Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190429plCC 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/29/2019 Document dates: 04/10/2019 – 04/17/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 8:34 AM To:Gavin Newsom; Joe Simitian Subject:5G--The Dominoes are Falling Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com 5G: The Dominoes Are Starting To Fall 17 hours ago . 4,567 views 9 min read April 15, 2019 https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-the-dominoes-are-starting-to-fall/ Long-time United Nations staff member Claire Edwards summarizes worldwide developments in the 5G situation. While still far from a victory claim, there is much to be hopeful about as millions around the world deepen involvement and take a stand for our shared future. How do you stop the rollout of a 12 trillion dollar technology promoted by one of the most profitable industries on the planet and bulldozed through by the EU, FCC and the whole UN, most notably its WiFi enablers, WHO and ITU? Many people have said it’s impossible. But even as the Trump administration attempts to ram through 5G in the United States, the dominoes are indeed falling around the world, as cities and entire nations are coming to their senses and putting the brakes on 5G. Want to know more about 5G? Go here: WhatIs5G.info by Claire Edwards Lawmakers hitting the brakes on 5G: USA, 24 March: Portland Oregon city officials state clear opposition to the installation of 5G networks around the city, supported by the mayor and two commissioners. Italy, 28 March: Florence applies the precautionary principle, refusing permissions for 5G and referring to “the ambiguity and the uncertainty of supranational bodies and private bodies (like ICNIRP )”, which “have very different positions from each other, despite the huge evidence of published studies”. Italy, 28 March: One Roman district votes against 5G trials , with others expected to follow. Other motions to Stop 5G are expected in the four regional councils, one provincial council and other municipal councils of Italy. Russia, 28 March: The Russian Ministry of Defence refuses to transfer frequencies for 5G , which effectively delays any 5G rollout there for several years. Belgium, 31 March: The Belgian Environment Minister announces that Brussels is halting its 5G rollout plans , saying, “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. Germany, 4 April: Germans sign a petition en masse to force the German Bundestag to debate 5G . Netherlands, 4 April: Members of Parliament in the Netherlands insist that radiation research must be carried out before any approval of the 5G network. USA, 5 April: California Supreme Court Justices unanimously uphold a 2011 San Francisco ordinance requiring telecommunications companies to get permits before placing 2 antennas on city infrastructure. Switzerland, 9 April: The Canton of Vaud adopts a resolution calling for a moratorium on 5G antennas until the publication this summer of a report on 5G by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment. Switzerland, 10 April: Geneva adopts a motion for a moratorium on 5G , calling on the Council of State to request WHO to monitor independent scientific studies to determine the harmful effects of 5G. Overcoming the roadblocks For me, it has always seemed an information problem. If the public simply understood the existential threat posed by adopting a military weapon as a communications technology, they would not accept it. The challenge of informing people is twofold. The name “5G” is deceptive, implying a simple upgrade from the current 4G or fourth generation wireless. [And many WiFi routers now display “5G” as a mode option, but it means “5GHz” in that context, not actual “5G” — an industry ploy to normalize the term’s acceptance through intentional obfuscation. -Ed.] This ruse cleverly disguises the reality that 5G means densification, with each individual, visible antenna being replaced by thousands of tiny antennas menacing people, animals and nature from every nook and cranny on Earth and from 20,000 or more satellites with lethal, laser-like beams hitting their unwitting targets millions of times a day like silent bullets. The second difficulty is the tight control of the media. Hardly a whisper of negativity about 5G penetrates the public sphere, while its claimed benefits are constantly touted in puff pieces in newspapers and in numerous promotional videos. Yet in the space of only a year since we first heard about the impending catastrophe that is 5G, the message has spread virally through the alternative and social media. 5G deserves the bad rap Since US Senator Blumenthal dealt a major blow to the telecommunications industry by definitively establishing that no safety studies have been done, the bad news on 5G just keeps on coming. At least 21 US cities have passed ordinances restricting “small cell” installation, and many are charging “recertification fees” to make it unprofitable for the wireless industry. And the UK-based microwave weapons expert Barrie Trower reports that 17 mystery countriesare taking steps to avoid getting 5G. While the EU eagerly promotes the rollout of 5G, a new EU report admits that 5G is a massive experiment, lamenting that: > “[T]he problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world … concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G.” The EU report goes on to set out the dangers: > “Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.” Meanwhile, a court in France has recognized electrohypersensitivity (EHS) as an occupational disease that can be developed also from exposure to levels of radiation that are considered to be safe by the government. No one wants 5G but the telcos 3 5G is beginning to look like an unwanted orphan. Everyone who hears the truth about it shuns it like the plague. Even most of its proponents clearly have no love for it. In his Palm Beach neighborhood, President Trump and his fellow billionaires are not having any of it. None of the EU institutions in Brussels are having it (European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Council and the European Parliament). And its very enablers, the UN and its WHO and ITU are not going to be having it in Geneva, either. Watch for moratoria being declared in Washington, D.C., home to the FCC; and Munich, nearby home to ICNIRP. Either would be an obvious indicator that the game is rigged. > Unless this insane 5G satellite plan is stopped, they, too, might wake up to find themselves as much guinea pigs as everyone else in this massive biological experiment. But one wonders how the 5G movers and shakers will avoid the satellites, which the 5G literature boasts as being intended to “blanket” the Earth. Perhaps the satellite beams will avoid the areas where they live. Or perhaps not. Unless this insane 5G satellite plan is stopped, they, too, might wake up to find themselves as much guinea pigs as the rest of us in this massive biological experiment. While well over ten thousand peer-reviewed scientific studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation provide a clear perspective on the unprecedented risk of 5G, the rhetoric from the corporate media would have you believe that it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. One thing we can agree on: if we were to allow 5G to go ahead, it would make history. What a pity, then, that it would leave no one standing to celebrate it. The tide is turning in our favour because people like you, dear reader, are becoming educated and involved. You are sharing information and speaking with leaders. Thanks to your willingness to stand up for life and love, we will succeed in this great battle of our time What’s happening with 5G where you live? Comment below!