attending screenings and events there maybe 15  years ago. Then I got hooked on the video workshops. Then I joined other volunteers to create videos on every type of  topic imaginable. The videos all had one unifying trait ‐ 100% reflection of our community.   Mapping the arts, the music,  the culture, the people, the issues, the youth, the sports, the government meetings and political concerns of our  community ‐ that’s the heart of what Midpen does.  Enamored of Midpen’s mission, I joined the staff in 2007.  I left staff  in 2018, but as of this month, I have joined the Board. I can’t stay away.    I have never worked with a crew more passionate, compassionate and dedicated then the staff and volunteers at  Midpen. Through training and mentoring programs, Midpen empowers people like me and not at all like me, to work  together to build a powerful platform for sharing local stories. All ideas and the people that have them are welcome.  There are no barriers to entry.  The playing field is wide open.  I urge Council to accept the staff report and to follow staff’s carefully worked out recommendations:  1) Approve a five‐year (PEG) access services agreement;  2) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cable  Joint Powers;  3) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contribution agreement between the City of Palo Alto and  Midpen Media equivalent to the amount in PEG support fees to be expended by the City on the Council Chambers  Upgrade project.  I thank City Staff and the Joint Powers Authority for working with Midpen staff and the Board in order to keep this  unique and vital community resource available for all to explore and use.    Thank you for your kind consideration.    Sincerely,    Becky Sanders  Board Member, Midpen Media  & Palo Alto Resident    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Huipin Zhang <ehuipin@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 11:32 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org; David Simon Subject:Midpen Media CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, As a resident of Palo Alto, I encourage the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda because Midpen Media has provided me with digital media resources and trainings which make me better equipped to understand this new digital world. Thank you, Huipin Zhang Resident at Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Byler <mary@midpenmedia.org> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 11:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:PEG Fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council.     As a member of Midpen Media’s staff, I recommend that the City Council:  1) Approve a five-year (PEG) access services agreement.  2) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cable Joint Powers.  3) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contribution agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. in the amount of $511,536, equivalent to the amount in PEG support fees to be expended by the City on the Council Chambers Upgrade project.  Thanks,   Mary    Mary H. Byler  Business Operations  Midpen Media   Email: mary@midpenmedia.org  Phone: 650‐494‐8686 X16  Work Schedule: Mon‐Wed 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Joanne Sperans <joanne@midpenmedia.org> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 10:49 AM To:Council, City Cc:info Subject:PEG Issue on Today's Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a member of Midpen Media’s staff, I recommend that the City Council:  1) Approve a five-year (PEG) access services agreement.  2) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cable Joint Powers.  3) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contribution agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. in the amount of $511,536, equivalent to the amount in PEG support fees to be expended by the City on the Council Chambers Upgrade project.    Kind regards,    Joanne  ‐‐   Joanne Sperans  Marketing Programs    Midpen Media Center  650 494‐8686 ext. 15  www.midpenmedia.org  900 San Antonio Road  Palo Alto, CA 94303     Join us on social media!    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Follow Us To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Nash <nashgroup1@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:20 AM To:Council, City Cc:info@midpenmedia.org Subject:Midpen Media Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council, as a long time resident of in Palo Alto, I encourage the council to vote for the PEG Services Agreement on the council’s agenda because our family views this organization as an extremely valuable. We view the Midpen Media Center as an service icon that sets Palo Alto apart from other cities that don't or are not able to invest in similar organizations. Because of the class offerings and outstanding staff, our daughter who took classes at Midpen Media Center, decided to pursue a Media study in college, so we experienced first hand the value of their services. Regards, Mike and Julia Nash Thank you in advance for your support. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 6:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Adrian Fine CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings Council Members; I am writing this letter to you to strongly object to the fact that Mayor Adrian Fine wrote to the the author of SB50 with a very strong statement of support. Mr. Fine has every right to write such a letter, but not using his formal mayor stationery. The fact that he may have stated in the letter that he was expressing his personal opinion and not the will of the Council is specious at best, and he knows this very well. The truth of the matter is that the same letter on his personal stationery would not likely have received the same attention or impact as when presented on city letterhead with his title as mayor. I can say this with assurance of being correct, because my personal experience in own writing to state senators and such, 95% of the time results in a form letter from the recipient. Fine's letter, blazened with his title of Mayor of a major Bay Area city is bound to go straight to the recipient's desk. I think Mayor Fine needs to be disciplined by the Council by removing his title as mayor and selecting one with a greater sense of responsibility demanded by this public office. Further, I am shocked, and sorely disappointed that only one Council Member objected to Fine's action. That says volumes of the level of personal integrity of the other five Council members. You might redeem yourselves by naming that person our mayor. Richard C. Placone Chimlaus Drive Palo Alto, California 94306 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:00 PM To:Fine, Adrian Cc:Council, City Subject:Fwd: SB50 Please stop e‐mailing me on this topic.      Begin forwarded message:    From: "Fine, Adrian" <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Re: SB50  Date: January 26, 2020 at 8:27:08 PM PST  To: Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com>    Hi Gary,    I’ll stop after this, but two things:    1: you first wrote me to explain your disappointment in my letter; I responded as I think is my duty and right. Please  don’t complain that I responded and you’d didn’t like what I had to say.    2: your very first words in our conversation were “The letter you wrote regarding SB50 to Sentor Wiener using what  appears to be COPA letterhead is just plain WRONG!”    And I asked what was wrong about using city letterhead. You’ve failed to explain that to me except for the fact that you  disagree with the bill and it’s purpose.    Let’s not confuse process and substance. If you disagree with the bill, that’s totally legitimate, but this  process/discussion focused critique is not in line with Palo Alto’s standards.    Signing off,  Adrian          On Jan 26, 2020, at 15:39, Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com> wrote:   Adrian,   a true leader at this point would have said something like “Thank you for your feedback, I will  take this in to consideration” even if they did not agree.        If you took the time to read what I wrote you would see that I answered your questions.  For some  reason you keep asking me questions about previous letters written by other council members which is  not why i wrote to you in the first place.    Please stop e‐mailing me on this topic.  2   ‐gary    On Jan 24, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:    Hi Gary,    I agree there are some issues with SB50, and I met with state senator Hill today to speak about some of  those issues. What specifically do you object to?    Is it ok that other council members send opposition letters because you believe the bill is poorly  written? Or is it about my use of mayors letterhead? Is this about process, or substance? A lot of this  brou haha seems like a double standard to me.    Please read my letter ‐ it clearly expresses that it is my opinion and my opinion alone.     Finally, the previous opposition letters included a number of factual errors. I think opposition of  legislation without understanding of it is poor leadership.    Thanks,  Adrian      On Jan 24, 2020, at 17:44, Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com> wrote:   Adrian,      Yes, they sent letters against SB50 because it is poorly written. There is no ‘one size fits  all’ approach to housing.      The Cities Sewer, Gas and Electric lines were mostly installed in 50’s and adding housing  further puts strain on these and other 70+ year old infrastructure.  Additionally adding  housing and other buildings without adding more emergency services (Fire, Police etc)  puts all of us at greater risk.  More housing means more traffic despite staff or  consultant reports.     In your letter to Wiener you should have stated that it is your personal opinion and not  that of the COPA. Period.  To clarify later on twitter is absurd and shows a lack of  leadership communication skills.     ‐gary    On Jan 24, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:    Hi Gary,    Thanks for the message. Just so you know, the past two mayors sent letters against sb50  and its predecessor sb827 without a council vote. There was no fracas then. In fact, it’s  pretty normal for council members or the mayor to use city stationary for their  communications.    3 I understand and respect that you don’t support the bill ‐ totally reasonable and I’d love  to learn why. But please know that I am not going to change course on the important  issue of housing. And I’m going to continue following our protocols, which allow us to  send letters that express our own opinions.    Regards,  Adrian      On Jan 24, 2020, at 15:34, Gary Holl <garyholl@mac.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Adrian,      The letter you wrote regarding SB50 to Sentor Wiener using what  appears to be COPA letterhead is just plain WRONG!     I don’t agree with any of it.    Going forward, please do not use City Letterhead unless its official  business, meaning approved by the Council or voted on by the public.    regards,  Gary  A lifelong resident and VOTER that will start a petition to have you  removed if you keep this type of action up!        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Boatwright, Tabatha Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:12 AM To:Council, City; UAC; City Mgr Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:Citizens Advisory Committee Please be advised in order to preserve the history of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) the location of the site has  been moved to the City’s “Past Committees, Task Forces, and Working Groups” webpage below link.     https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/technology_committee.asp    Thank you          Tabatha Boatwright  Administrative Assistant   City of Palo Alto Utilities Department   250 Hamilton Avenue  I  Palo Alto, CA 94301  O: 650.329.2326  I  C: 408.966.0838  Tabatha.Boatwright@CityofPaloAlto.org      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Xu <ann_xu@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 3:27 PM To:Don Austin; Board; PTAC President; Ptac Evp; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City; Lydia Kou; alisonlcormack@gmail.com; Elena Kadvany; Sue Dremann; Bill Johnson; Lynne Russell; Linda Lyon; Shikada, Ed Cc:Steven D. Lee; cheri chiu Subject:Re: 2020 Palo Alto Chinese New Year Fair on 2/16/2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello all, Due to the uncertainty and the risk of the Wuhan novel coronavirus epidemic, the 2020 PA CNY Fair committee voted last night to cancel this year’s CNY fair. We believe being prudent at this critical time is a responsibility to our community. We are saddened that after about four months of hard work by the whole committee on preparing for the event, we must make this decision at this point. We hope the situation will improve soon. We thank you for your support and please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Lily Chiu, Steven Lee and Ann Xu On Tuesday, December 31, 2019, 12:17:11 AM PST, Ann Xu <ann_xu@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello all, The Palo Alto Chinese Community cordially invite you and your family to celebrate 2020 Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rat. This fifth annual Chinese New Year Fair features performances of Chinese folk music, instruments, and dances by students from the Palo Alto Unified School District and local talent. The fun and festive celebration showcases Chinese art, culture, exhibitions, game booths, delicious foods and many more! The event is free and food will be sold for fund- raising to support the Palo Alto schools. We look forward to seeing students, parents, teachers, staff, neighbors, and friends. This large-scale event is organized by the Palo Alto Chinese Parents Community in collaboration with the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, Mitchell Park Library, and Palo Alto Family YMCA. Parking is limited, so please walk, bike, or share a ride. Questions? Email Lily Chiu at cheri161@yahoo.com or Ann Xu at ann_xu@yahoo.com or Steven Lee at stevendlee@gmail.com When: 2pm to 5pm, 2/16/2020 Where: Mitchell Park Community Center Happy New Year! Lily Chiu, Ann Xu and Steven Lee on behalf of WizChinese 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Harriet Moss <bobgmoss84@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 11:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Auditor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Auditor I wish to urge the city council to begin the process of finding and appointing a city auditor. This is one of only 4 positions that are appointed by and report directly to the city council. Over many years auditors have identified many issues and problems that were significant and needed to be addressed. Regular reporting by the auditor to the city council with findings and recommendations for corrective actions if needed also gives the public confidence that tax money is being used wisely. An internal auditor is far more aware of activities and issues in the city that need addressing. They work at city hall, interact often with other staff and managers, and can more easily identify real or potential problems than a contractor. Thus it is important that the city council act to staff the city auditor position. The letter from professional auditors Cannata, O’toole and Olson points out the importance of having an internal auditor. They give examples of the value of having an auditor on city staff. Independence of the auditor also is essential. If another employee, such as the city manager, oversees the auditor they are no longer independent. The importance of having an internal auditor is emphasized by the fact that the consultant auditor that was hired in March 2019 no longer is available so nobody serves as the head of the auditing department. That is not a good situation. Please start the process of finding a new council appointed auditor. Bob Moss     ‐‐   Bob Moss <bobgmoss84@gmail.com>  Bob Moss <bmoss33@att.net>  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 4:17 PM To:Steven Feinstein; Loran Harding; Doug Vagim; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Joel Stiner; Cathy Lewis; jerry ruopoli; vallesR1969@att.net; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; leager; Leodies Buchanan; bballpod; nick yovino; eappel@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; beachrides; becerra.bere11@gmail.com; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Steve Wayte; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; igorstrav .; Kirk Sorensen; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; terry; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov Subject:Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming 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, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:55 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:05 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:26 PM  2 Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:16 PM  Subject: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>              Sunday, Jan. 26, 2020            Steven Feinstein          Ionic Materials Corp.               Mr. Feinstein‐ Unable to sleep this morning, I heard the weekly program "In Depth" on mighty KCBS‐AM, San  Francisco. They broadcast the truth into the Republican‐owned Central Valley of Calif.                  It takes the station a few days to get these programs up on their website and this one, for Sunday, January 26,  2020, is not there yet.  www.kcbsradio.com  is their website.                 The topic today was urban ELECTRIC helicopter commuting (!).  This is now apparently a serious movement with  big money being spent to make it a reality. They had a male Ph.D expert on and a woman from NASA's Ames Research  Center in Mt. View, Ca.  NASA Ames is putting money into researching this and running some sort of a competition to  sort out the issues and advance the art.               This is seen as a needed development to address the urban traffic nightmare and global warming from ICE  emissions. Electric helos would be used in dense urban areas where highly paid commuters spend vast amounts of time  in traffic every day. Employers would pay to get these people to work in 20 minutes in a helo instead of two hours in a  car, from Oakland to Palo Alto, e.g.              I'll just mention that Calfornia High Speed Rail, when completed, will transport Silicon Valley workers from Fresno  to Palo Alto, and visa versa, in 45 minutes. That distance, 165 miles, is just out of reach by road at present, being a two  hour and 45 minutes drive. The rich Republicans here in the Central Valley have almost bankrupted themselves fighting  HSR. They don't want the people here getting out from under their boot and making three times the money in Palo Alto.  Fourty five minutes by luxurious high speed trains from Fresno to Palo Alto is a nightmare scenario to the Republicans.  "Keep em broke, barefoot and pregnant" is their mantra, and high speed rail would start to break that up.             Big blades on the helos would cut the dB issue, which they acknowledge would be an issue. What about mid‐air  collisions if the sky over an urban area is filled with these morning and evening?  AI would enable the helos to avoid each  other. I guess that if self driving cars can avoid each other, helos could too. They mentioned having several helos take off  together and travel together, in fleets, to help avoid collisions. Also, the helos themselves could have a parachute in case  of a collision. If one of these lowered the craft into SF Bay, that commute would be truly memorable.             Are batteries energy‐dense enough now to make this work? IBM‐Almaden has unveiled a new battery with higher E‐ density they said.            