\ Author Claire Edwards, BA Hons, MA, worked for the United Nations as Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017. Since May 2018, she has collaborated with Arthur Firstenberg to publish the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.5gspaceappeal.org). The Appeal has attracted over 70,000 individual and group signatories from more than 167 countries, but still needs to reach many more people. Claire warned the UN Secretary-General about the dangers of 5G during a meeting with UN staff in May 2018, calling for a halt to its rollout at UN duty stations. References Washington Post: 5G is about to get a big boost from Trump and the FCC. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/12/g-is-about-get-big- boost-trump-fcc/?utm_term=.c9e453858d1a EDN Network: 5G: The twelve trillion dollar technology. 3 May 2017. https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4458362/5G–The-twelve-trillion- dollar-technology. Digital Survivor: Portland Officials Attempt to Block 5G. 26 March 2019. https://digitalsurvivor.uk/2019/03/26/portland-officials-attempt-to-block-5g/ Oasi Sana: “Provoca danni al corpo!” Firenze frena sul 5G e applica il Principio di Precauzione. Approvata con voto (quasi) unanime la mozione in difesa della salute. 5 April 2019. https://oasisana.com/2019/04/05/provoca-danni-al-corpo-firenze-frena-sul-5g-e- applica-il-principio-di-precauzione-approvata-con-voto-quasi-unanime-la-mozione-in- difesa-della-salute-notizia-esclusiva-oasi-sana/ Terra Nuova.it: Un Municipio di Roma vota contro il 5G: cosa farà la Giunta? (A 4 municipality of Rome votes against 5G: What will the City Council do?) www.terranuova.it/News/Attualita/Un-Municipio-di-Roma-vota-contro-il-5G-cosa- fara-la-Giunta Vedomosti: Минобороны отказалось передавать операторам частоты для 5G (Ministry of Defence refusing to transfer frequencies for 5G to operators). 28 March 2019. https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2019/03/28/797714-minoboroni- otkazalos-peredavat-5g Brussels Times: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now. 1 April 2019.http://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/14753/radiation-concerns-halt-brussels- 5g-for-now Telecom Paper: Germans petition Parliament to stop 5G auction on health grounds. 8 April 2019. https://www.telecompaper.com/news/ germans-petition-parliament-to-stop-5g- auction-on-health-grounds–1287962 Algemeen Dagblad: Kamer wil eerst stralingsonderzoek, dan pas 5G-netwerk. 4 April 2019. https://www.ad.nl/tech/kamer-wil-eerst-stralingsonderzoek-dan-pas-5g- netwerk~ab567cd6/ Zero5G: San Francisco Chronicle: California Supreme Court Sides with Cities in Small Cell Faceoff. 5 April 2019. https://zero5g.com/2019/california-supreme-court-sides-with- cities-in-small-cell-faceoff/ Take Back Your Power: 5G: Vaud (Switzerland) Adopts Resolution for a Moratorium. 9 April 2019. https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-vaud-switzerland-adopts-moratorium/ Le Temps: Genève adopte une motion pour un moratoire sur la 5G. 11 April 2019. https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/geneve-adopte-une-motion-un-moratoire-5g US Department of Defense: Active Denial Technology. Non-Lethal Weapons Program. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/Press-Room/Fact-Sheets/Article-View-Fact- sheets/Article/577989/active-denial-technology/. Published May 11, 2016. Wireless Industry Confesses “No Studies Show 5G is Safe”. US Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekNC0J3xx1w EH Trust: USA City Ordinances To Limit And Control Wireless Facilities Small Cells In Rights Of Ways. https://ehtrust.org/usa-city-ordinances-to-limit-and-control-wireless- facilities-small-cells-in-rights-of-ways/ 5G Gigantic health hazard – Barrie Trower & Sir Julian Rose. Video. 14 December 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLVIbPtNrVo. European Parliament: 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. April 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(20 19)631060_EN.pdf Zero5G: French court Recognizes EHS as an Occupational Disease. 2 April 2019. https://zero5g.com/2019/french-court-recognizes-ehs-as-an-occupational-disease/ Activist Post: Are Palm Beach and Trump’s Estate Exempt from Legislation Forcing 5G Small Cell Tower Installation Everywhere Else? 27 December 2018. https://www.activistpost.com/2018/12/are-palm-beach-and-trumps-estate-exempt- from-legislation-forcing-5g-small-cell-tower-installation-everywhere-else.html ________________________________ Scientific Evidence on 5G Harm * EHTrust: Scientific Research on 5G, Small Cells and Health * Dr. Martin Pall’s free e-book: “5G: Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them” (PDF, 90 pages) * Dr. Joel Moskowitz: “5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype“ 5 * Electric Sense: “5G Radiation Dangers – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned“ * Health resources summary from WhatIs5G.info * Health resources summary from TelecomPowerGrab.com * EMF interview by Luke Storey: Dr. Jack Kruse * SaferEMR: Summary 400 new EMF scientific studies, Aug 2016 to present (EMF in general) * Research from Magda Havas * News from Clear Light Ventures * Articles from BN Frank at ActivistPost Grassroots Communities & Organizations There are hundreds of organizations popping up everywhere. Here are several: * 5G Space Appeal: An International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and In Space (sign it) * Americans For Responsible Technology * Environmental Health Trust * InPower Movement * Our Town, Our Choice * Parents For Safe Technology * Physicians For Safe Technology * EMF Safety Network (California) * InPower Movement Episode 1: A Mass Action of Liability * Scientists For Wired Technology * Dr Jack Kruse (website & community Fior Comments, see: https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-the-dominoes-are-starting-to-fall/ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:jong-mi <jmnlee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 7:06 PM To:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:5G in Palo Alto Dear City of Palo Alto,  I am a concerned parent and citizen of Palo Alto. I am also a Nurse Practitioner at Stanford Health Care Neurology Clinic  caring for patients of various complex neurologic disorders particularly autoimmune conditions. Although 5G network  may not impact every individual's health in the same manner, one person's deterioration in health should be enough for  us to pause and reconsider the ordinance language, structure, and planning. We urge you to take a pause for the health  of our community, our environment, and mostly for our children.    Thank you for your time and hearing our voices,  Jong‐Mi Lee  Citizen of Palo Alto      ‐‐   jmnlee@gmail.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bob Wenzlau <bob@wenzlau.net> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 2:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Earth Day: Consideration of Disposition of our Single Stream Residuals Council members,    I had the honor to develop principles for your consideration as to the disposition of our single steam residuals.  I hope  you have a chance to read both the Palo Alto Weekly  article and my guest opinion related to disposition of single steam  overseas.      I will be the first to admit that the actual numbers and disposition materials is unclear, and perhaps that is the point,  that our policy is now blind to where the residuals are going and their impact.     My difference with staff is succinct ‐ staff would presume to send residuals to destinations until the disposition is known  and proven bad, in contrast I urge is sending residuals only when we know the disposition, and that disposition is socially  and environmentally benign. Staff will urge you to wait until July when Green Waste reports, while I would urge ceasing  sending materials into overseas markets now.    This impact in southeast Asia is likely the largest adverse environmental impact Palo Alto now generates, and I would ask  you set a change now.  