We are now up to 400 KwHrs/kilogram, or even 500, they said. You'd know about that.     3           I got the impression that you'd have a few commuters per helo. I think the word "autonomous" was even  mentioned. One person said this will be like when JFK said "before this decade is out" re the moon landing. These urban  commuter electric helos will be common by the end of this decade, he was predicting. Lots of companies and places like  Ames Research Ctr. are involved now.               They won't be common around easy‐commute Fresno. We do get mornings with fog here and the occasional 50  car pile‐up on Hwy 99 as a result, but the drive‐time is usually pretty reasonable here. People drive 60 mph in the fog  when they can't see the end of their own hood. Now big signs have been deployed on Hwy. 99 to warn of fog.                 But I know the Bay Area well, having spent most of my life there, and the rush hour commute there is often a  nightmare of stalls, over‐turns, vehicles sitting side‐ways in the lanes, motorcycle‐down events, CalTrans sweepers and  other work in the lanes (but rarely pot‐hole repair, one surmisses), deer strikes, collisions, vehicle fires, injury accidents,  even fatal ones, police activity (occasionally drivers shooting at each other), CHP traffic breaks, ladders, bumpers, sheet  metal and mattresses in the roadway, multi‐car pile‐ups, trucks dumping a load of screws on the highway with lines of  cars on the shoulder as a result (Hwy 280 recently), big trucks at a tight turn hitting the sand barrels on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge resulting in lane closures (repeatedly), lanes closed due to flooding, chemical spills, huge tie‐ups on the  west‐bound upper deck of the Bay Bridge due to street closures in San Francisco to permit political events and parades  and marches. I‐80, 580, 880, Hwy 17, 85, 280, 680, 101, 92, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, Dunbarton Bridge  (pronounced Dumbarten by KCBS), Golden Gate Bridge, Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge, all of it is a riot of commute‐ delaying mishaps twice a day, all reported every 10 minutes by KCBS.  People live in Stockton or Tracy and work in Palo  Alto. They are out on 205 and then 580 west‐bound at 4 AM every work‐day, as reported by KCBS.                 I never had to commute in the Bay Area with traffic in this mess, and for that I am grateful. One time I did drive  from Santa Clara to Hayward at 5 PM on 880, and it took two hours to go 30 miles. One sits in five lanes of freeway  surrounded by 18‐wheelers at a dead stop, and one moves forward five feet at 3 mph every few minutes. Do that for  two or three hours twice a day for years, and you'll support the urban commute electric helo movement. Some people  are commuting six hours a day to work eight hours.                We can't get safe, high energy‐density batteries soon enough. Ionic Material Corp's safe lithium metal batteries  will be in great demand. Fleets of electric helos moving commuters over high traffic‐density urban areas twice a day all  over the United States, and beyond. That will develop over the next ten years, says KCBS.              All we'll need then is a way to produce all of the e‐ without burning fossil fuels. Kirk Sorensen says that thorium  reactors should play a roll. See his many vids about that on YouTube.                L. William Harding             Fresno, Ca.                     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2020 9:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Problem with Compostable Produce Bags CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,  First let me say, I’m all for composting. We have had a compost pile in our back yard for more than 45 years and we use  it several times a day. But the compostable bags now in the stores have a problem. If one puts a bunch of chard or other  leafy vegetables in a compostable bag, after a couple days, the chard is all limp and not useable. The bags seem to suck  out moisture from the produce. The bags are fine for mushrooms and the bags keep them dry. As a work‐around we are  keeping a couple of the old poly bags and then when we come back home change produce from the compostable bag to  the old poly bag. Is it possible to do some research to find a compostable bag that does not spoil the fragile produce that need the moisture to be kept.  Gary Lindgren                Gary Lindgren    Palo Alto CA 94301     650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to Redacted 2 prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   1 Baumb, Nelly From:M H <mh11281@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 6:42 AM To:Raschke, Matt; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Andrew.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; Collazo, Mike Subject:Re: Construction Noise Complaint Attachments:Video.mov; Video_1.mov; Video_2.mov CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Good morning,     Thank you for all of your responses. There was some victory in that the Porta‐potty maintenance worker moved his  hours to the early evening. However, the noise continues. See attached for video from 6:15 this morning.     I don’t believe the construction company is taking any of these complaints seriously.     Mark      Sent from my iPhone      On Jan 20, 2020, at 12:45 PM, M H <mh11281@gmail.com> wrote:   Good morning everyone, I am a citizen of Palo Alto and reside next door to a construction site at Sherman Avenue and Birch Street. I am writing to express my frustration with the construction crew and their partnering contract agencies' inability to follow simply posted signs that consist of construction hours (8:00am to 6:00pm M-F, Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm). As a law enforcement officer, I depend on rest as my days are long and unpredictable, yet require me always to be alert. It's frustrating when my sleep pattern is interrupted as a result of construction or general operations being conducted at such an early hour on the construction site. Additionally, fellow residents in the condominium have also expressed frustration with the violations, namely those that begin before the break of dawn. While I understand there will be times the posted hours are slightly violated, there have been multiple instances of construction occurring well before the construction hours with little evidence of a permit. In September 2019, there were signs posted that a project would begin at 4:00am on those days. While annoying, at least there was evidence that the construction contractor went through the necessary channels to conduct and complete their work. I will say that I don't understand why the permit wasn't denied for 4:00am and perhaps granted until 6:00am. Nonetheless, I have attached a video from this week and one from a past incident documented with Palo Alto Police Department. I concede that the construction crew has been better at starting on time since a couple of previous reports were made by fellow neighbors and me, but there is still room for improvement, namely on Friday and Saturday. 2 Lately, the portable toilet cleaning worker arrives at 4:00am to 5:00am early in the week. His truck and device to clean the toilet are loud, and while he is only present for 30 minutes, it wakes up residents, including me, in the Sherman Avenue/Birch Street vicinity. I don't see any reason why this can't be conducted just before construction is set to begin. I even think that fellow residence and businesses would be fine if the construction started an hour later and ended an hour later as going past 6:00pm is less burdensome than starting at 6:00 or 7:00am. Also, on Martin Lether King Day, the portable toilet cleaner was again present at 4:00am, a holiday nonetheless. I fully respect the fact that there is a job at hand that will later benefit the city and county, it's citizens and visitors. I further acknowledge that there are jobs in place at the site and some of these workers travel far to work in order to feed their families, and prefer to start early/leave early to avoid traffic and spend time at home. I'm sure that discussions will be had and there will be a resolution. After all, any construction that prevents the citizens from peace and quiet is a clear violation of the city's civil code. I doubt anyone attached to this email would like a construction zone to start outside your bedroom window at an unreasonable hour, either. Lastly, I would like to commend the Palo Alto Police Department as they seem to be the only party conscious of the situation and have reported several times to either halt construction or at least investigate the matter. I originally sent this email to paloalto.org addresses and the only response I received from from Palo Alto Police. I am resending it again to each of you with the cityofpaloalto.org address   <IMG_6917.mov>  <ConstBirchVideo.MOV>  <IMG_5364.mov>  Regards, Mark Hudgins  1 Baumb, Nelly From:M H <mh11281@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 6:42 AM To:Raschke, Matt; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Andrew.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; Collazo, Mike; Perron, Zachary Subject:Another Construction Noise Complaint Attachments:Video.mov; Video_1.mov; Video_2.mov CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Good morning,     Thank you for all of your responses. There was some victory in that the Porta‐potty maintenance worker moved his  hours to the early evening.     However, the noise continues. See attached for video from 6:15 this morning. I don’t believe the construction company  is taking any of these complaints seriously. Thus, a believe fining them maybe the next step.     If this continues, I will have no choice but to contact local news affiliates and their investigative team. I think this story  would have a good chance of being looked into by at least one of them.     I love Palo Alto and don’t wish to shine any negative light from city government, local leaders, or the city itself. However, I don’t see any choice if this continues.     Happy Monday and I wish everyone a good and safe week,    Mark      Sent from my iPhone      On Jan 20, 2020, at 12:45 PM, M H <mh11281@gmail.com> wrote:   Good morning everyone, I am a citizen of Palo Alto and reside next door to a construction site at Sherman Avenue and Birch Street. I am writing to express my frustration with the construction crew and their partnering contract agencies' inability to follow simply posted signs that consist of construction hours (8:00am to 6:00pm M-F, Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm). As a law enforcement officer, I depend on rest as my days are long and unpredictable, yet require me always to be alert. It's frustrating when my sleep pattern is interrupted as a result of construction or general operations being conducted at such an early hour on the construction site. Additionally, fellow residents in the condominium have also expressed frustration with the violations, namely those that begin before the break of dawn. 2 While I understand there will be times the posted hours are slightly violated, there have been multiple instances of construction occurring well before the construction hours with little evidence of a permit. In September 2019, there were signs posted that a project would begin at 4:00am on those days. While annoying, at least there was evidence that the construction contractor went through the necessary channels to conduct and complete their work. I will say that I don't understand why the permit wasn't denied for 4:00am and perhaps granted until 6:00am. Nonetheless, I have attached a video from this week and one from a past incident documented with Palo Alto Police Department. I concede that the construction crew has been better at starting on time since a couple of previous reports were made by fellow neighbors and me, but there is still room for improvement, namely on Friday and Saturday. Lately, the portable toilet cleaning worker arrives at 4:00am to 5:00am early in the week. His truck and device to clean the toilet are loud, and while he is only present for 30 minutes, it wakes up residents, including me, in the Sherman Avenue/Birch Street vicinity. I don't see any reason why this can't be conducted just before construction is set to begin. I even think that fellow residence and businesses would be fine if the construction started an hour later and ended an hour later as going past 6:00pm is less burdensome than starting at 6:00 or 7:00am. Also, on Martin Lether King Day, the portable toilet cleaner was again present at 4:00am, a holiday nonetheless. I fully respect the fact that there is a job at hand that will later benefit the city and county, it's citizens and visitors. I further acknowledge that there are jobs in place at the site and some of these workers travel far to work in order to feed their families, and prefer to start early/leave early to avoid traffic and spend time at home. I'm sure that discussions will be had and there will be a resolution. After all, any construction that prevents the citizens from peace and quiet is a clear violation of the city's civil code. I doubt anyone attached to this email would like a construction zone to start outside your bedroom window at an unreasonable hour, either. Lastly, I would like to commend the Palo Alto Police Department as they seem to be the only party conscious of the situation and have reported several times to either halt construction or at least investigate the matter. I originally sent this email to paloalto.org addresses and the only response I received from from Palo Alto Police. I am resending it again to each of you with the cityofpaloalto.org address   <IMG_6917.mov>  <ConstBirchVideo.MOV>  <IMG_5364.mov>  Regards, Mark Hudgins  1 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:22 AM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:Support for Making Housing a 2020 Priority Attachments:Make Housing a Priority.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. from the board of Palo Alto Forward Dear Mayor Fine and Council members, On behalf of the board of Palo Alto Forward, I am writing to urge you to reinstate housing as a priority for 2020. You know from the Planning Director’s recent memo that despite positive council action in 2019, Palo Alto is falling far short of the adopted housing goals in our Comp Plan. Palo Alto Forward supports the call for additional steps to provide incentives for new housing, especially for low and middle income groups. Designating housing as a 2020 priority shows that Palo Alto is proactively preparing to meet our housing goals through aggressive local action. Tackling our housing challenges is also the right strategy to achieve Palo Alto’s equity and environmental goals. Above all it is the right strategy for residents who want to show Palo Alto can effectively solve problems through local control. Our members have positive suggestions for expanding housing opportunity but our call today is to designate housing as a key priority for 2020. Our reading of the online survey shows strong support for making housing a priority. Expanding housing opportunities will take hard work, particularly to make housing more accessible and affordable for middle and low income families. But it is both a commitment we made in our Housing Element and the right thing to do. Finally, the environmental benefits of reducing long commutes are clear and the impact on quality of life for those who can live closer to work is an additional benefit. Palo Alto Forward members want to be engaged in positive approaches to expand housing opportunities, a journey that can start today with your designation of housing as a 2020 council priority. Gail Price President Palo Alto Forward 1 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:27 AM To:Steve Levy Subject:Where did the Workers Come From to Fill Recent Job Growth Attachments:Numbers-Jan2020_Job-and-Population-Growth-Paradox.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The short answer is I can explain a lot but not nearly all of where the workers came from. There is an unexplained gap in the state and ALL major regions. Workers came from increases in the labor force, driven in large part by more existing residents returning to the workforce and finding jobs. Workers came from a strong statewide reduction in unemployment as previously unemployed resident found jobs. Other potential sources of workers are in commuting (not much if any of a factor in the state data) and more multiple job holding. But gig workers are not included in the job estimates--if they were the job growth would be larger and the unexplained gap larger. So I am still left with a mystery. Yes some Bay Area jobs are filled by commuters from the Sacramento and adjacent Valley counties. But that only shifts the gap between regions with the unexplained gap in the adjacent regions growing larger. I am interested in feedback. The recent job estimates may be reduced by a little. Is it possible we are under counting the population? Am I missing something. I included data for the Bay Area, SoCal and the state but have data for othe regions. Steve 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 1 January 2020 The Job and Population Growth Paradox—Is there an Explanation? The California Department of Finance (DOF) released new population growth estimates for the state and counties in December 2019. The estimates show a sharp slowdown in population growth driven by increasing domestic out migration and falling birth levels. At the same time the state Employment Development Department (EDD) job estimates show continuing job growth throughout most of the state. These two sets of estimates show a paradox and raise questions as to how these data could be consistent. In California in 2019 there are just over 2 residents for every job. Yet in the past four years (July 2015—July 2019) job growth has far outpaced population growth as shown below. The state added approximately 1.4 million jobs and 900,000 residents or just over 1.5 jobs for every added resident. The just released Census Bureau estimates show an even lower population growth of 594,000 for this period. This Numbers in the News explores whether there is a consistent and credible explanation for these recent job and population growth trends. 1,397.6 903.7 0.0 500.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 Job Growth Population Growth Job and Population Growth  (Thousands) July 2015‐‐July 2019 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 2 First, though, the memo reviews the recent DOF population estimates. Annual population growth fell from over 350,000 in the early years of the decade to under 150,000 between July 1, 2018 and July 1, 2019. Natural increase (births minus deaths) fell from near 300,000 a year to under 200,000 in the 2018-19 estimate. And net migration has gone from positive to negative for the first time since the 2007-2010 recession. The annual contribution of natural increase declined as births fell and deaths rose throughout the decade. This trend is expected to continue as birth rates have fallen and the population is aging. The DOF estimates show a slow decline in immigration in recent years (the Census Bureau estimates show even lower immigration levels in California. And domestic migration estimates show growing net out migration. ‐100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 California Population Trends Population Growth Natural Increase Net Migration 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Natural Increase Trends Natural Increase Births Deaths 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 3 The Paradox of High Job Growth and Low Population Growth If jobs are growing rapidly and population growth is slowing, where did the workers come from? For the state there are three sources of added jobs—labor force growth, declining unemployment and an increase in workers with more than one job. There is no evidence of an increase in the number of multiple job holders though there could be undercounting of gig workers. However the job data cited below exclude self employment so growth here, for example in gig workers, would make the job growth even higher and the paradox more difficult to explain. And there is no substantial in commuting into the state except perhaps from Tijuana into San Diego County. During this period the state added nearly 1.4 million jobs (not counting gains in self employment). The labor force increased by 547,600 from population growth and higher labor force participation rates as more people needed to and more people could find jobs and come back into the workforce. And the number of unemployed residents declined by 345,500. These are both positive trends but there is still an unexplained gap of more than 500,000 workers. Where did they come from? Is there any explanation for the gap or are there errors in the job and population estimates. While job estimates may come down a bit for the recent year, the overall growth is solidly based in employer tax returns. And both DOF and the Census Bureau agree that the state’s population growth is slowing. I am interested in whether readers have an explanation and also interested if staffs at DOF and EDD have looked at their data this way and have thoughts on the apparent paradox. ‐250,000 ‐200,000 ‐150,000 ‐100,000 ‐50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 California Migration Trends Net Migration Immigration Domestic Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 4 Let’s now look at the state’s largest two regions—Southern California and the Bay Area. The same trends show up in the relationship of job and population growth. The Bay Area added 377,900 jobs between July 2015 and July 2019. Labor force growth of 173,300 driven by increasing participation from existing residents and a decrease in unemployment of 60,000 during this period accounted for much but not nearly all of the job growth. There is an unexplained gap of 144,600 jobs. Where did these workers come from? Increased commuting from adjacent counties could fill part of the gap but the Bay Area to the Sacramento region and nearby Valley counties is a small fraction of 144,600. So there is still a large unexplained gap. 1,397.6 547.6 345.6 504.4 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1,000.0 1,200.0 1,400.0 1,600.0 Job Growth Labor Force Growth Decline in Unemployment Gap California July 2015‐‐July 2019  (Thousands) 377.9 173.3 60.0 144.6 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 Job Growth Labor Force Growth Decline in Unemployment Gap Bay Area July 2015‐‐July 2019 (Thousands) 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 5 In Southern California there was a large (189,000) decrease in unemployment as the region joined the state job recovery. The labor force grew by 240,000. But jobs grew even more totaling 587,400 added jobs during this period. This leaves an unexplained gap of 158,400 and it is not likely that many people commuted into the region though some in southern Riverside County may commute out to San Diego County. I am interested to hear from readers if they see additional explanations that make the job and population growth estimates consistent. One thing is true going forward. With unemployment rates low and a limited scope for bringing additional residents into the workforce, future job growth now projected in most regions will require new residents and that, in turn, will require policies (immigration and housing come to mind) that will welcome new residents and workers to the state. 587.4 240.0 189.0 158.4 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 Job Growth Labor Force Growth Decline in Unemployment Gap LA Basin July 2015‐‐July 2019 (Thousands)  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:44 PM To:Loran Harding; Steven Feinstein; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Kreutzer; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Joel Stiner; midge@thebarretts.com; huidentalsanmateo; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret- sasaki@live.com; bballpod; Irv Weissman; hennessy; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; Chris Field; jerry ruopoli; Doug Vagim; Raymond Rivas; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; eappel@stanford.edu; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Kirk Sorensen; robert.andersen; becerra.bere11@gmail.com; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; grinellelake@yahoo.com; steve.hogg; leager; Leodies Buchanan; nick yovino; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; terry; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte; Mark Waldrep Subject:Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming 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: Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:39 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:29 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Tues. January 28, 2020                  Steven Feinstein‐  Thanks for the response.  Here is a little story about the desperate efforts to make Hwy 880  from Oakland south to San Jose, Ca., and beyond, at least occasionally passable to commuters. You see that it looks like  a parking lot, but those drivers are trying to get to work! It is six or eight lanes wide now and they are spending huge  money trying to keep it passable. I spent at least two hours to go 30 miles on it at 5 PM once.                  https://patch.com/california/alameda/express‐lanes‐i‐880‐open‐summer‐2020                 When I was passing the CPA exam and getting an MS in Taxation, using the 20 Stanford libraries to study, I used  to drive Hwy 880 at 2 PM from Hayward to Stanford, and come back at 11 PM, and that worked well‐ at the limit all the  way.  But at 7 AM it tries mens' souls. Commuters in a place like Fresno have utterly no idea what a nightmare commute  the Bay Area can require. And this is duplicated in urban areas all over the U.S.  But because a lot of voters do not live in  places like the BA, there is not the political will to address the issue.   2               Growing up in San Jose, my father had an accounting office maybe 3 miles from home, and my mother worked at  a credit bureau in downtown, maybe 4 miles from home. In 1951 San Jose had 50,000 people. Now it has 972,000. It  never occurred to my parents to live in San Jose and be at work in Sonoma County at 8 AM, 75 miles by freeway to the  north. Now people think nothing of buying a home in Stockton and working in Sunnyvale, leaving home at 4 AM every  morning. This is why the cry goes up for infrastructure.                     Instead of providing that, the U.S. government spends $730 billion per year to defend Japan and Germany so  they can spend their money on HSR and other solutions to commute issues. Our government has a very determined "let  'em hang" approach to the American people. It's a good joke on us, I guess. "They resisted going to Viet Nam, so let 'em  hang". "And anyway, they don't vote". I'd reverse the polarity on that with a permanent war crimes tribunal as a fourth  branch of the federal government.  We need a government in the United States. Voters are electing just anybody now in  an effort to get one. Only a structural change in our government will work, however, I believe.                  There has been a change in people's thinking wrt where they live and where they work and the effort required to  get from one to the other. Why that is deserves some research. People like my parents used to live in a little town, like  Salina, Kansas or San Jose, Ca. and work there. Now people drive through several counties in maddening traffic jams on  eight‐lane freeways to get to work. They think they like to drive, but discover that they sit surrounded by big‐rigs for  hours each direction instead. They go out and look at those distant affordable model homes on Sunday. That is really a  trap.                   A couple more thoughts on the urban electric commute helos. As I think more about it, it seems to be a good  idea. The NASA Ames woman said on the KCBS show that you don't need the electric reserves to go 150 miles if the trip  is 75 miles. That would reduce the weight of the batts. I watched a vid of two women flying a DC‐10 Lufthansa cargo  plane from Frankfurt to Mumbai. They talked about the tons of extra fuel they had in case they had to divert for any  reason.  With urban electric helos, you wouldn't need a distant 10,000 foot alternate runway to land in an emergency.  An alternate landing pad could be a quarter‐mile from the original. When these helos are flying, they will have alternate  landing pads designated. The chance of running out of e‐ in these craft would seem remote. Replacing the pilot with  autonomous systems would further reduce the e‐ needed.                  Long distance trips by the helos would not be required to make them helpful. It is maybe fifty miles from Oakland,  Ca. to Palo Alto or Mt. View. Oakland to SF is a lot less. They wouldn't have to fly at 30,000 feet. Just 200 feet might work for most of the trip. Flying low over homes would produce serious opposition, of course.                 Urban electric helos would run on batteries, and current Li‐ion ones are subject to causing fires, something to  avoid on any aircraft. Your much safer Li‐metal batteries would seem ideal to use on the helos. That argument might  help you get more federal funding. There is talk now of electric planes too.                 See Nova  "Search for the super‐battery".  Ionic Materials Corp's safer Li‐metal batteries are seen about half way  through.                I now think you will see urban electric helos in a place like Fresno, if only to salve the egos of some high earners.                  Of course, just how many cars would these take off the roads during rush hour? If they transport high value  employees mainly, probably not a lot. The benefit would accrue to those employees and their employers mainly. But,  that would help the traffic situation. Encouraging Silicon Valley companies to move half their operations to Fresno, 45  minutes away by HSR, would really make a dent in the problem. I see that, but most residents in Fresno do not. They buy  the B.S. put out by the rich Republicans here who have them under their boot. "It's a boondoggle. It will never run.  Forget that the countries we are bled white to defend, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, all have  3 magnificent HSR systems". Most Fresnans, by design, have never been to Germany, Spain or Italy, so they don't know  that HSR, paid for by them, is a huge success there.                What I really see by writing this is that urban electric commute helos would help the traffic nightmare a little in  places like the Bay Area, but high speed rail from Silicon Valley to Fresno and other places in the Central Valley could  help alleviate the problem a lot more. Something like 4 million employees descend on Silicon Valley every morning, I  believe, and the result is traffic hell. If SV companies located many ops to Fresno, e.g., they'd be distributing the load.  Employees who want to live on the peninsula could get down here fast and comfortably, not sitting in a car in traffic.  High tech workers who want a beautiful, affordable home could buy one here and work in high tech cos. here or  commute to SV by HSR. In front of the Stanford campus on El Camino Real, one sees long lines of RVs now, with high  tech workers living in them. Places like Mtn. View, Ca. are providing places for them to dump their waste, etc. The  average rent on a 50 year‐old, 600 sq. ft. apartment in Santa Clara is now ~$3,000 per month. We have a humanitarian  crisis wrt housing in SV, and SV cos. relocating some ops to the Central Valley on the HSR line would be a real help with  that crisis. They should support HSR and plan to relocate some facilities to the CV when it is running.                  L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>  Date: Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:58 AM  Subject: RE: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    Thanks Loran. We are working hard, as are many other companies in the battery technology  space, to improve energy density. To make urban electric helo’s that can travel a good  distance a reality will take some time.     From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>   Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 7:17 PM  To: Steven Feinstein <Steven.Feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>; Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>; Doug  Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>; David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>; Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>;  Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>; Mark Kreutzer  <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>; Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>; margaret‐sasaki@live.com; Joel Stiner  <jastiner@gmail.com>; Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>; jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>;  vallesR1969@att.net; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>; Leodies  Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>; bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>; nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>;  eappel@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>;  esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>; kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>; newsdesk  <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>; becerra.bere11@gmail.com;  bearwithme1016@att.net; city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>;  grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>; steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>;  Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>; igorstrav . <mwaldrep@aixrecords.com>; Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>;  mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>; russ@topperjewelers.com; terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  4    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: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:55 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:05 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:26 PM  Subject: Fwd: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  5 Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:16 PM  Subject: KCBS "In Depth", Sun. Jan. 26, 2020 Urban electric. hilos coming  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Sunday, Jan. 26, 2020             Steven Feinstein          Ionic Materials Corp.                Mr. Feinstein‐ Unable to sleep this morning, I heard the weekly program "In Depth" on mighty KCBS‐AM, San  Francisco. They broadcast the truth into the Republican‐owned Central Valley of Calif.                   It takes the station a few days to get these programs up on their website and this one, for Sunday, January 26,  2020, is not there yet.  www.kcbsradio.com  is their website.                  The topic today was urban ELECTRIC helicopter commuting (!).  This is now apparently a serious movement with  big money being spent to make it a reality. They had a male Ph.D expert on and a woman from NASA's Ames Research  Center in Mt. View, Ca.  NASA Ames is putting money into researching this and running some sort of a competition to  sort out the issues and advance the art.                This is seen as a needed development to address the urban traffic nightmare and global warming from ICE  emissions. Electric helos would be used in dense urban areas where highly paid commuters spend vast amounts of time  in traffic every day. Employers would pay to get these people to work in 20 minutes in a helo instead of two hours in a  car, from Oakland to Palo Alto, e.g.               I'll just mention that Calfornia High Speed Rail, when completed, will transport Silicon Valley workers from Fresno  to Palo Alto, and visa versa, in 45 minutes. That distance, 165 miles, is just out of reach by road at present, being a two  hour and 45 minutes drive. The rich Republicans here in the Central Valley have almost bankrupted themselves fighting  HSR. They don't want the people here getting out from under their boot and making three times the money in Palo Alto.  Fourty five minutes by luxurious high speed trains from Fresno to Palo Alto is a nightmare scenario to the Republicans.  "Keep em broke, barefoot and pregnant" is their mantra, and high speed rail would start to break that up.      6         Big blades on the helos would cut the dB issue, which they acknowledge would be an issue. What about mid‐air  collisions if the sky over an urban area is filled with these morning and evening?  AI would enable the helos to avoid each  other. I guess that if self driving cars can avoid each other, helos could too. They mentioned having several helos take off  together and travel together, in fleets, to help avoid collisions. Also, the helos themselves could have a parachute in case  of a collision. If one of these lowered the craft into SF Bay, that commute would be truly memorable.              Are batteries energy‐dense enough now to make this work? IBM‐Almaden has unveiled a new battery with higher E‐ density they said.             We are now up to 400 WHrs/kilogram, or even 500, they said. You'd know about that.                I got the impression that you'd have a few commuters per helo. I think the word "autonomous" was even  mentioned. One person said this will be like when JFK said "before this decade is out" re the moon landing. These urban  commuter electric helos will be common by the end of this decade, he was predicting. Lots of companies and places like  Ames Research Ctr. are involved now.                They won't be common around easy‐commute Fresno. We do get mornings with fog here and the occasional 50  car pile‐up on Hwy 99 as a result, but the drive‐time is usually pretty reasonable here. People drive 60 mph in the fog  when they can't see the end of their own hood. Now big signs have been deployed on Hwy. 99 to warn of fog.                  But I know the Bay Area well, having spent most of my life there, and the rush hour commute there is often a  nightmare of stalls, over‐turns, vehicles sitting side‐ways in the lanes, motorcycle‐down events, CalTrans sweepers and  other work in the lanes (but rarely pot‐hole repair, one surmisses), deer strikes, collisions, vehicle fires, injury accidents,  even fatal ones, police activity (occasionally drivers shooting at each other), CHP traffic breaks, ladders, bumpers, sheet  metal and mattresses in the roadway, multi‐car pile‐ups, trucks dumping a load of screws on the highway with lines of  cars on the shoulder as a result (Hwy 280 recently), big trucks at a tight turn hitting the sand barrels on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge resulting in lane closures (repeatedly), lanes closed due to flooding, chemical spills, huge tie‐ups on the  west‐bound upper deck of the Bay Bridge due to street closures in San Francisco to permit political events and parades  and marches. This morning, Tues., Jan. 28, KCBS reported that a gravel truck was on its side on north‐bound Hwy 680  blocking four lanes and producing a horrific back‐up.  Also, that a big pot‐hole had opened on Hwy 880 north‐bound in  Oakland and that it would close a lane for at least an hour to fix. Several vehicles had sufferd flat tires. I‐80, 580, 880,  Hwy 17, 85, 280, 680, 101, 92, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, Dunbarton Bridge (pronounced Dumbarten by KCBS),  Golden Gate Bridge, Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge, all of it is a riot of commute‐delaying mishaps twice a day, all reported  every 10 minutes by KCBS.  