Our infrastructure can take the shock, and we will lead among cities in responsible approaches to  recycling.    I also ask that Council work with our California legislators to develop more responsible policy related to  diversion.  Through a resolution of the Council to our legislators can we propel more enlightened standards regarding  implementation of our "diversion" regulations. Staff and I have been unable to sway our representatives to the  importance of this topic.    Palo Alto is already at the forefront on the topic in that we generated a contract terms with Green Waste asking for  understanding of the environmental footprint as part of the agreement.  However, we must swing forward a bit more,  choosing to not allow these residuals to continue to unknown fate until we know better.   This should be a motion to  consider this upcoming Monday.      These comments are aligned with my service as President of Neighbors Abroad ‐ being a good global citizen is more  important than ever.      Toward building a meaningful Earth Day,    Sincerely yours,    Bob Wenzlau            ‐‐   2   Bob Wenzlau  bob@wenzlau.net  650‐248‐4467  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gil Friend <gfriend@natlogic.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Earth Day Report 2019 Dear Councilmemebers,     As Palo Alto’s first chief sustainability officer, and the primary author of the past five earth day reports , I thought it  might be helpful if I offered some perspectives on this year’s report.    First of all, I want to offer my congratulations to city staff for the continued progress on the sustainability  implementation plans, add to the City Council for making climate change one of the four counsel priorities this year. The  continuing progress on GHG reductions is good, and on track. In fact it’s ahead of plan; the SIPs projected 54% by 2020;  you’re at 56.5% by 2018. That’s fairly awesome!    But this progress will require care and vigilance for several reasons. First, the largest emission reductions are the result  of Council's 2017 decision to offset Palo Alto utilities provision of natural gas; it’s critical to remember that this is a  _bridge_ strategy—an interim measure to reduce impacts while the city (along with State Of California) proceeds on the  replacement of natural gas use by "the electrification of everything."     Second, the transportation related emissions that now constitute most of the City’s missions are challenging for several  reasons: on one hand, they represent a regional problem that Palo Alto can’t solve on its own; on the other hand, Palo  Alto's impressive uptake of electric vehicles points to an important part of the solution, one that may solve itself as a  result of exogenous market factors, regardless of what well of what Palo Alto does. (Of course the city will need to  ensure the provision of adequate EV charging infrastructure.) My greater concern is that the transportation emissions  data the city has been using is very approximate, based on regional models that may not apply accurately to the unique  Palo Alto situation and the rapidly changing fleet mix in Palo alto and the region. As a result, it’s possible that the city's  emissions reductions are lost in the error margins of the transportation emissions assessments. We attempted to  improve the analysis during my tenure, but we’re unable to do so; it will be essential for this analysis process to be  upgraded as part of the next climate action plan.)    Third, despite pockets of progress on climate action, the overall national and global situation remains dire. As a result a  growing number of cities—including, in the Bay area, Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, and Oakland, and to date dozens of  other cities around the world—have declared climate emergencies. (See https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/local‐ government‐campaigns/) Palo Alto might consider doing the same. (By the way, the Alameda City Council recently set a  climate goal of _zero_ emissions by 2030, by 5‐0 vote.)    A few process points: It’s notable that while most of the report staff provides data to document progress, in more than a  places the report just provides qualitative statements. This is probably inadvertent, but can give the impression of cherry  picking; it would be better to always support claims with data—and to always place data in context. (For example, EV  penetration not as numbers of vehicles each year, but as percentages.) It would also be valuable to forthrightly declare  weak points; for example, the report notes that solid waste diversion "increased from 62 percent in 2007 to 80 percent in 2017, while diversion actually peaked in 2011 and has been essentially level since then; that challenge needs to be named in order to be solved.    Finally, the City of Alameda also established a requirement that all staff reports to Council include a brief assessment of  potential climate impact, much is Palo Alto has long done for fiscal and environmental impact. This is another piece of  unfinished business from my tenure; I strongly encourage you to enact that requirement (and a corresponding  2 requirement for capital improvement projects) as soon as possible, in order to keep this issue—and priority—in mind for  Council, staff, and the public.    Again, congratulations on the steady and impressive progress to date, and best wishes in addressing the very big  challenges ahead.    Sincerely,   Gil Friend      Gil Philip Friend  Professional Keynote Speaker  Chairman, Natural Logic, Inc. • Founder, Critical Path Capital  Strategic Advisory • Executive Coaching • Impact Investment  Cell: 510‐435‐6346 | Skype: gil_friend  Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | About.Me    [crafted by thumbs]  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gil Friend <gfriend@natlogic.com> Sent:Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Palo Alto Earth Day Report 2019 Two more things:    Scope 3 emissions  I encourage you to be humble about the GHG reductions. As impressive as they are, they don’t include “Scope 3”  emissions—the emissions engendered by goods and services purchased by Palo Alto residents and business. These  emissions (think food, vacation travel, tech gear, etc) are estimated at more than three times the emissions we have  been reporting (and that are typically reported). It will be important to expand the scope of the 2020 S/CAP to include  estimating—and potentially addressing—these emissions.    The mixed signal of parking subsidies  As highlighted in the recent Palo Alto online editorial (https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/04/12/editorial‐not‐so‐ free‐parking), the City parking subsidies operate at cross‐purposes with its long‐stated goals of reducing dependence on  the private automobile. In addition to the valet and RPP programs addressed in the editorial is the proposed investment  of more than $100m in new parking structures—a subsidy of some $3600/year per parking space, as I recall—is also at  odds with those goals. And in the impending reconfiguration of the mobility landscape in the coming decades— shareable, autonomous, less private car ownership—a future Council and community may question some of the investments you’re making  now. (These perspectives weren’t welcome during my tenure as CSO, and may not be welcome now, but you would do well to consider them.)    