People live in Stockton or Tracy and work in Palo Alto. They are out on 205 and then 580  west‐bound at 4 AM every work‐day, as reported by KCBS.                  I never had to commute in the Bay Area with traffic in this mess, and for that I am grateful. One time I did drive  from Santa Clara to Hayward at 5 PM on 880, and it took two hours to go 30 miles. One sits in five lanes of freeway  surrounded by 18‐wheelers at a dead stop, and one moves forward five feet at 3 mph every few minutes. Do that for  7 two or three hours twice a day for years, and you'll support the urban commute electric helo movement. Some people  are commuting six hours a day to work eight hours.                 We can't get safe, high energy‐density batteries soon enough. Ionic Material Corp's safe lithium metal batteries  will be in great demand. Fleets of electric helos moving commuters over high traffic‐density urban areas twice a day all  over the United States, and beyond‐ that will develop over the next ten years, says KCBS.               All we'll need then is a way to produce all of the e‐ without burning fossil fuels. Kirk Sorensen says that thorium  reactors should play a roll. See his many vids about that on YouTube.                 L. William Harding             Fresno, Ca.                      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rice, Danille Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 10:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Dauler, Heather; Shikada, Ed Subject:Letters regarding SB 793 and grade separation funding Attachments:FInal grade seps budget letter.pdf; Final SB 793 support letter.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good morning Mayor and Council Members,   On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, I would like to inform you that the attached two letters were sent to Senator Hill  and Assemblymember Berman regarding SB 793 (Hill) flavored tobacco products, and City of Palo Alto’s 2020 State  Budget request for grade separation funding.      Thank you,   Danille       Danille Rice  Executive Assistant to the City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA  94301  (650) 329‐2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org        Office of the Mayor and City Council January 27, 2020 The Honorable Jerry Hill The Honorable Marc Berman California State Senate California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5035 State Capitol, Room 6011 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Support for the City of Palo Alto’s 2020 State Budget Request for grade separation funding Dear Senator Hill and Assemblymember Berman: On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I want to thank the two of you for your leadership and ongoing support of our city and the region. Through this letter, I respectfully request your support and partnership to help secure much needed funding from the State budget to start the environmental studies for our grade separation project. We intend to upgrade and modify the design of our rail corridor to meet future needs and enhance safety, and an environmental study is a critical component of our efforts. Background For over 150 years, Palo Alto has enjoyed regional connections to San Francisco and San Jose via rail. Now known as the Caltrain corridor, it is used by thousands of daily commuters from Gilroy to San Francisco. In fact, our Palo Alto station was the second busiest Caltrain station in 2019. And a recent federal accident prediction report lists 3 Palo Alto rail intersections as among the most worrisome in the County.1 Of the six streets where people can cross tracks in Palo Alto, four are currently at-grade crossings. These crossings create traffic congestion and pose safety and noise challenges that will worsen as Caltrain begins to use longer and more frequent electrified trains. As a result, the City is actively engaging in long-term planning for the rail corridor to improve east-west connectivity for generations to come. Caltrain electrification will be complete by 2022; by 2025 there could be up to 20 trains per hour during peak times. This would mean that gates at rail intersections would be down 25% of the time during daily peak periods with traffic congestion doubling by 2030. We seek to eliminate the conflict between trains, vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, while reducing congestion and supporting public transit to job centers such as San Francisco. Status We are in the midst of a robust community-based process to address long-standing challenges associated with at-grade crossings. Community feedback and collaboration is a vital part of the decision-making process now and in the future. In April of 2018, our Council approved a contract with AECOM to serve as 1 “Public Highway-Rail Crossings Ranked by Predicted Accidents Per Year as of 12/31/18.” Report generated January 14, 2020 from the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis, Web Accident Prediction System. Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/webaps/ City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: A5F50157-27EB-4563-BA07-B66FA72B5AF9 the lead consultant. After spending much of 2017 soliciting ideas, Palo Alto ended up with a master list of 40 ideas, winnowed down to nine options. Our Council anticipates choosing preferred alternatives this year, at which point, our City will begin the required environmental study. Given this timeline and the pressing need, we respectfully request your support to help secure a state budget appropriation in the amount of one million dollars for the necessary project development and environmental studies. I look forward to partnering with the State of California on this endeavor. Sincerely, Adrian Fine Mayor, City of Palo Alto Cc: Palo Alto City Council Ed Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager DocuSign Envelope ID: A5F50157-27EB-4563-BA07-B66FA72B5AF9 Office of the Mayor and City Council January 23, 2020 The Honorable Jerry Hill California State Senate State Capitol, Room 5035 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: SB 793 (Hill) Flavored tobacco products; support from the City of Palo Alto Dear Senator Hill: On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I would like to express our support for SB 793. This bill will prohibit a tobacco retailer from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product. As you are aware, the City of Palo Alto already has in place ordinances that limit the sale of flavored tobacco. And last month, our Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that will ban the sales and distribution of vaping and flavored cigarettes in all retail establishments. We believe SB 793 will address a serious state-wide and national epidemic, effectively decreasing the amount of youth who consume these harmful tobacco products which contain high amounts of nicotine while intentionally masking the nicotine’s flavor. As such, we are happy to support this bill and we commend you for your leadership and efforts on this important policy topic. Sincerely, Adrian Fine Mayor of Palo Alto Cc: Assembly Member Marc Berman Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Ed Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: A5F50157-27EB-4563-BA07-B66FA72B5AF9 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 6:22 PM To:Council, City; Mike Bechler; arlenerosenblum@gmail.com; Dorian Manke; greg@gregtanaka.org; Joel Smith; Kniss, Liz (external); mary_etriggs@yahoo.com; price@padailypost.com; bryantst@me.com Subject:MORENO and MIDDLEFIELD CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Leaders, resend due to error    2 Dear City Leaders,    We NEED a left turn signal   ON the street of Moreno,  not two in the middle of the   next block, which go nowhere.    The cars are speeding 40 miles an hour  SINCE 2011, when our traffic calming was completely disbanded.  We had needed the local police, who enforced calming.   We were safer.   All burglaries went way up by the end of 2012.      There are MANY car accidents now.    We HAVE to get out of our driveways.  That is why we had a safe speed limit.     Middlefield is like a bumpy third world street, and even our speed reader was recently bashed over at Walgreens, and,  has not been replaced.    Please help your own citizens here south of Oregon Expressway!  This is a residential street with homes on both sides and kids ARE all over.     Geri McGilvray   For EVERYDAY SAFETY   and WALKABILITY      photo today by Geri McGilvray   Jan. 26, 2020    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2020 2:37 PM To:Council, City; price@padailypost.com; Peter Drekmeier; Mike Bechler Cc:Dorian Manke Subject:Moreno and MIDDLEFIELD CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________      Dear City Leaders,    We NEED a left turn SIGNAL at Moreno AND Middlefield.   We have to drive 10 blocks out of our way to turn left safely.  It is silly to have TWO signals in the middle the the drugstore block in  stead.    The drivers are going 40 miles an hour since police stopped all traffic calming in 2011.  Burglaries SOARED in 2012.     This is a residential area with homes on both sides of our streets.    We need to get out of our driveways to go anywhere.   2   Our speed meter was bashed down and not replaced Recently.   We need high quality, quiet pavement instead of the third world black goo sprayed on Middlefield.     Please protect us from all these accidents from carelessness.    Everyone’s kids use Middlefield and are not protected from speeders   South of OREGON EX.  Sent from my iPhone    We are your own citizens, whose quality of life should still matter.    Geri McGilvray,   Everyday safety and WALKABILITY    Photo taken today, January 26 By Geri McGilvray   1 Baumb, Nelly From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:34 PM To:City Mgr; chuck jagoda; Wintergery; Kou, Lydia; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; council@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; fred smith; Richard Konda; Raj; Nicholas Chan; chuck jagoda Subject:Aram James’s 3 priorities for the Palo Alto City Council in 2020-feedback appreciated CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.                     Aram James in Duveneck/ St Francis January 23, 2020, 11:49 AM # 1. Priority for 2020 —release the investigation re Palo Alto Police Captain Zack Perron. The alleged vile and racist conduct by Perron is being covered up by the city of Palo Alto. The alleged racist incident occurred on Jan 28, 2014 —nearly 6 years ago. Having a high ranking officer under a cloud of racist and outrageous conduct is unacceptable. If the allegations are true the message being sent to the other members of the PAPD and to our community members .....is that our city council, city manager, city attorney and police chief are willing to accept and promote a culture of racism in our police department -with no mechanism in place to expose and hold accountable racist members of the PAPD. We must not allow such a culture to fester in our city. # 2. I have filed an extensive CPRA request ( at the city council meeting on Tuesday January 21, 2020) re important data re the of use of Tasers, expense of Tasers and other relevant data points. I expect full transparency in the release of these records in a timely fashion ...and full compliance with the CPRA by the city. Once I have all necessary data—-I will present the information to the community and the city council. I will then call for the city council and HRC to re-examine whether Tasers are still necessary in Palo Alto. Should we ban Tasers in Palo Alto given the growing evidence that Tasers are much more dangerous then originally thought? # 3 priority for 2020. A robust discussion re the critical need for a bathroom at Bol Park. A bathroom designed to complement the extraordinary natural setting. Sincerely, Aram James 2 415-370-5056 P.S. any guideline for civility ( code for self-censorship) must not be used to chill speakers full right to exercise their first amendment rights. read less If it looks good, click OK. Otherwise, click EDIT. OK Edit © Copyright 2020 OpenGov, Inc. | Privacy | Terms of Service | Download Adobe Reader  Set Language To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Open Town Hall   Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:pellson@pacbell.net Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:2020 City of Palo Alto Priorities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members,  Please consider prioritizing projects that reduce our contributions to climate change and help to mitigate its impacts,  as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Toward this end, I think it would be most effective to focus on these three  areas, considering priorities in each category within a sustainability context:  1. Transportation (the largest contributor to GHF emissions)  2. Housing and Land Use  3. Budget/Finance  Financial and staff resources are limited, so let’s prioritize projects and programs that move us toward a sustainable  future environment—a legacy our children and grandchildren will remember with gratitude. Let’s be worthy of their  trust in us to protect their future.  Here is what this might look like:  Transportation  Comp Plan Goal T‐1 “Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that  emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use  of single‐occupancy motor vehicles.”   Finish what we started.  Complete construction of the Charleston/Arastradero Plan, Adobe/101 Pedestrian Bicycle  Bridge, and bicycle boulevards.  These projects have languished for nearly two decades while the Cal Ave parking garage  is being constructed at lightning speed and magnificent cost. Going forward, let’s evaluate major transportation  expenditures based on how well they serve Goal T‐1.  Implement paid auto parking in high demand areas on the public streets and in existing public parking garages.  Let’s not  use public funds for public auto parking going forward.  If businesses and developers want to subsidize driving, that is  their prerogative.  It should not be the responsibility of taxpayers. Auto parking garages encourage more people to drive,  exacerbating congestion, creating safety and GHG impacts, and undermining progress toward Goal T‐1.   Complete plans for grade separation and Shuttle expansion plans and create a funding plan for improving transit. Fill in  gaps created by VTA cuts.  Consider asking the VTA Grand Jury to propose specific mitigations for VTA failures to provide  equitable levels of service in Palo Alto —perhaps providing CoPA with funding for Shuttle expansion.  We need more bike parking at many city facilities, most city events, and many commercial and retail locations  citywide.  Safe Routes to School has demonstrated that inadequate bike parking is a real deterrent to biking.  It also has  shown that placing new bike parking in visible, convenient locations that connect well to on‐street bike facilities and  desirable destinations draws new riders.  It reminds people who often drive that they could try something different.  Identify areas where bike parking gaps exist and address the problem using grants—as we did with PAUSD. This will be  far less expensive than building auto parking.  Start work on the next Bicycle‐Pedestrian Transportation Plan—but please do not postpone current projects in order to  accomplish this task.    2 Housing & Land Use  Make better use of land where we can. Consider Goal T‐! in land use planning. More units of higher density at locations  that are well‐supported by public transit.  Slow down office/jobs growth.  Addressing the jobs:housing imbalance  requires us to work on both sides of the balance.  As we grow housing (especially higher density housing) we must  preserve public land to increase services (school and community spaces) that new residents living in much smaller  spaces will badly need in order to preserve quality of life and minimize car trips to these services.  Budget  Nothing gets done without money. Invest in infrastructure that aligns with the vision for sustainability outlined in our  Comprehensive Plan.  Conserve money to fund more affordable housing, transit and public facilities we will need to  support denser housing…and to mitigate the inevitable impacts of climate change that already are underway.  Minimizing contributions to climate change should be guiding priorities in each of these critical areas.   Thank you for considering my comments.  Penny Ellson  P.S.  My PC warns me that the city site for submission for these comments uses cookie tracking.    Please ask staff to fix  this.  I have opted to use email for this reason.  I ask staff to include my comments with others they have collected on  their tracked web site.    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 10:41 AM To:UAC; Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Star B. Teachout Subject:Palo Alto steps toward net-zero energy, Utilities and culture Attachments:example Utility bill chart_Adams&Teachout 20Jan2020.jpeg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear members of the Utilities Advisory Commission, City Council members and City Manager Shikada,    Palo Alto is in an excellent position to become a leader and a strong example of how towns can quickly adapt to meet  international environmental and climate targets. I also feel Palo Alto is working to adjust the core of our cultural as our  community evolves. True sustainable living should become a centerpiece of Palo Alto's culture in the 21st century.     To meet established climate targets and achieve a truly sustainable lifestyle balance for the future, carbon‐neutral at  high consumption levels is not sufficient. Net energy and resource consumption in Palo Alto must be significantly  reduced as soon as possible to reach global per‐capita consumption and CO2 emissions levels ‐ this is the only path to  achieve a sustainable global impact of our city.    Palo Alto has our own Utility, has many citizens very concerned about the health of the planet, and has mild weather  with lots of sunshine. If Palo Alto can't adapt our lifestyle in very significant ways to help save the biosphere, who can? If  Palo Alto can become such a leader in truly sustainable living, this will help define the city for the coming century and  will maintain or increase the desirability of Palo Alto as a place for individuals and families to settle.  Here is what we can do, starting tomorrow.  1. Local Energy Generation;  City of Palo Alto Utilities can immediately start developing local energy generation using rooftops in the city. We should  develop a program where property owners can participate in CoPAU local power generation by accepting utility‐owned  infrastructure on their roofs. The CoPAU should determine which rooftops have sufficient daily solar insolation and  should install solar electrical and/or solar water thermal infrastructure on the houses and buildings of willing  participants. The CoPAU should charge a slightly reduced rate to the homeowners who join into this program so the  homeowners are financially motivated to participate. (Work to be done: define how the responsibility for and  maintenance of the equipment and the affected portion of the roof would be split between homeowner and CoPAU.)  Rooftop installations would allow Palo Alto to generate a very meaningful portion of the domestic and business energy  consumed by the city. We would not need to rely so heavily on energy generated elsewhere. Palo Alto would have real  reduced CO2 emissions. The non‐local green‐grid energy we would then not need to consume could become a larger  fraction of the energy consumed in other places where solar is less effective, where green energy is not available, or  where climate requires higher consumption for heating or cooling. In other words, by generating more of our own  domestic direct energy locally in Palo Alto, a higher percentage of non‐local renewable energy would become available  on the grid for other consumers in the state.    