Sincerely,   Gil Friend    Gil Philip Friend  Professional Keynote Speaker  Chairman, Natural Logic, Inc. • Founder, Critical Path Capital  Strategic Advisory • Executive Coaching • Impact Investment  Cell: 510‐435‐6346 | Skype: gil_friend  Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | About.Me    NEW: Listen in on:  A Conversation at the Edge of Now:   Nora Bateson & Gil Friend   at the Commonwealth Club      On Apr 12, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Gil Friend <gfriend@natlogic.com> wrote:    Dear Councilmemebers, As Palo Alto’s first chief sustainability officer, and the primary author of the past five earth day reports , I thought it might be helpful if I offered some perspectives on this year’s report. First of all, I want to offer my congratulations to city staff for the continued progress on the sustainability implementation plans, add to the City Council for making climate change one of the four counsel priorities this year. The continuing progress on GHG reductions is good, and on track. In fact it’s ahead of plan; the SIPs projected 54% by 2020; you’re at 56.5% by 2018. That’s fairly awesome! 2 But this progress will require care and vigilance for several reasons. First, the largest emission reductions are the result of Council's 2017 decision to offset Palo Alto utilities provision of natural gas; it’s critical to remember that this is a _bridge_ strategy—an interim measure to reduce impacts while the city (along with State Of California) proceeds on the replacement of natural gas use by "the electrification of everything." Second, the transportation related emissions that now constitute most of the City’s missions are challenging for several reasons: on one hand, they represent a regional problem that Palo Alto can’t solve on its own; on the other hand, Palo Alto's impressive uptake of electric vehicles points to an important part of the solution, one that may solve itself as a result of exogenous market factors, regardless of what well of what Palo Alto does. (Of course the city will need to ensure the provision of adequate EV charging infrastructure.) My greater concern is that the transportation emissions data the city has been using is very approximate, based on regional models that may not apply accurately to the unique Palo Alto situation and the rapidly changing fleet mix in Palo alto and the region. As a result, it’s possible that the city's emissions reductions are lost in the error margins of the transportation emissions assessments. We attempted to improve the analysis during my tenure, but we’re unable to do so; it will be essential for this analysis process to be upgraded as part of the next climate action plan.) Third, despite pockets of progress on climate action, the overall national and global situation remains dire. As a result a growing number of cities—including, in the Bay area, Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, and Oakland, and to date dozens of other cities around the world—have declared climate emergencies. (See https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/local-government-campaigns/) Palo Alto might consider doing the same. (By the way, the Alameda City Council recently set a climate goal of _zero_ emissions by 2030, by 5-0 vote.) A few process points: It’s notable that while most of the report staff provides data to document progress, in more than a places the report just provides qualitative statements. This is probably inadvertent, but can give the impression of cherry picking; it would be better to always support claims with data—and to always place data in context. (For example, EV penetration not as numbers of vehicles each year, but as percentages.) It would also be valuable to forthrightly declare weak points; for example, the report notes that solid waste diversion "increased from 62 percent in 2007 to 80 percent in 2017, while diversion actually peaked in 2011 and has been essentially level since then; that challenge needs to be named in order to be solved. Finally, the City of Alameda also established a requirement that all staff reports to Council include a brief assessment of potential climate impact, much is Palo Alto has long done for fiscal and environmental impact. This is another piece of unfinished business from my tenure; I strongly encourage you to enact that requirement (and a corresponding requirement for capital improvement projects) as soon as possible, in order to keep this issue—and priority—in mind for Council, staff, and the public. Again, congratulations on the steady and impressive progress to date, and best wishes in addressing the very big challenges ahead. Sincerely, Gil Friend Gil Philip Friend Professional Keynote Speaker Chairman, Natural Logic, Inc. • Founder, Critical Path Capital Strategic Advisory • Executive Coaching • Impact Investment Cell: 510-435-6346 | Skype: gil_friend Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | About.Me [crafted by thumbs]   1 Carnahan, David From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 6:51 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:There are better ways to provide objective standards for small cell towers Dear Architectural Review Board,      Thank you for your continued efforts to preserve the beauty of our city and address resident concerns related to the review of  small cell tower applications.      At the last ARB meeting, the Deputy City Attorney commented that: "As the result of the FCC order, we're NOT permitted to  apply our Architectural Review standards.”      I want to point out that the FCC order does not mean that we cannot have an ARB hearing. It also does not mean that we have  to have a ‘menu' of options. I have talked to the planning departments in multiple other cities who have addressed this FCC  requirement for ‘objective standards’ quite differently. These other cities have a list of written requirements for design of  these small cell towers, including undergrounding of ancillary equipment, visual screening, size/volume, and noise  requirements among other things. They also have requirements for the placement of these small cell towers, including  minimum spacing and setbacks from residences and schools. The Palo Alto Deputy City Attorney confirmed with me that all of  this is allowed.      The draft letter you are working is a great starting point from which to create written requirements which would become the  objective aesthetic standards. This approach would not limit us to a set of pre‐selected options from a menu, but would  provide clear written guidelines and constraints instead. In addition, an ARB public hearing could then confirm that we are  interpreting and applying those standards correctly.        So, why not keep the ARB hearing in addition to having written objective standards as above? If it’s a tight schedule because  of the shot clock, we can certainly manage that with careful planning. Also, without the ARB, there would be no public  hearing, public record, transparency, or meaningful public participation at all except through formal appeal of a decision to  City Council – which is costly for residents and arguably more time consuming than an ARB hearing. This public process is in  place for a reason: to allow for public discussion and input. Furthermore, wireless providers do realize that they must work in  partnership with the City. For example, at the PTC meeting, the Deputy City Attorney stated that  “we’ve been able to get  agreement from carriers so far to extend the shot clock” ‐ this has happened on multiple occasions to extend deadlines by  days, weeks or months.      Please ask City Staff and City Council to reconsider the approach they are taking. Please help create strong objective standards  and maintain our public process, including the ARB review, which actually meet the needs of our community.    Thank you for your consideration.      Sincerely,  Tina Chow  1 Carnahan, David From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, April 6, 2019 10:56 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Why are Atherton's pole-top devices silent while Palo Alto's are ear-sores? Dear Architecture Review Board, Planning Commission, City Council, and City Clerk,    As I have expressed in several letters in the past, I'm strongly opposed to the pole‐top telecom devices being installed in  our neighborhood (Barron Park). I object to these primarily because of the round‐the‐clock fan noise these systems emit.  