2. Energy consumption reporting and tracking  2 Energy bills from the CoPAU should start showing each customer's monthly consumption in relation to 2030 and 2050  international consumption targets. This will give customers a very clear vision of how their consumption compares to  what the planet can tolerate. The yearly bar graph chart could show the customer's average consumption along with  projected average annual consumption curves for 2030 and 2050 requirements. (would have to assume a household size  to project per‐capita consumption, unless homeowners would be willing to disclose the number of people in the  household as part of their account profile).    Here (and also attached) is a proposal for a chart format which could be shown on the monthly energy bill of each  account holder, replacing the current Electricity and Gas usage graphs:             Energy rates tiered to motivate lower consumption:    The CoPAU should revise energy rates to a tiered system which make consumers more aware of the true global cost of  excess consumption. The cost for energy below the sustainable 2050 per‐capita target would be the lowest rate, with  rates increasing in tiers above the 2050, the 2030, and other levels. Initially, the cost difference in the first few tiers  could be small but still would be a frequent reminder of the added cost of non‐sustainable consumption. As necessary,  as the critical urgency of striving for 2030 and 2050 targets is accepted, the cost of the tiers could be increased to  provide greater motivation and urgency for making difficult changes.  (future...) eventually, energy costs should be raised to be high enough to inspire Palo Altans to reduce energy using less  or no household heating and cooling, by washing clothes cold or warm rather than hot, by line‐drying laundry when rain  isn't falling, by reducing the number and length of showers and so on. All of these types of actions will be essential ways  of life to meet even 2030 targets.    3. New building requirements for resource consumption  Palo Alto Planning and Building regulations should require houses above a certain square footage to use on‐site power  generation to cover excessive power consumption. From one source I found, I learned the average Eichler in Palo Alto  3 was about 1500‐1600 square feet. Clearly, tens of thousands of families of 4 and 5 people have been able to live very  successfully and comfortably in these homes. Therefore, we could establish a 400 square‐feet per‐person as the target  for the base‐level home, with new home permits greater than 1600 sq. feet requiring on‐site power generation for all  energy consumption beyond 2050 per‐capita targets. (ie. solar electric and solar hot water systems would need to be  included in the design to augment energy needs above the per‐lot standard allotment). With this approach, the excess  heating and cooling load from large houses would not need to be supported from the grid/fossil fuel infrastructure.  This same strategy should be applied for water use as well, enforcing installation of grey water and small domestic wells  to cover yard use and other water consumption in excess of a certain sustainable household threshold.  Building rules for commercial office buildings should also be set to include onsite rooftop and parking lot carport power  generation as much as is possible.  4. Reduce use of personal cars in daily life    To meet future footprint targets, we must reduce car and truck trips. Car owners in Palo Alto could be somehow  incentivized to not use their cars, either by giving them financial credits for walking, biking and taking public  transportation, or by charging consumption and usage fees for driving in the city, for parking, (or, to jump to Orwellian  sorts of invasive practices, by monitoring license plates at freeway entrances and exits into the city and charging those  who rely on the highways (far too creepy and invasive!!, but thought provoking)). One powerful way to reward for non‐ car commuting would be to have companies reward employees who don't use personal cars to commute to work. The  companies would bear the burden for the necessary infrastructure as a requirement to offset the car usage caused by  their business. A bicycle tagging and sensing system was used to reward bikers at my previous company and this worked  very effectively and transparently.        I realize you have probably heard similar ideas from many others so I'm risking repetition here to add my thoughts and  input to this critically important conversation. Please strongly consider implementing these ideas and others to greatly  reduce the footprint of our city. There is no reason Palo Altans shouldn't be much more aggressive changing our  lifestyles to reduce our destructive impact on the planet. With more aggressive action starting now, there is no reason  Palo Alto can't become recognized globally as an innovator in sustainable city living. There is no reason global leadership  in truly sustainable living can't become a core of Palo Alto's culture in the 21st century.    Regards,    Dan Adams  Star Teachout      Palo Alto        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:pellson@pacbell.net Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 4:40 PM To:Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Cc:Council, City Subject:FW: 2020 City of Palo Alto Priorities Hi Meghan,  I just received your email.  Thank you for notifying me that staff will not be including my comments on 2020 City Priorities in the survey results staff  will present unless I use your survey format.  I am, by copy of this email,  letting Council know that is the case so they  will review the survey results with that understanding.  I will resubmit using the survey.  However, I am curious. Why would comments submitted via a standard public comment forum by the deadline not be  considered in staff’s presentation? What about folks who don’t have access to a computer?   Thank you.  Penny   From: Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:46 AM  To: Ellson, Penny <pellson@pacbell.net>  Subject: RE: 2020 City of Palo Alto Priorities    Hi Penny,   Thanks so much for taking the time to share your perspective about the City Council’s priorities for the year. I  understand your concern about the use of cookies. So you are aware, most websites use cookies, including the City’s  official website at www.cityofpaloalto.org.   Your email message will be provided as part of the meeting packet on this topic, which will be discussed at the City  Council retreat on February 1. However, your input will not be included in the specific survey results staff will present,  unless you fill out the survey online. If you change your mind and would like to fill out the survey, please go here.   Best Regards,  Meghan         Meghan Horrigan‐Taylor  Chief Communications Officer   250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA  94301  (650) 329‐2607 | Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org          2 From: pellson@pacbell.net <pellson@pacbell.net>   Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:17 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: 2020 City of Palo Alto Priorities    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members,  Please consider prioritizing projects that reduce our contributions to climate change and help to mitigate its impacts,  as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Toward this end, I think it would be most effective to focus on these three  areas, considering priorities in each category within a sustainability context:  1. Transportation (the largest contributor to GHF emissions)  2. Housing and Land Use  3. Budget/Finance  Financial and staff resources are limited, so let’s prioritize projects and programs that move us toward a sustainable  future environment—a legacy our children and grandchildren will remember with gratitude. Let’s be worthy of their  trust in us to protect their future.  Here is what this might look like:  Transportation  Comp Plan Goal T‐1 “Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that  emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use  of single‐occupancy motor vehicles.”   Finish what we started.  Complete construction of the Charleston/Arastradero Plan, Adobe/101 Pedestrian Bicycle  Bridge, and bicycle boulevards.  These projects have languished for nearly two decades while the Cal Ave parking garage  is being constructed at lightning speed and magnificent cost. Going forward, let’s evaluate major transportation  expenditures based on how well they serve Goal T‐1.  Implement paid auto parking in high demand areas on the public streets and in existing public parking garages.  Let’s not  use public funds for public auto parking going forward.  If businesses and developers want to subsidize driving, that is  their prerogative.  It should not be the responsibility of taxpayers. Auto parking garages encourage more people to drive,  exacerbating congestion, creating safety and GHG impacts, and undermining progress toward Goal T‐1.   Complete plans for grade separation and Shuttle expansion plans and create a funding plan for improving transit. Fill in  gaps created by VTA cuts.  Consider asking the VTA Grand Jury to propose specific mitigations for VTA failures to provide  equitable levels of service in Palo Alto —perhaps providing CoPA with funding for Shuttle expansion.  We need more bike parking at many city facilities, most city events, and many commercial and retail locations  citywide.  Safe Routes to School has demonstrated that inadequate bike parking is a real deterrent to biking.  It also has  shown that placing new bike parking in visible, convenient locations that connect well to on‐street bike facilities and  desirable destinations draws new riders.  It reminds people who often drive that they could try something different.  Identify areas where bike parking gaps exist and address the problem using grants—as we did with PAUSD. This will be  far less expensive than building auto parking.  Start work on the next Bicycle‐Pedestrian Transportation Plan—but please do not postpone current projects in order to  accomplish this task.    Housing & Land Use  3 Make better use of land where we can. Consider Goal T‐! in land use planning. More units of higher density at locations  that are well‐supported by public transit.  Slow down office/jobs growth.  Addressing the jobs:housing imbalance  requires us to work on both sides of the balance.  As we grow housing (especially higher density housing) we must  preserve public land to increase services (school and community spaces) that new residents living in much smaller  spaces will badly need in order to preserve quality of life and minimize car trips to these services.  Budget  Nothing gets done without money. Invest in infrastructure that aligns with the vision for sustainability outlined in our  Comprehensive Plan.  Conserve money to fund more affordable housing, transit and public facilities we will need to  support denser housing…and to mitigate the inevitable impacts of climate change that already are underway.  Minimizing contributions to climate change should be guiding priorities in each of these critical areas.   Thank you for considering my comments.  Penny Ellson  P.S.  My PC warns me that the city site for submission for these comments uses cookie tracking.    Please ask staff to fix  this.  I have opted to use email for this reason.  I ask staff to include my comments with others they have collected on  their tracked web site.    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Neff <nrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 9:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Priorities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,    Please prioritize addressing the Climate Crisis, especially manifested as increasing density of housing near jobs and/or  transit.    Thank you.    Best regards,    Nancy Neff    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Diana Lathi <diana.pmda@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 9:31 AM To:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Leah Elkins; Kelly Traver; Council, City Subject:Ordinance for Safe Storage of Firearms in Palo Alto Attachments:Safe Storage research.pdf; Every-State-Fact-Sheet-California.pdf; Myth v Fact.SD4GVP.pdf; Stolen- Guns-FACT-SHEET-030619B.pdf; Everytown Safe Storage Ordinance Model.10.1.19.pdf; Quick Comparison Chart.SD4GVP.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto Council Members, I am following up on a letter I mailed to you last fall to which I have not yet received any response. I recognize that you are all very busy, but as gun violence increases across the country, I implore you to take affirmative common sense steps to prevent gun violence in Palo Alto. I am member of Moms Demand Action, a grassroots volunteer organization promoting common sense gun laws that has a strong following in Palo Alto. Moms Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, the nation’s largest gun violence prevention organization with nearly 6 million supporters. On behalf of the Moms Demand Action for volunteers of Palo Alto, as a resident of Palo Alto, and as a mother of two children in Palo Alto public schools, I respectfully request that this council add an ordinance to the municipal code requiring all firearms stored in a Palo Alto residences be securely locked. The facts are simple about gun violence in the United States:  One small child dies almost every day after finding an unsecured gun, usually in his or her own home, a relative’s home, or while playing at a friend’s house.  Two older children, usually teenagers, die from suicide every day due to access to an unsecured firearm, typically in their own home or in a relative’s home.  In 80% of school shootings, the shooter was a student/former student of the school, using an unsecured firearm from his/her home or a relative’s home. Research shows that keeping guns stored securely does not hinder self-protection. Access to the firearm can be obtained within seconds. Safe Storage DOES prevent unintentional deaths of children and teen suicides, by as much as 85%, depending on the type of storage. Safe storage also may prevent firearms from being stolen in residential robberies, providing unlawful access in many instances to persons legally prohibited from possessing firearms. City ordinances are vital tools in closing the gaps in California law and reducing gun violence in communities. Safe storage ordinances have been adopted, among other jurisdictions, in Burlingame, Portola Valley, Foster City, Redwood City, San Mateo County (unincorporated), Santa Clara County (unincorporated), San Carlos, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, San Jose, Orinda, Moraga, San Francisco, Belvedere, Tiburon, Berkeley, Oakland, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, Los Angeles, San Diego and Palm Springs. A growing number of cities and municipalities throughout California that do not have this ordinance are in the process of researching and discussing the merits of such an ordinance. 2 Moms Demand Action is committed to supporting the Council in passing a safe storage ordinance. We can provide research, data and education to the Council in support of a safe storage ordinance. I have attached several materials that you may find helpful, including the Everytown model ordinance. Note that some of the materials attached were prepared in connection with efforts to pass San Diego’s ordinance, but they are helpful in highlighting some of the gaps in California law that may be addressed by local ordinances. I would be grateful for an opportunity to meet with you to discuss adding a safe storage ordinance to one of your upcoming council meeting agendas. Thank you for your attention to this important matter that can potentially save lives in Palo Alto, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Diana Lathi Palo Alto, CA 94301 Legislative Lead, Peninsula Moms Demand Action diana.pmda@gmail.com (650) 303-8666 Redacted everytownresearch.org/EveryStat Updated: October 2019 INTRODUCTION This fact sheet is a summary of data contained in EveryStat for Gun Safety, a free, interactive website that contains data about gun violence by state, county, race and ethnicity, gender, and intent. These materials have been designed for users to better understand how gun violence impacts the communities they care about. Visit the tool at everytownresearch.org/EveryStat Gun Violence in California IN AN AVERAGE YEAR, 3,086 PEOPLE DIE BY GUNS IN CALIFORNIA. WITH A RATE OF 7.7 DEATHS PER 100,000 PEOPLE, CALIFORNIA HAS THE 44TH-HIGHEST RATE OF GUN DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES. In California, 51% of gun deaths are suicides and 44% are homicides. This is compared to 61% and 35% respectively, nationwide. SUICIDE 51% HOMICIDE 44% UNINTENTIONAL 1.0% SHOOTINGS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT 2.9% UNDETERMINED 0.4% ALL SUICIDE HOMICIDE The rate of gun deaths in California decreased 8%↓ from 2008 to 2017, compared to a 17%↑ increase over this same time period nationwide. Among the 58 counties in California, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Santa Clara counties contain the state’s three largest cities, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose. These counties have rates of 7.2 gun deaths, 6.2 gun deaths, and 4.2 gun deaths per 100,000 people, respectively. For data on all counties, visit the EveryStat for Gun Safety tool online. 0 5 10 15 20 25 2017201620152014201320122011201020092008 GUN DEATHS BY INTENT IN CALIFORNIA GUN DEATHS OVER TIME IN CALIFORNIA AG E - A D J U S T E D R A T E P E R 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 P E O P L E Sources: CDC, Fatal Injury Reports, five-year average: 2013-2017. Percents may not equal 100% due to missing data. Trends: CDC, Fatal Injury Reports, 2008-2017. County data: CDC, Underlying Cause of Death, five-year average: 2013-2017. everytownresearch.org/EveryStat Updated: October 2019 WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE LATEST DATA ON GUN DEATHS IN FOUR CATEGORIES: II. GUN HOMICIDE An average of 1458 people in California die by gun homicide every year—a rate of 3.7 homicides per 100,000 people. Across all states, California has the 28th-highest rate of gun homicides in the country. Of all homicides in California, 71% involve a gun, compared to 73% nationally. In California, Black people are 10 times as likely to die by gun homicide as white people, compared to 10 times nationwide. III. CHILDREN AND TEENS GUN DEATHS Firearms are the 2nd-leading cause of death among children and teens in California. In California, an average of 246 children and teens die by guns every year, and 76% of these deaths are homicide. In the US, 58% of all gun deaths among children and teens are homicides. Black children and teens in California are 7 times as likely as their white peers to die by guns. IV. INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE From 2013 to 2017, 289 women were fatally shot by an intimate partner in California. This represents 89% of all intimate partner gun homicides in the state, compared to 81% nationwide. Black women in California are 1.2 times as likely as white women to be fatally shot by a partner. IN CALIFORNIA, 89% OF INTIMATE PARTNER GUN HOMICIDE VICTIMS WERE WOMEN. I. GUN SUICIDE An average of 1583 people in California die by gun suicide every year—a rate of 3.9 suicides per 100,000 people. In California, there is an average of 6 hours between gun suicide deaths. Across all states, California has the 43rd-highest rate of gun suicides in the country. White people in California are 3 times as likely to die by gun suicide as Black people. 51% OF ALL GUN DEATHS IN CALIFORNIA ARE SUICIDES. Homicide source: CDC, Fatal Injury Reports, five-year average: 2013-2017. Homicide includes shootings by law enforcement. Intimate partner homicide source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports and Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2013-2017. Children/teens source: CDC, Fatal Injury Reports, five-year average: 2013-2017. Leading cause of death: CDC, Fatal Injury Report, 2017. GUN HOMICIDE BY RACE/ETHNICITY IN CALIFORNIA FIREARMS ARE THE 2ND LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG CHILDREN AND TEENS IN THE UNITED STATES BLACK 18 AMERICANINDIAN 7 HISPANIC 4 WHITE 2 ASIAN 1 DEATHS PER 100,000 PEOPLE NUMBER OF DEATHS AMONG CHILDREN/TEENS Suicide source: CDC, Fatal Injury Reports, five-year average: 2013-2017. CONGENITIAL MALFORMATION 1,064 1,633SUFFOCATION 1,740CANCER 3,430FIREARM 3,669MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC San Diego Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance Myth vs. Fact Myth: The San Diego Safe Storage Ordinance is “duplicative” because state law already requires safe storage of firearms. Fact: The proposed ordinance is not duplicative because it addresses the dangerous deficiencies in existing state law. First, in most situations, existing state law allows gun owners to decide what safe storage means to him/her, thus creating a subjective standard that will vary from person to person. Second, existing state law applies only to guns accessible to children and those prohibited from owning a gun. It does not apply to access by other adult family members, roommates, those with mental health issues, and thieves. Third, most of state law applies only to loaded guns, not to unloaded guns, even when ammunition is nearby. Fourth, many provisions in existing state law only apply “after the fact,” when a gun is used to kill or injure someone or is carried to a school site or function. In contrast, the San Diego ordinance sets a clear, objective standard that will be simple for every gun owner to follow. For example, under state law, hiding a gun on top of a water heater or fridge may be OK if the owner believed it was in a location that “a reasonable person would believe to be secure.” Such "hidden" guns are regularly found and result in tragic deaths. Second, the proposed ordinance prevents access by all unauthorized users, not just children or those prohibited from owning firearms. It addresses situations where guns are available to a variety of people who could do harm to themselves and others, including those with suicidal thoughts, dementia, and persons in impulsive situations such as an argument. Third, unlike most of existing state law, the local ordinance requires all guns, both loaded and unloaded guns to be safely stored, not just loaded ones. Finally, the local ordinance is meant to be a preventative measure, requiring all guns to be safely stored at all times, except when the gun is in the immediate control of the owner. Myth: This ordinance will prevent me from quickly accessing my gun in an emergency. Fact: No gun owner will have to sacrifice quick access to his/her gun. First, the law does not apply when a firearm is carried on the body of the gun owner or is within the gun owner’s immediate control. Second, the gun owner is free to choose from among hundreds of approved safety devices in determining which device best suits his/her needs. Many safes provide quick access through quick-pad combination or biometric locks, activated by hand or fingerprint recognition, which pop open immediately when several pushbuttons are touched in a preset sequence. Users report that they can retrieve a loaded weapon in just one to three seconds, and that the locks are also easy to open in the dark. The NRA describes this type lockbox as providing "a good combination of security and quick access." Myth: There is no way to enforce this law; police will have to go door to door. Fact: This is nonsense. The police can enforce this law and will use it as a tool to protect people from gun violence. A typical scenario would involve police responding to a domestic disturbance or other disruption where they have a lawful reason to be in a residence. If they observe an unsecured firearm they will have the authority to require the firearm be properly stored. This law does not circumvent rights under the Fourth Amendment against unlawful searches and seizures; police cannot go door to door checking residences. Although violation of this law can result in punitive measures, the primary objective is to prevent gun violence and theft by modifying people’s behaviors over time, much like California’s seat belt law and helmet laws. When first enacted, the seat belt law was only enforced when someone was pulled over for another reason such as speeding. At that time, only 20% of Californians wore seat belts. Many considered it to be an annoyance or unnecessary extra step. After 20 years, 96% of California motorists wear seat belts. People started wearing seat belts not due to fear of legal consequences, but because the passage of the law signaled that not wearing a seatbelt posed a health risk, which began to shift public perception causing people to update their behaviors. Myth: This law is unnecessary for those who live alone and never have children in their homes. Fact: Even for those who live without children or other household members, this ordinance is important in order to prevent theft of firearms. That’s one reason that even the NRA recommends safe storage. A data analysis by The Trace linked about 1,000 stolen firearms to crimes committed in the city and county of San Diego from 2011 to 2016. Those included more than two dozen murders or attempted murders, 16 robberies, 90 instances of assault or battery, 115 drug crimes, and more than 250 weapon-related offenses, including felons in possession of firearms. Many lockboxes can be permanently mounted to furniture and bed frames, or have cables that can be secured to bed posts or furniture. A lockbox can be a deterrent for a thief with limited time or improper tools to open it. Safely storing firearms will reduce the risk that they will be stolen. Myth: This law violates the 2nd Amendment and the city will be sued. Fact: The ordinance does not violate the Second Amendment. Safe storage laws in California have already been enacted in 15 cities. Recently the Ninth Circuit upheld a similar safe storage law requiring handguns inside the home to be stored in locked containers or disabled with a trigger lock when not being carried on the person. The court found that the burden on the gun owner was a small one since the ordinance allows the carrying of unlocked firearms. The court also noted that modern gun safes can be quickly accessed and modern trigger locks can be quickly disabled in the event of an emergency. The court went on to conclude the law was constitutional. Myth: This ordinance will turn people into criminals if no harm is done. Fact: Law-abiding citizens follow the law. Responsible gun owners will want to protect those in their house and follow safe storage practices. A recent survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, believed to be the first nationally representative survey taken in the last 15 years specifically concerning gun storage, found that only 46% of gun owners store their guns safely. Among gun-owning households with children, approximately two in ten gun owners store at least one gun in the least safe manner, i.e., loaded and unlocked. We need this local ordinance to change this behavioral standard. Ultimately, if gun owners do not follow the law, that is their choice. Myth: There should be an exception for police officers and the military. Fact: The law does not apply to those who have a gun on their person or within their immediate control. Therefore, the law only applies to unattended firearms within a residence. Law enforcement and military should not be leaving their firearms unattended in their residence and it is difficult to conceive of a time that this could occur during or incidental to their duties. Children in the homes of law enforcement and the military deserve the same protection as other children. Myth: San Diego law cannot go above what state law already requires. Fact: The proposed ordinance can build on state law because it is not preempted by state law. Preemption occurs when state law removes the regulatory power from local governments. Our state constitution allows local governments to implement customized solutions to gun violence in their communities as long as these local ordinances are not in conflict with state law. A conflict occurs when a local law contradicts or duplicates state law. In this case, the safe storage ordinance does not duplicate state law because state law does not instruct us how to store firearms in all situations. Also, the safe storage ordinance law does not contradict the state law but rather builds on state law requirements by focusing on areas not covered under existing law, and on prevention of harm rather than punishment after harm has occurred. 1everytownresearch.org Gun thefts occur in staggering numbers. Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, taken from houses, vehicles, and stores. Gun thefts often divert guns into an underground market where people with dangerous histories are easily able to obtain firearms without restriction. That is why stolen guns are often recovered at crime scenes, including at the scenes of homicides and other violent crimes. Policymakers can pass laws that can help prevent gun thefts and can also work with gun owners and dealers to help ensure that their guns do not end up in the hands of people who should not have them. GUNS STOLEN EACH YEAR FROM… STOLEN GUNS POSE A TREMENDOUS RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen each year, the vast majority of which are stolen from private gun owners. • Estimates from various sources suggest that between 200,000 and 500,000 guns are stolen from individuals each year.1 The most recent nationally representative survey found that approximately 380,000 guns are stolen from private gun owners every year.2 • Gun owners were three times more likely to have a gun stolen if they carried a gun in the last month compared to gun owners who did not carry.3 • Research suggests that nearly one-quarter of stolen guns are taken from cars and other vehicles.4,5 • In addition to theft from private owners, approximately 18,700 firearms are reported lost or stolen from licensed gun dealers each year, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).6 • Although there are nearly 62,000 licensed gun dealers throughout the U.S.,7 nearly 3,000 of the guns reported lost or stolen in 2017 were taken from just 10 dealers.8 • Another investigation revealed that about 1,300 guns taken from gun dealers each year may have been stolen from or lost by shipping companies while in transit from gun manufacturers to the gun dealers.9 The number of guns stolen each year has steadily increased over at least the last decade. • The number of guns reported stolen from individuals increased by nearly 60 percent between 2006 and 2016.10 PRIVATE GUN OWNERS 380,000 guns GUN DEALERS 18,700 guns SHIPPING COMPANIES 1,300 guns GUN OWNERS WERE 3X MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A GUN STOLEN IF THEY CARRIED A GUN IN THE LAST MONTH. March 2019 2everytownresearch.org THE ATF REPORTS THAT NEARLY 60,000 GUNS ARE TRAFFICKED ACROSS STATE LINES EACH YEAR. • The number of guns stolen from cars nearly doubled between 2006 and 2015, with several cities experiencing more than threefold increases.11 • The number of gun thefts from licensed gun dealers has increased more than the number from any other source. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of firearms stolen in gun-dealer burglaries more than doubled and the number of firearms stolen in gun-dealer robberies tripled.12 Stolen guns undermine the enforcement of our gun laws and often end up in the possession of someone who was legally prohibited from having guns. • The ATF reports that nearly 60,000 guns are trafficked across state lines each year,14 the vast majority of which flow from states with weaker guns laws to states with tougher laws.15 • Research suggests that individuals who are prohibited from possessing guns may utilize the underground market to obtain guns and that a large percentage of the transactions that arm these offenders are illegal under current law.16 Research suggests that stolen guns are linked to crime — in fact, many guns found at crime scenes can be traced through the underground market. • The majority of the 23,000 stolen firearms recovered by police between 2010 and 2016 were recovered in connection with crimes, including more than 1,500 violent acts.17 In Anchorage, AK, two people smashed the glass door of a licensed gun dealer, emptied a glass display case of guns, and left with 36 firearms in a duffel bag. Later that weekend, one of the guns was used in a fatal shooting of a 65-year-old man.13 THE NUMBER OF GUNS STOLEN FROM CARS INCREASED BY 2X BETWEEN 2006 AND 2015. • A study of crime scenes in Pittsburgh, PA, found that more than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen.20 • In recent years, guns stolen from vehicles have often shown up at violent crime scenes: In 2016, a gun stolen from a former law-enforcement officer was used in a shoot-out wounding three Chicago, IL, police officers in the line of duty. The gunman had a felony record and was prohibited from possessing firearms.18 As reported by The Trace, an AK-47-style rifle was stolen from a house during a break- in in Atlanta, GA, in 2015. The following year, a gunman with a felony history used the weapon to shoot and injure two men at a Chevron gas station. Two months later, the felon used the rifle to fatally shoot his girlfriend’s neighbor.19 The firearm used to kill a Florida police officer in 2014 had been stolen from an unlocked Honda Accord four months before.21 A gun stolen from a St. Louis, MO, woman who had driven around with it in a plastic bag later turned up at the scene of a homicide.22 3everytownresearch.org Require Responsible Gun Storage Gun owners are significantly less likely to have a gun stolen if they store all of their guns locked and unloaded,23 yet more than half of gun owners do not store all of their guns responsibly.24 • Lawmakers can pass laws to require that gun owners responsibly store their firearms that are left unattended. Promote Public Awareness of Responsible Storage Policymakers, community members, and gun owners have a responsibility to build public awareness about responsible storage practices. • Lawmakers, community members, and local leaders can promote public awareness campaigns — such as the Be SMART program25 — that encourage responsible gun storage and highlight the public safety risks of unsecured guns to help prevent unauthorized access.26 Require That Concealed Handgun Permit Training Programs Train People on Responsible Storage at Home and in Vehicles Nearly 9 million adult handgun owners carry their handguns in public at least once a month; 3 million carry in public every day.27 According to one study, encouraging or requiring gun owners to take safety courses that focus specifically on best practices for gun storage could improve responsible storage.28 • Legislators can mandate that any required firearm- safety training course for a handgun-carry permit also covers responsible firearm storage and the threat of stolen guns. • Legislators can require a permit to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle to ensure that gun owners take firearm safety training and are aware of responsible storage practices. This crucial step could help encourage responsible gun storage in vehicles. Rethink Guns in Parking Lot Laws Many states have laws forcing private business owners or employers to allow guns to be stored in vehicles in their parking lots, even though local conditions may make these cars attractive targets for thieves. • Lawmakers can review these laws to assess the potential threats to safety posed by guns stolen from vehicles. Require Gun Owners to Report Lost and Stolen Firearms Reporting lost or stolen guns to local law enforcement may reduce underground gun sales and illegal gun trafficking. One study found that mandatory-reporting laws for lost and stolen guns were associated with a 30 percent lower risk that guns would be purchased in that state and recovered after a crime in another state.29 • Lawmakers can pass laws to affirmatively require gun owners to report stolen firearms to law enforcement for investigation immediately when they go missing. Adopt Strong Firearm-Dealer Regulations and Hold Dealers Accountable Research shows that strong gun-dealer regulations are associated with decreased gun trafficking. One study found that intrastate gun trafficking was four times higher in cities located in states with weak gun-dealer regulations than in cities in states with strong regulations.30 • Lawmakers can pass laws that require gun dealers to obtain a state or local dealer license, implement minimum physical security measures, make their records and premises available to law enforcement for inspections, and report lost and stolen firearms from their inventory to law enforcement. • Given that a large proportion of stolen guns are traced back to a small number of gun dealers, lawmakers should hold those dealers accountable. Lawmakers can ensure that licensing laws include strong compliance mechanisms and penalties that target repeat offenders. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMON-SENSE STEPS LEGISLATORS CAN TAKE TO PREVENT GUN THEFTS 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ed Lee <edjam1992@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:13 PM To:Council, City Cc:Leepr; Jed Prophet; Karen Hawkins Subject:T-intersection habitually blocked at San Antonio Court and San Antonio Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear council members,    those of us who try to turn right onto San Antonio Road from San Antonio Court are almost always blocked by cars that  have moved into the T‐intersection there.    The only chance those of us trying to enter San Antonio Road is during the time the traffic signal turns red.   However,  drivers block this intersection during stopped traffic.    The problem has increased over the years so that even during non‐rush hours, we’re blocked.  We have to fight our way  in most all the time.    I believe that the large majority of the drivers are not intentionally blocking the T‐intersection.  They just don’t see it as  an intersection.   The paint has faded and even I don’t see it as a casual driver.    There are a few malevolent drivers who are selfish and don’t care that they shouldn’t block this intersection.  But these  folks, I think, are in the minority.  There are drivers who honor the intersection, but these few good drivers are getting  fewer and fewer (anecdotally).    Could one or more of you ask the appropriate department to repaint the intersection so that the T‐intersection here is  visible?   It’s possible that drivers don’t know they are breaking the traffic laws by blocking this intersection, especially  when the traffic signal turns red.    I recall that in San Francisco, they had a “Don’t block the box” campaign a number of years back, and designated the box  with a cross‐hatch paint job.  Or maybe a yellow paint color repainting?    Anyway,   we REALLY could use your help on this matter.  It’s been going on for years and it’s just not getting better.    Thanks,    Ed Lee    ed@leepr.com          Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Wexler <drkwexler@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB50 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members, but especially Mayor Fine,    I do not support SB50 and neither should the City Council.  