When I'm walking in the neighborhood during lovely peaceful mornings or evenings, the intrusion of white noise from  these installations is annoying and disappointing. I can't imagine what it would be like for the people who have one of  these installations on the edge of their property so they are no longer able to experience a machine‐free sonic  environment from their yards or with windows open. While cars and airplanes interrupt the peace and quiet for short  periods, these installations eliminate quietude within 30 to 50 feet from the pole.    I commute by bike from Palo Alto to Redwood City and have noticed that the pole‐top systems in Atherton do not make  noise. Is this because the city forces the telecom companies to install quiet systems? Or does the city pay more for  these? Whatever Atherton does to eliminate this noise pollution, why can't we do the same?    If you have not personally heard these systems, please take a walk by one of these installations during the quiet times of  the day. (Come join me for my morning dog walk and I'll give you a noise‐degradation tour!) On your walk, while you  absorb the annoying sound, please imagine what it would be like if the utility decided to install one of these on the  corner of your property. Also, please imagine how you would feel about your city if it would allow the subtle but  creeping degradation of quality of life in order to appease a huge, profitable industry.    Has Palo Alto become a place where we value higher data rates on our cell phones more than peace‐and‐quiet by our  homes? Or a place where the influence of the Telecom industry is able to suck away a bit of our soul because we no  longer value the vestigial natural character of our suburban environment? In any case, I'm certainly disappointed our  neighborhoods are punctuated by ugly, noisy machines nibbling away at the sensory joy of living in Palo Alto.    Regards,    Dan Adams  3550 Whitsell Ave      On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:51 AM Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:  Dear City Council Members,  I'm writing again to ask you to eliminate pole‐top cell network infrastructure by pushing the telecom companies to bury  their installations in underground vaults. Underground installations should be the only option for locating this type of  equipment in residential neighborhoods. These systems don't belong next to people's houses and above our  neighborhood sidewalks and walking paths.    My primary grievance with the pole‐mounted equipment in residential neighborhoods is the noise pollution. Within 50  feet of these poles, constant white noise is noticeable during otherwise quiet times of the day. For people who have  houses right next to these poles, they must hear this noise in their yards all the time. Within 20 feet of these poles, the  sound is loud enough to be heard inside a houses if the windows are open. It seems wrong to bring this sort of constant  2 noise pollution onto someone's property. On my morning walks, I walk by several of these pole‐mounted systems.  When walking toward them and as the noise starts to be audible, it sounds like a car is approaching from down the  street.     I love the quiet times in our neighborhood and am lucky enough to own a home here. If the city added one of these  constant noise sources within earshot of my yard and house, I would be heartbroken at the loss of the quiet we cherish  and would be furious someone allowed this kind of infrastructure to alter the environment of my house and yard.  Airplane and car noise break the silence periodically but then quiet returns. With these systems, quiet is gone for good. These systems are also eyesores, especially the big cans sticking up from the top of the pole, usually looking wobbly  and sloppy since they rarely seems to be lined up well with the pole. In a community which cares about aesthetics, our  great tree canopy and architecture controls and review, why would we possibly tolerate such lousy looking equipment  mounted in our neighborhoods? Would you accept one of these things mounted on the corner or side of your lot?  The telecom industry is not hurting for profit these days. Please make them pay to bury all of their infrastructure. Palo  Alto must allow the Utilities to bear his cost. The city must not make the residents bear the significant everyday  environmental burden just so the Utilities can increase their profitability.  Thanks,  Dan Adams  3550 Whitsell Ave.  1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:23 AM To:Hoel, Jeff (external); Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; Spotwood, Alicia Subject:RE: 04-04-19 ARB Meeting -- Hi Jeff,      The item was already listed on the agenda for the ARB to discuss, so there was no need to revise the agenda and they  can discuss it.  There is no Brown Act violation  since the agenda was posted correctly and the Brown Act does not  address when documentation for items on the agenda have to be released.  As with the Council agendas, when we  receive late items that we believe the public and Council should see before the meeting  we will link it to the  agenda,  just as was done here.  Staff could have waited until today to hand it out as an “at places” item at the meeting,  but chose to put it online in the interest of transparency.   I hope this answers your questions.    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: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>   Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 4:57 PM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Hoel, Jeff (external) <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: 04‐04‐19 ARB Meeting ‐‐    ARB Board Members, At your 04-04-19 meeting, http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70113 you will be considering, under "Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements," an item, "Review of Draft Letter to City Council Regarding Small Cell Telecommunication Facilities." * When the agenda was first posted (04-01-19) there was no clickable link to anything. But now (04-03-19) there's a clickable link to a one-page draft of something, although it doesn't look like a draft of a letter to Council. Please see my comments below the "######" line (paragraphs in red, beginning with "###".) (What are the rules about this, I 2 wonder? How does posterity know when certain things on the agenda were made available to the public? The agenda itself doesn't say it has been "REVISED.") * Why was the item put under "Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements," rather than being a "real" action item? I hope you'll ask staff. For example, if you wanted to supplement the advice you gave on 03-21-19, could you do that? (Staff might have trouble incorporating that advice into the staff report for Council's 04-15-19 meeting, since that staff report is supposed to be published by tomorrow, 04-04-19. Was that a consideration?) * I have the impression that one of the purposes of writing a letter to Council was to tell them that you (ARB) think that having to comply with the FCC 18-133 requirement to adopt objective aesthetic standards for WCFs is not good for the City, and you wish the City didn't have to do it. If that's what you mean, say it. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ######################################################################### http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70148 DRAFT STATEMENT FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ON WCF INSTALLATIONS APRIL 4, 2019 The Palo Alto Architectural Board (ARB) has recently reviewed several applications for ‘Small Cell’ Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) under the ARB standards. There has been much debate as to whether any of the proposed WCF projects could be described as "enhancing the living conditions in adjacent residential areas," ### Quoting City code Section 18.76.020(d)(2)(E). or "of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area." ### Quoting City code Section 18.76.020(d)(3). ### Generally, City code Section 18.76.020(d) is about "findings" that ARB is required to make in order to approve a project it is reviewing. At its 03-21-19 meeting, ARB discussed the fact that if the City adopts objective aesthetic standards for WCFs, as FCC 18-133 more or less requires, then those objective aesthetic standards will, in effect, be used to approve projects, rather than the ARB's findings. The City is now proposing to adopt new review standards. ### FCC 18-133 is holding a gun to the City's head. After reviewing the WCF applications, the ARB has concluded that: 1. Antennas concealed by an integrated shroud and mounted at the top of either an existing streetlight or utility pole are acceptable design solutions. ### What, then, is not acceptable? 2. Radio and power equipment concealed by a simple, well-designed shroud and mounted at the top of either an existing street or utility pole are acceptable design solutions. ### What, then, is not acceptable? 3 3. Radio and power equipment, either exposed or concealed by a shroud, and mounted on the side of an existing streetlight or utility pole are not adequate design solutions[.] ### What about the radio and power equipment that, along with the antennas, are integrated into the 5G module proposed by AT&T in the staff report for ARB's 02-18-19 meeting? On packet page 80, PDF page 9, the 5G module is shown pretty close to the top of the pole. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69413 But in the staff report for ARB's 03-21-19 (packet page 66, PDF page 29), the 5G module is arguably not so close to the top of the pole. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69895 Equipment mounted on horizontal cables and wires are even less attractive. ### So, I take it, this alternative is not acceptable. In this case, "equipment" includes antennas, right? 4. Radio and power equipment should normally be installed below grade or sufficiently above the ground to be out of the line-of-sight of pedestrians. ### Is there an objective standard for how high above the ground is out of the line-of-sight of pedestrians"? ### Is there an objective standard for "normally"? What abnormal exceptions are permitted? 5. Radio and power equipment could be located in new, well-designed, appropriately placed, "street furniture" such as benches and planters. The street furniture should be functional and desirable in the locations in which it is placed. ### Are there objective standards for "well-designed," "appropriately placed," "functional" and "desirable"? ### Might an applicant chose this option if it didn't want to put radios and power equipment either underground or sufficiently above the ground? (Or inside the pole?) As the number of WCF installations increases, small negative visual impacts will be multiplied, resulting in a significant overall reduction in the aesthetic quality of the streetscape. Telecommunications companies and network installers have suggested that the City organize a workshop process to identify, or if necessary create, more acceptable WCF designs. The ARB believes such a process, combined with careful attention to placement of each WCF, could lead to better results, and that ARB expertise would be helpful in this process. ### How would objective aesthetic standards give "careful attention to the placement of each WCF"? ### Inviting applicants to help write the objective aesthetic standards they have to meet might be asking for trouble. But who knows? ### At ARB's 03-21-19 meeting, during the public comment period for Item 3 (objective aesthetic standards for WCFs), Tina Chow also suggested having a workshop, but I don't think she meant the same kind of workshop as the applicants suggested. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Friday, April 5, 2019 8:45 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules Against Wireless Industry Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Baltay, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Lew and Ms. Thompson, Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled that cities have the inherent local power “to determine the appropriate uses of land within [their] jurisdiction[s]. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use.” For more information, please see the 4.4.19 Bloomberg News article I have attached below. The ruling provides strong support for an Architectural Review Board hearing to consider the siting and appearance of each and every cell tower proposed for Palo Alto. Please let me know if you would like more information about the Court’s ruling. With appreciation for your ongoing concern for the quality of life in Palo Alto’s neighborhoods, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   San Francisco Can Reject 5G Equipment It Views as Too Ugly    Joel Rosenblatt and Scott Moritz. Bloomberg News,April 4, 2019   California high court upholds law to preserve city’s ‘beauty’    Decision is loss for T‐Mobile, Verizon amid national 5G push   San Francisco can reject 5G wireless equipment that it views as detracting from the city’s beauty, a setback for wireless  carriers which may now have to remap new networks or disguise antennas as palm fronds or building cornices.  California’s highest court disagreed Thursday with T‐Mobile US Inc. and other companies which argued San Francisco  overreached in asserting its authority to regulate wireless telephone equipment on aesthetic grounds.  T‐Mobile sued San Francisco to try to block a law allowing limits on intrusive equipment on utility poles and other  locations that will diminish the aesthetics. The 2011 ordinance was passed amid growing demand by the wireless  industry to install such equipment. The law cited San Francisco’s beauty as critical to its tourist industry and a reason  people and businesses want to locate there.  2 “The city has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction,” the California  Supreme Court ruled. “That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use.”  The ruling could open a new set of challenges for wireless carriers that are rushing to build 5G networks and hook  customers on advanced services. Verizon Communications Inc. this month became the first U.S. carrier to offer fifth‐ generation mobile‐phone service in parts of Minneapolis and Chicago, an initial launch in a 30‐city goal.  Given the relatively short, fragile nature of high‐frequency 5G signals, carriers have to configure networks differently.  They’re shifting more of the network hardware from tall towers that are scattered to spread signals over broad areas, to  smaller, more clustered sites like rooftops and street poles.  With the need to add millions more antennas, the wireless industry has been pushing for a more streamlined state and  municipal approval process. Addressing aesthetic concerns could add a new layer of costs and delays in that effort.  T‐Mobile declined to comment on the ruling.  San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city was aiming for “common sense” regulation that doesn’t prohibit  equipment from being installed, but does require it to be as “unobtrusive as possible.”  “Private companies don’t have free rein when it comes to using a public resource,” he said in a statement. “San  Francisco’s approach strikes the right balance. It allows for innovation and improved technology while ensuring that  unsightly poles and equipment don’t mar public views of the Painted Ladies or the Golden Gate Bridge.”  The case is T‐Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, S238001, California Supreme Court.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019‐04‐04/san‐francisco‐can‐reject‐5g‐equipment‐it‐views‐as‐too‐ugly  ‐‐      1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 5, 2019 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: 5G: A Toxic Assault on the Planetary Web of Life — Gabriel Cousens, M.D.   