Living here is MY American Dream.  My husband and I  worked hard to live in a neighborhood like this.  I don’t want a 3 or 4 story building built next to my house.  At this stage  in my life, I do not want to stress about inappropriate buildings going up on my usually quiet street.    And, before anyone accuses me of “I’ve got mine, too bad for you” or of NIMBY, know that I willingly and happily pay my  fair share of taxes and would be willing to pay more for education and healthcare to help people who need it.  As a  college student, I was the beneficiary of scholarships and grants and loans that kind and philanthropic people made  available for my education.  In my life, I have tried to pay that generosity forward.    There are places in Palo Alto that can and should be redeveloped to allow for affordable, not market‐rate housing (the  Fry’s parcel, for example) without going to established neighborhoods and running rough‐shod over zoning regulations.   We are in this mess because our city council and planning commissions have allowed out of control office development  without thought to the impact on traffic, neighborhoods and general quality of life.  Once again, the neighborhoods are  being asked to pay the price of this.  Enough.    Deborah and Peter Wexler  Forest Ave    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Shelly Kosak <shelly.kosak@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:SB50 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine,    Thank you for supporting SB50 and for sending a letter to state Senator Wiener.    The housing crisis is a deep and widespread problem for all of California. It is a moral and human right to expect housing,  especially in our extremely wealthy society.    Thank you for being in support of SB50.    Kind regards,  Shelly Kosak    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Daily Post: City reports $76 million surplus - business tax CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The Daily Post: City reports $76 million surplus.  https://padailypost.com/2020/01/28/city‐reports‐76‐million‐surplus/      "The city’s surplus for fiscal year 2019, which ended on June 30, was a 27% increase from the $59.5 million surplus for the previous fiscal year. The surplus is the difference between revenues and expenses for the year.    Despite the budget surplus, Palo Alto is moving closer to placing a proposed business tax on the 2020 ballot to help pay for transportation and affordable housing projects."    Respectfully, please apply the City's existing and surplus funds for any desired projects and items on the city wish list, including unfunded pension liabilities, rather than floating an added tax. Any business tax will simply be passed on to consumers and residents as a cost of doing business. Consumers already pay a lofty 9% for sales tax in Palo Alto.    Thank you for considering.    Best,    Kathy Jordan    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann-Yeawon Lee <annyeawon@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 24, 2020 9:40 AM To:Amrutha Kattamuri; Dafna Tachover Subject:Fwd: SV Parents Update 1/24/2020: Call to Action Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear SV Parents, This is my second email for those of you who may have had it deleted by an unknown source. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his team of lawyers will be submitting a lawsuit against the FCC on February 3rd for its recent decision to decline review and revision of the outdated 1996 EMF safety guidelines. The failure of the FCC to review and revise these guidelines, considering modern scientific studies which show harmful health effects from wireless radiation, reflects the FCC's neglect of human health. This exposure is most detrimental to the health of our future generations. Please ACT NOW before February 3rd by supporting the Children's Health Defense through the link below: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/robert-kennedy-jr-assembles-legal-team-to-sue-fcc-over- wireless-health-guidelines/ For our children, Ann To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Hi All I'm so excited to announce the Children's Health Defense will be suing the FCC and we have the ideal legal team to lead this effort including Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who won the Attorney of the Year for leading the cases against Monsanto, the IRREGULATOR's attorney, Scott McCollough, and myself. Please see the Children's Health Defense announcement and our request to help us fund this case: 2 Robert Kennedy, Jr. Assembles Legal Team to Sue FCC over Wireless Health Guidelines Announcing this is quite emotional for me. Ten years ago I got severely sick from this radiation because of the FCC's lies. Ever since being injured, I've been waiting for this day and the opportunity to sue the FCC on behalf of all of us who have been injured, especially on behalf of the numerous children I've been working with for the past seven years. The immense suffering of these children was caused by the FCC's actions and inaction via adopting obsolete exposure guidelines, claiming there is no evidence of harm. Well, we are the evidence. In my 2012 case against the Israeli government we gave a voice to the children in Israel, and I am grateful to be in a place in which we can now give a voice to the children in the US, and to all others whose voice has been suppressed. We are continuing to collect testimonials of children who have become injured. If your child has been injured by wireless technology radiation, please contact me at Dafna.Tachover@ChildrensHealthDefense.org I hope you will support our efforts to finally get the truth out. Here is how to donate: Go to Children's Health Defense 'Donate' page, and under 'Funding Options' choose 'Stop 5G' (see below). To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Thank you! Dafna 3 Dafna Tachover, Managing Director Attorney (NY, Israel), MBA Phone: (845) 377 0211 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. WeAreTheEvidence.org Sent from my WIRED Internet connection   1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; Supervisor Simitian; Drekmeier, Peter; Rev. Bruce Reyes- Chow; Jim Hewlett; Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray; Kou, Lydia; Tony Ciampi Subject:Tasers are Instruments of Torture & should be Banned | Priority Issue for City Council's Agenda for 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        I propose placing "TASERS TO BE BANNED", as a priority issue, on Palo Alto City Council's agenda for 2020.       During the past two decades, PAPD cost our city hundreds‐of‐thousands of dollars for breaking civil rights and  unprovoked violence against law‐abiding Palo Alto residents.  In 2007, Council allowed taser use by a slim 5‐4 vote.  In  2008, long‐time resident Anthony Ciampi was injured as a result of being tasered, filed an $11‐million‐dollar lawsuit, and  settled victorious.  Mr. Ciampi was NEVER suspected of a crime.     Taser voltage is unreliable, and can be lethal.  According to WASHINGTON (Reuters), in the U.S., there has been more  than 1,000 deaths after being tasered by police officers.     I've lived my life in Palo Alto, and I don't know of one resident that supports the use of tasers in our community.  In  2018, East Palo Alto City Council members voted unanimously to nix the use of tasers by their police officers.      Tasers are uncivilized instruments of torture.    Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005             1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 12:32 AM To:Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Anna Griffin; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; City Mgr; Council, City; Dave Price; Jonsen, Robert; Human Relations Commission; greg@gregtanaka.org; council@redwoodcity.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Abenicio Cisneros; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Donna Wallach; epatoday@epatoday.org; Carlos Bolanos; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Richard Konda; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Raj; CityAttorney@santaclaraca.gov Cc:mark weiss; Tony Dixon; PD Dan Mulholland Subject:To: The City Council of Palo Alto and the community they represent… CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: The City Council of Palo Alto and the community they represent: Time to re‐examine the need for Tasers in Palo Alto  ( see Interview below).     From: Aram James: Over the next month or so I will be submitting at least one article a week... so our city government  and community can be as fully informed on the risk of Tasers as possible. At some point in 2020 I’m hopeful the question  of whether Palo Alto any longer needs Tasers ....can be formally placed on the city council agenda for consideration.      https://sfbayview.com/2015/12/expert‐stun‐guns‐are‐far‐from‐being‐a‐nonlethal‐alternative‐to‐bullets/    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:06 PM To:Tanaka, Greg Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Rosen, Jeff; Tony Ciampi; Jonsen, Robert; Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.com; Supervisor Simitian; Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow; Jim Hewlett; Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray; TPGleeson@gmail.com; Office@asaints.org; Estanislao.Mikalonis@dsj.org; Kou, Lydia; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Anna.Eshoo@mail.house.gov; Carol@silverlaw.biz; Alex Kobayashi; Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Bill Johnson; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; DPulcrano@metronews.com; Aram James; RA@alexanderlaw.com; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Bella Vandenberg Subject:Priority Issue for PA City Council's Agenda for 2020 | Tasers are Instruments of Torture & should be Banned Attachments:2005 MARTELL taser (1of2).pdf; 2005 MARTELL taser (2of2).pdf; 2005 Martell police practices scorecard.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Greg Tanaka Councilmember  Palo Alto City Council    Dear Councilmember Tanaka:    Thank you for reaching out to me regarding "Tasers To Be Banned" in Palo Alto. I appreciate your taking the time to meet yesterday. (See forwarded email below.)   Our Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) police officers have a history of Taser Abuse. I cannot feel safe with tasers in the hands of our PAPD. Because I continue to speak out against the construction of the brand-new $150 million-dollar (!) Police Station, and because I'm against tasers, I'm concerned an officer may wrongly use a taser in retaliation. Per your request, attached find three of my 2005 Palo Alto City Council campaign fliers advocating against Tasers. Also, here are the links you requested, which were sent to me by "old Palo Altan" taser-victim, Mr. Tony Ciampi, who was never accused of a crime and successfully sued the City of Palo Alto.    I remain available and ready to speak with anyone. Again, thank you for acknowledging my position in our community and calling on me for my opinion. Over the years, many Palo Altans have thanked me for bravely speaking out against tasers.     "Thank you for all your work now and going back to 2005 in being a pioneer in opposing deadly and tortuous tasers."     Aram James, former Santa Clara County Public Defender   January 2020      Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005  2 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com        https://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/    https://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/    Judge Lucy Koh's Refusal to Recuse Herself Despite Blatant Conflict of Interest with former DOJ Colleague  Michail Gennaco the Palo Alto Police Independent Auditor Who Got Caught Covering Up the Crimes of the  Palo Alto Police  http://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/refusal_to_recusal.pdf    https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/    https://chiefburns.weebly.com/    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrA7ehMi0Lg&feature=youtu.be  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   DA Jeff Rosen Palo Alto CC 92313 - YouTube Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen cannot refute the evidence that members of the Palo Alto Police edited and falsified audio/video recordings. www.youtube.com       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>  Date: Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:42 PM  Subject: Tasers are Instruments of Torture & should be Banned | Priority Issue for City Council's Agenda for 2020  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, Supervisor Simitian  <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>, Rev. Bruce Reyes‐Chow <BReyesChow@fprespa.org>, Jim Hewlett  <jamessterry@earthlink.net>, Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray <rev.murray@ymail.com>, <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tony Ciampi <t.ciampi@hotmail.com>          I propose placing "TASERS TO BE BANNED", as a priority issue, on Palo Alto City Council's agenda for 2020.     3   During the past two decades, PAPD cost our city hundreds‐of‐thousands of dollars for breaking civil rights and  unprovoked violence against law‐abiding Palo Alto residents.  In 2007, Council allowed taser use by a slim 5‐4 vote.  In  2008, long‐time resident Anthony Ciampi was injured as a result of being tasered, filed an $11‐million‐dollar lawsuit, and  settled victorious.  Mr. Ciampi was NEVER suspected of a crime.     Taser voltage is unreliable, and can be lethal.  According to WASHINGTON (Reuters), in the U.S., there has been more  than 1,000 deaths after being tasered by police officers.     I've lived my life in Palo Alto, and I don't know of one resident that supports the use of tasers in our community.  In  2018, East Palo Alto City Council members voted unanimously to nix the use of tasers by their police officers.      Tasers are uncivilized instruments of torture.    Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005             Danielle Martell is the only candidate for Palo Alto city council who supports a total ban on Tasers. Keep Palo Alto a Taser-Free Zone This poster is an art/law collaboration between poster maker Doug Minkler and attorney, Aram James. It demonstrates the kind of community outreach an elected Public Defender could bring to Santa Clara County. Without the fear of being fired by County Supervisors, an elected Public Defender would have the independence to inform the people of their constitutional rights and the power to protect citizens against institutional racism, police and governmental abuse. CITIZENS TO ELECT OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER For poster information contact: Aram James, ABJPD1@juno.com or wwwelectpd.org Bait & Switch Tasers were sold to the public as a device that would be used as an alternative to deadly force. In fact, according to Amnesty International, tasers have been used eighty percent of the time on unarmed citizens. Thirty six percent of the time tasers are used simply for “verbal noncompliance”. D. M i n k l e r 2 0 0 5 Keep Palo Alto a Taser-Free Zone This poster is an art/law collaboration between poster maker Doug Minkler and attorney, Aram James. It demonstrates the kind of community outreach an elected Public Defender could bring to Santa Clara County. Without the fear of being fired by County Supervisors, an elected Public Defender would have the independence to inform the people of their constitutional rights and the power to protect citizens against institutional racism, police and governmental abuse. CITIZENS TO ELECT OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER For poster information contact: Aram James, ABJPD1@juno.com or wwwelectpd.org Tested Proven Lethal& To date more than 130 citizens have died after being tasered. D. M i n k l e r 2 0 0 5 Danielle Martell is the only candidate for Palo Alto city council who supports a total ban on Tasers. Awards for whistle blowers. Independent police oversight with teeth. Predators Kan & Lee off OUR streets. No new PAPD Homeland Security Jail. Keep Palo Alto a Taser-FREE city. Canine units for search and rescue ONLY. Ban coercive interrogation tactics. Fire Police Chief Lynne Johnson. Video cameras in patrol cars running 24/7 (full public access mandatory). Ban racial profiling and other racially discriminatory police practices. Reduce bloated $23,000,000.00 annual budget. Develop crisis intervention / mental health unit. Know Your Candidates. Ask the Hard Questions. x x x x x x x x x x x x Yes No Danielle Martellfor Palo Alto City Council Police Practices Score Card 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:12 PM To:D Martell Cc:Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Rosen, Jeff; Jonsen, Robert; Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.com; Supervisor Simitian; Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow; Jim Hewlett; Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray; TPGleeson@gmail.com; Office@asaints.org; Estanislao.Mikalonis@dsj.org; Kou, Lydia; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Anna.Eshoo@mail.house.gov; Carol@silverlaw.biz; Alex Kobayashi; Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov; Bill Johnson; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; DPulcrano@metronews.com; RA@alexanderlaw.com; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Bella Vandenberg; Lewis. james; chuck jagoda; Winter Dellenbach; Winter Dellenbach; PD Dan Mulholland; Carlos Bolanos; Ian Bain; City Mgr; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Priority Issue for PA City Council's Agenda for 2020 | Tasers are Instruments of Torture & should be Banned CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Hi Danielle,      Thanks so much for continuing to speak‐out in this critical life and death issue.    Much respect,    Aram James       On Jan 28, 2020, at 4:06 PM, D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:          Greg Tanaka Councilmember Palo Alto City Council    Dear Councilmember Tanaka:    Thank you for reaching out to me regarding "Tasers To Be Banned" in Palo Alto. I appreciate your taking the time to meet yesterday. (See forwarded email below.)    Our Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) police officers have a history of Taser Abuse. I cannot feel safe with tasers in the hands of our PAPD. Because I continue to speak out against the construction of the brand-new $150 million-dollar (!) Police Station, and because I'm against tasers, I'm concerned an officer may wrongly use a taser in retaliation. Per your request, attached find three of my 2005 Palo Alto City Council campaign fliers advocating against Tasers. Also, here are the links you requested, which were 2 sent to me by "old Palo Altan" taser-victim, Mr. Tony Ciampi, who was never accused of a crime and successfully sued the City of Palo Alto.    I remain available and ready to speak with anyone. Again, thank you for acknowledging my position in our community and calling on me for my opinion. Over the years, many Palo Altans have thanked me for bravely speaking out against tasers.     "Thank you for all your work now and going back to 2005 in being a pioneer in opposing deadly and tortuous tasers."     Aram James, former Santa Clara County Public Defender   January 2020     Danielle Martell Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com        https://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/    https://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/    Judge Lucy Koh's Refusal to Recuse Herself Despite Blatant Conflict of Interest with former  DOJ Colleague Michail Gennaco the Palo Alto Police Independent Auditor Who Got Caught  Covering Up the Crimes of the Palo Alto Police  http://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/refusal_to_recusal.pdf    https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/    https://chiefburns.weebly.com/    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrA7ehMi0Lg&feature=youtu.be  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   DA Jeff Rosen Palo Alto CC 92313 - YouTube Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen cannot refute the evidence that members of the Palo Alto Pol edited and falsified audio/video recordings. 3 www.youtube.com       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>  Date: Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:42 PM  Subject: Tasers are Instruments of Torture & should be Banned | Priority Issue for City Council's Agenda for 2020  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, Supervisor  Simitian <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>, Rev. Bruce Reyes‐Chow <BReyesChow@fprespa.org>, Jim  Hewlett <jamessterry@earthlink.net>, Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray <rev.murray@ymail.com>, <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tony Ciampi  <t.ciampi@hotmail.com>          I propose placing "TASERS TO BE BANNED", as a priority issue, on Palo Alto City Council's agenda for  2020.       During the past two decades, PAPD cost our city hundreds‐of‐thousands of dollars for breaking civil  rights and unprovoked violence against law‐abiding Palo Alto residents.  In 2007, Council allowed taser  use by a slim 5‐4 vote.  In 2008, long‐time resident Anthony Ciampi was injured as a result of being  tasered, filed an $11‐million‐dollar lawsuit, and settled victorious.  Mr. Ciampi was NEVER suspected of a  crime.     Taser voltage is unreliable, and can be lethal.  According to WASHINGTON (Reuters), in the U.S., there  has been more than 1,000 deaths after being tasered by police officers.     I've lived my life in Palo Alto, and I don't know of one resident that supports the use of tasers in our  community.  In 2018, East Palo Alto City Council members voted unanimously to nix the use of tasers by  their police officers.      Tasers are uncivilized instruments of torture.    Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005             <2005 MARTELL taser (1of2).pdf>  <2005 MARTELL taser (2of2).pdf>  <2005 Martell police practices scorecard.pdf>  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:21 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC Subject:Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan -- fiber considerations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  At its 01-21-20 meeting, Council had a study session about a Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan. 01-21-20 Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=41323.76&BlobID=74836 Staff report (2 pages) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=53268.17&BlobID=74684 01-21-20 Video: https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-1212020/ At 0:14:17 on the video, Tom Ting said, "We're looking at fiber optic cable extension to improve communications up in the foothills." That's a good idea. But it would be an even better idea if the City coordinated all fiber deployments within the context of a citywide municipal FTTP plan. In Attachment A of the staff report, at Appendix F (page 53-54), staff identifies an Activity 4 (page 53) which would deploy a fiber optic cable extension by December 2020. On 09-04-19, when staff told UAC about the Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan, "fiber" wasn't mentioned, so UAC didn't get a chance to weigh in on that. --- Attachment A also mentioned (page 15) that the City's two reclosers in the Foothills area are currently programmed not to reclose automatically, to minimize the risk of causing a fire. So, if a recloser de-energizes, it must be reclosed manually only after a manual inspection, and that will increase the outage time. Not all reclosers are alike. The recloser used by Chattanooga, TN, (called an Intellirupter) has the feature that before it tries to restore power, it uses a much smaller energy to probe the line to determine if the fault is still present. https://www.sandc.com/en/products--services/products/intellirupter-pulsecloser-fault- interrupter/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7pvVvO-Y5wIVkB-tBh3J7QJUEAMYASAAEgKTU_D_BwE Has staff considered the possibility that this feature could be used to minimize both outage time and the risk of causing a fire? (As usual, I have no financial interest.) Chattanooga's Intellirupters are controlled by the city's citywide municipal FTTP network. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- 2 PS: The staff report provided clickable links to: Attachment A: Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan (57 pages), which mentions "fiber" 9 times. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74689 Attachment B: Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation -- slides (44 pages), which mentions "fiber" once. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74690 Attachment C: UAC minutes, 09-04-19 (2 pages) http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74691 Attachment D: Utilities Wildfires Mitigation Plan (10 pages), which mentions "fiber" 3 times. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74692 Attachment E: (12 pages) http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74693 Staff said the motivation for doing it this way was to conserve paper. But: * How many Council members bothered to look at these attachments? * Did the attachments receive "packet page numbers"? * When the attachments are detached this way, it's not possible to use a PDF search of a flat document to find things of interest. PPS: Here are the links for the 09-04-19 UAC meeting: Agenda: (1 page) http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73184 Staff report: Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan (12 pages) http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73173 Doesn't mention "fiber." Presentation: (6 pages) http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73205 Doesn't mention "fiber." Minutes: (9 pages) http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73560 Mentions "fiber" once, but not during the wildfire mitigation plan discussion. Video: the wildfire mitigation plan item is from 20:29 to 34:48. https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-942019/ 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Alice Holmes <AHolmes@renault-handley.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:50 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon Request for Extension - DENY CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait, As a resident of Palo Alto who cares about our community, I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended. First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension. Their poor planning does not necessitate more time from the City. Rules are rules for a reason. Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them. Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Alice Holmes        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:51 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Architectural Review Board Subject:Barron Park cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Lum <rlum.mail@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:52 AM To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Council, City; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Stop cell towers in Barron Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. One of the cell towers is targeted to be well within 300 feet of Barron Park Elementary School! Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please protect our children from additional wireless and cellular transmissions and stop the deployment of new cell towers.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Robert Lum  Rlum.mail@gmail.com      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Lum <outrageouslums@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:54 AM To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Stop cell towers in Barron Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. One of the cell towers is targeted to be well within 300 feet of Barron Park Elementary School! Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please protect our children from additional wireless and cellular transmissions and stop the deployment of new cell towers.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Anne Lum  outrageouslums@me.com      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sam Brain <samb@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:58 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Barron Park cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    As a Barron Park resident of nearly 40 years, I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. We, the residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    2 Samuel W Brain, Ph.D.  --     Sam Brain, Ph.D., Stanford Cancer Center, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5847. P:650-723-6967 & C:650-850-2127  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Francesca Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:02 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Barron Park Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,    Francesca Kautz  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Henny N Halim Bhushan <henny.halim@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:26 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Barron Park / Cell Tower Extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait, I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended. First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension. Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them. Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Henny Bhushan 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:30 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:re: Barron Park cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park  cell towers (Project Number 17PLN‐00170) be extended.    First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized  placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools.  Vinculums is well aware of these new  standards.  They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020.  The residents  of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,  ‐Phil Coulson    1 Baumb, Nelly From:promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:44 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell tower installations in Barron Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,  Prerana Jayakumar  Palo Alto    2   Do not be dismayed by the brokenness of the world. All things break. And all things can be mended. Not with time, as they say, but with intention. So go. Love intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally. The broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you. - L.R.Knost    http://www.karnatik.com  http://www.okachiko.com  http://www.transitionpaloalto.org    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:59 AM To:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Barron Park cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Jonathan and Ed,     Of course I don't know anything about the ins and outs of granting extensions to building entitlements.  But if it is  practical to have Vinculums/Verizon re‐apply and conform to the newly adopted standards for cell tower siting, that  seems like a very good thing.  I'm particularly concerned about towers located near schools ‐ as the PAUSD board  indicated in its resolution of last year, this is a priority for the district and its many stakeholders.    I'm also a Barron Park resident and a board member of the Barron Park Association, and I frequently hear my neighbor's  concerns about new cell towers in our neighborhood.  Of course, you experienced some of this first hand the BPA annual  meeting last year!  Causing the entitlements to conform to the new standards would be well‐received by the  community, in my opinion.    Thank you for your continuing work on this challenging topic and your consideration of this particular issue.    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.      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:00 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org Subject:Barron Park cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools.     Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.    Ann Protter    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:18 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Barron Park Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Barbara Kelly  444 Washington Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Eugene Spevakov <spevakov@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:19 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:New cell towers next to Barron Park school CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait, I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended. First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension. Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them. There is never a good reason to sacrifice the health of school children so someone could get a slightly better signal or faster download speeds on their mobile phones. A new standard is there for a good reason, let's make companies respect it as well as the health of children. Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents and children of Barron Park deserve no less. Thanks, Eugene Spevakov 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jackie Schneider <jackieschneider215@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:28 AM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Barron Park Cell Tower CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Jackie Schneider  1 Baumb, Nelly From:WRL <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 12:01 PM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:please deny Vinculumns' request for entitlement extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park  cell towers (Project Number 17PLN‐00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized  placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new  standards.  They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020.  The residents  of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.    Yours truly,    Whitney Leeman  1 Baumb, Nelly From:joy ding <joydingforever@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:57 PM To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:deny Vinculums’ request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.     Yours truly,  Joy  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ding Erin <erinding9@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:59 PM To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:deny Vinculums’ request please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning Director Lait,    I am writing to you to ask you to deny Vinculums’ request that their entitlement for the Vinculums/Verizon Barron Park cell towers (Project Number 17PLN-00170) be extended.     First, Vinculums has failed to show good reason why they should receive this extension.    Second, the City of Palo Alto now has a new set of standards for cell tower installations, standards such as prioritized placement outside of residential areas and a 600 foot set back from schools. Vinculums is well aware of these new standards. They should be complying with them, not asking to be allowed to disregard them.    Please let Vinculums’ entitlement for the Barron Park cell towers expire as scheduled on February 4, 2020. The residents of Barron Park deserve no less.    Thank you for your consideration.   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane Reklis <dreklis123@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 27, 2020 9:22 PM To:Transportation; Council, City; Ellson, Penny Subject:XCAP Constant Flow Underpass Attachments:Additional Thoughts -- the Constant Flow Underpass idea for Charleston and Meadow.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Attached are my thoughts to expand on the Constant Flow Underpass idea for Charleston and Meadow. I believe you are  approaching a workable solution to a complex problem.   Thank you for your hard work.  Diane Reklis  Additional thoughts to go with the “Constant Flow Underpass” idea for Charleston and Meadow I believe the underpass idea for Charleston and Meadow has a lot of advantages. It is a simple, elegant, and affordable solution. We must design these underpasses with other traffic considerations, particularly considering the school and work traffic corridors using these two roads. I suggest: 1. Design “Constant Flow Underpass” for Charleston at Alma as described in 1/21/2020 Council packet. 2. If “Italian Roundabout” proves too complex for Charleston, consider a U-turn at Carlson Way similar to the one at Nelson Drive to allow cars to reverse direction and access Charleston Road westbound and the underpass. Widen the road slightly to increase the throughput of cars at this U-turn. 3. Build East Meadow underpass, but not a full interchange with Alma. Allow right turns from Meadow (westbound) to Alma (northbound) and from Alma (northbound) to Meadow (eastbound). There is room at the current intersection. This gets cars, bikes, and students safely and efficiently across both Alma and the tracks. 4. Allow traffic to reverse direction in key places instead of full interchange at East Meadow and Alma. a) Add a lane at far left of southbound Alma at Charleston to allow U-turn to get to JLS and Fairmeadow via E. Meadow. The traffic cycle would be far shorter than it is today so the detour from Meadow to Charleston would be insignificant. Traffic would flow faster on Alma, Charleston, and Meadow than currently. b) Add U-turn in front of market on Alma so traffic from E. Meadow could get to the northbound lanes of Alma. c) If needed, add U-turn at Wilkie Way and East Meadow to allow Ventura neighbors access to E. Meadow.. 5. Extend dedicated two-way pedestrian/bike route on Mitchell Park side of road from Park Boulevard to Cowper on East Meadow and to Nelson on Charleston. The following is not directly part of the grade separation project, but is related to improving traffic flow and safety around the Mitchell Park / Schools complex and should be designed and built before someone is seriously hurt: • Create a dedicated lane for U-turns on Middlefield by the library and eliminate all other left turns from northbound Middlefield Road between Charleston and Mayview. The current sudden backups in front of Challenger School would be eliminated and traffic from 101 and Mountain View could safely access the three schools along this stretch of Middlefield Road. Diane Reklis, dreklis123@gmail.com, 650-856-1973 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:50 AM To:Gaines, Chantal; Kamhi, Philip; Shikada, Ed Cc:Adina Levin; Cari Templeton; dshenster@gmail.com; Greg Brail; Inyoung Cho; Kleinberg, Judy; Reckdahl, Keith; Larry Klein; Megan Kanne; Pat Lau; Phil Burton; Carrasco, Tony; Council, City Subject:Caltrain 8 TPH per direction in 2027 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi All,    Here’s the latest presentation I recommend reading before Caltrain’s visit to XCAP next week.    You will see it discusses 8 trains per hour per direction in 2027    http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/WPLP+Committee+Agenda+Packet.pdf    As discussed today, we have 5 trains per hour per direction and after electrification we will go to 6 trains per hour per  direction (in roughly 2023 if I recall correctly).     Nadia