Please read this article before subjecting us all  to 5 G, it cannot be turned off, it has huge health  effects.  This may be new information, even though some of you may have studied previous information  about this  technology.    Thank You,  Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  94306  ‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Thomas Cowan <accounts@fourfoldhealing.com>  Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:31 AM  Subject: 5G: A Toxic Assault on the Planetary Web of Life — Gabriel Cousens, M.D.  To: Christine Rosche <rosche.c@gmail.com>              Why Scientists Are Sounding the Alarm Dear friends, It's not often that I come across an article that I think is truly groundbreaking or even earth-shattering, but this article from Dr. Gabriel 2 Sent to: rosche.c@gmail.com Unsubscribe Thomas Cowan MD - Fourfold Healing, 661 Chenery Street, San Francisco, CA 94131, United States     ‐‐   Sincerely,  Christine  Cousens fits those descriptions. Rather than my trying to summarize his article, I ask that everyone read it in its entirety. This issue he addresses is huge for all of us, one that needs our attention and help. At the end, he offers very specific interventions that we can undertake. Please read this article, and I welcome any feedback. With warmest regards,Tom Cowan, M.D.    Go to Article              Visit the Blog                  You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to Dr. Cowan's Newsletter. If you wish to unsubscribe, please use the link at the bottom of this email.     1 Carnahan, David From:H Davis <hdavisinc@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 2:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: in support of greater transparency on 5g As the PDF is not 100 percent legible please see the direct link to the article I shared :    https://www.wired.com/story/why‐5g‐makes‐reconsider‐health‐effects‐cellphones/  Please be certain all members receive this link     Thanks   H Davis    On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:07 PM H Davis <hdavisinc@gmail.com> wrote:    Please see attached resource  ‐‐   Heidi  Davis   hdavisinc@gmail.com         ‐‐   Heidi  Davis   hdavisinc@gmail.com     04.01.19 07:00 AMWHY 5G MAKES ME RECONSIDER THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CELL PHONES THOMAS PETER/REUTERS OVER THE PAST couple of weeks, I've been reading . The author, David Wallace-Wells, had me from his first sentence SUSAN CRAWFORD IDEAS 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE SHARE 4692 Susan Crawford (@scrawford) is an Ideas contributor for WIRED, a professor at Harvard Law School, and author of . (""). Wallace-Wells has done us all the great favor of clearly laying out incontestable evidence for what global warming will mean to the way we live. The book's chapters focus on humanity's ability to work and survive in increasingly hot environments, climate-change-driven effects on agriculture, the striking pace of sea-level rise, increasingly "normal" natural disasters, choking pollution, and much more. It's not an easy read emotionally. But it forces the reader to look squarely in the face of the science. Wallace-Wells points out that even though thousands of scientists, perhaps hundreds of thousands, are daily trying to impress on lay readers the urgency of collective action, the religion (his word) of technology creates a belief that, to the extent there is some distant-and- disputed problem, everything will be mysteriously solved by some combination of machine learning and post-Earth survival. We'll live in spaceships and eat lab-printed meat, and Elon Musk will fix things. I see a parallel in another big news story: the hype and enthusiasm about 5G wireless as the “thing that will make the existing [communications] model obsolete.” 5G is touted as the solution to all our problems—which sounds pretty unrealistic, as I’ve written in the past. (We’ll still need fiber wires everywhere, including deep in rural areas, to make 5G serve everyone, and there’s a real risk that we’ll end up with local 5G monopolies absent wise government intervention.) And there’s a new (to me) angle to 5G that I’ve resisted in the past: What if transmissions to and from 5G cells, which will need to be everywhere, and much closer to us than traditional cell towers, pulsing out very-high-frequency radio waves at high power levels, pose real risks to human health? I’ve been impatient for years with people complaining about the health effects of wireless communications. The phrase “tinfoil hat” leaps to mind, I readily concede. But I am learning that hundreds of scientists and tens of thousands of others believe that the intensity of 5G 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE represents a phase change and that 5G’s effects on mankind should be studied closely before this technology is widely adopted. As with climate change, where denial rhetoric has been driven by companies interested in maintaining the status quo, the wireless industry is vitally interested in assuring us that 5G poses no issues—or that there's an unresolved debate, so we should trust the existing radio- frequency exposure standards. That’s where we are now. So far, the European Commission, focused on ensuring its market players lead the way in advanced wireless services, has rejected pausing to consider the human health effects of 5G. The Federal Communications Commission has acted similarly. But what if the FCC is measuring public health effects against a decades- old standard that (a) measures the wrong thing and (b) was based on the work of an insular, private group, half of whose initial funding came from the power and telecom industries and that elects its own members? I am bothered enough to suggest that we need better, more neutral standards based on widely accepted science. Here's the quick summary: The FCC standard for measuring the health effects of electromagnetic radiation is based on whether the exposure, on average, will heat human tissue over short periods (6 minutes for occupational work and 30 minutes for public exposure). That standard was adopted in 1996. (The FCC launched a process in 2013 to re-examine this standard, but its review doesn’t seem to be progressing.) But some very persistent scientists say that's the wrong standard, for at least two reasons: Human cells can be disrupted by mechanisms that don't 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE LEARN MORE THE WIRED GUIDE TO 5G necessarily involve heating, and the standard measures average exposure rather than potentially harmful peaks. They're particularly worried about effects on the skin and eyes of bursts of 5G transmissions that may lead to short, harmful temperature spikes in exposed people. But that’s not the only concern. Other scientists worry about mental health effects, sterility, cancer, and a host of other problems they say can be triggered by long-term exposure to base stations and handheld devices. Canadian scientist Magda Havas, who studies and writes about electromagnetic radiation and teaches at the University of Trent, asserts that the governmental bodies and agencies that say that "non-ionizing" (effectively, non-heating) radiation is safe and can't cause cancer below existing heat guidelines are wrong; she points to what she calls "sufficient scientific evidence of cellular damage" caused by these transmissions. This got my attention: It turns out that sweat glands, right under the skin, effectively act as antennas in response to the very-high-frequency millimeter waves planned to be used in 5G communications—which is why the Department of Defense uses millimeter- wave crowd-control guns. If you're hit by one of these beams, it apparently feels as if your body is on fire. But there’s no lasting harm, according to DOD. At any rate, the FCC's 1996 rules don't account for long-term exposure or cellular/biological effects that don't involve heating. And the FCC’s standard is based in turn on standards adopted 30 years ago by a private group based in Germany called the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP has been described as loyal to both the telecom and energy industries, elects its own members, and is accountable to no one. As an outsider, it feels to me that the scientific concern about 5G health effects is relatively underfunded and that there’s a lot of denial and confusion about the health risks. To his credit, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) asked about scientific evidence on the 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE health effects of 5G during a hearing a couple of months ago, titled Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in the United States. “I believe that Americans deserve to know what the health effects are,” Blumenthal said. “Not to prejudge what scientific studies may show. They deserve also a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions.“ Told there were no industry-funded studies on the health effects of 5G, Blumenthal said, “So, we are flying blind here on health and safety.” At least he’s asking. This all feels very familiar. If we were wise, we'd figure this out before we go further. As Nathaniel Rich pointed out last summer in , 30 years ago we had a chance to save the planet. More Great WIRED Stories •How much prenatal genetic info do you want? •On the trail of the robocall king •The real choice you make subscribing to Apple services •The mathematical history of a perfect color combination •For gig workers, client interactions can get … weird •ۼ۽۾ Looking for the latest gadgets? Check out our latest buying guides and best deals all year round •᥷᥸᥹᥺᥻ Get even more of our inside scoops with our weekly Backchannel newsletter 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE RELATED VIDEO DESIGN How Apple's iPhones Change the Smartphone Market Every Year The launch of Apple’s iPhone X brought face recognition, animoji, and the notch into the mainstream. #5G #CELL NETWORKS #RADIATION #HEALTH FTI JOURNAL The Nightmare of Private Equity in Retail Continues SPONSORED YAHOO! SEARCH 2019 Technology Replacing Business Phones and Landlines SPONSORED MONEY VERSED [Gallery] Man Discovers A Safe In His Backyard And Is Bewildered By What's Inside SPONSORED GLASSESUSA Glasses-Wearers Are Going Crazy Over This Website SPONSORED TOP 5 MEAL DELIVERY SERVICES Meal Kit Wars: 5 Tested & Ranked. See Who Won SPONSORED POWERED BY OUTBRAIN VIEW COMMENTS 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE MORE IDEAS 5G’s Potential Health Hazard, Plus Zuck’s Deleted Blog PostsTECH IN TWO ALEX BAKER-WHITCOMB The True Dollar Cost of the Anti-Vaccine MovementIDEAS MARYN MCKENNA 2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE The Beautiful Benefits of Contemplating DoomIDEAS VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN The Haunting of Hacker HouseIDEAS VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE In the Face of Danger, We’re Turning to SurveillanceIDEAS ROSE EVELETH Facebook Is Not a Monopoly, but It Should Be Broken UpIDEAS ANTONIO GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ2 Free Articles Left This Month You’ve read half of your complimentary articles this month. Get unlimited access to an ad-free WIRED.com, plus the print and digital editions of the magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW Sign In or Register if you're already a subscriber close SUBSCRIBE 1 Carnahan, David From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 7:03 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Palo Alto Matters article Dear Architectural Review Board, Planning & Transportation Commission, and City Council,      I wrote this guest commentary about cell towers for Palo Alto Matters and would like to share it with you ‐ see text below. It  explains the perspective of many concerned residents and provides some practical suggestions for ways to solve this problem  or at least mitigate many of the concerns in Palo Alto. Please read and feel free to ask me questions.      Thank you,  Tina          https://paloaltomatters.org/get‐informed/newsletters/march‐30‐2019‐newsletter/#commentary      Palo Alto residents call for more robust and transparent approval process for small cell antennas  March 30, 2019 – by Tina Chow Palo Altans are up in arms over the installation of cell antennas on utility poles in front of homes and schools throughout the city. Residents have many concerns about these “small cell towers” including aesthetics, noise, health effects, property value, and fire risk, among others. Furthering resident concerns, city staff are taking actions to codify controversial federal rules that streamline the cell tower approval process, limit public input, and hence reduce transparency. Other cities are doing more for their residents, and Palo Altans should demand nothing less. Speak up now before City Council takes action on April 15, 2019! New FCC rules have opened the floodgates A new order from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is enabling a flood of small cell towers by forcing rapid approval of applications. This FCC 18- 133 ruling went into effect on Jan 14, 2019 and shortens the “shot clock” for application review to 60 days. It also requires that aesthetic standards be objective, non-discriminatory, and published in advance. 2 Palo Alto has already received over 150 applications for such “small wireless facilities.” With 4 major carriers and no requirement for consolidated or shared equipment siting, there could be hundreds more. Wireless carriers say they are building small cell networks to enable transition to 5G (5th generation) service, which will operate at much higher frequencies and faster speeds to support gaming, self-driving cars, and the Internet of Things. The FCC severely restricts the fees that cities can charge for these smaller cells. A macro cell tower often earns a city roughly $30,000/year and the wireless provider assumes liability. In contrast, rental fees for small cells on utility poles are limited to about $270/year and the city has liability, creating additional financial advantages for carriers to create small cell networks that intrude further into neighborhoods. Resident concerns Residents argue that these small cell towers are unsightly and unnecessary, and that they put the safety and welfare of our community at risk. Radio-frequency radiation has been shown to create adverse biological and health effects including cancer. In 2018, the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health concluded that long-term exposure to radio-frequency radiation from 3G and 4G cellular emissions causes brain and heart cancer in rats (Lin et al. 2018). This definitive and large-scale government study was replicated by the Ramazzini Institute, which used even lower radiation exposure levels. Dr. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, states that “many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have found evidence of biologic and health effects from low level exposures to cell phone radiation. Hence, the FCC’s exposure guidelines must be re-assessed as they are likely inadequate to protect human health.” Putting so many cell towers in such close proximity to resident homes (~20 feet) and schools means human exposures and hence adverse health effects will increase, especially for more vulnerable children and those with electro- sensitivity. In addition, power lines and overburdened utility poles are implicated in the recent extreme wildfire events in California. Small cell towers would add hundreds of pounds of equipment hanging off already aging utility and light poles. 3 Another concern is that property values have been shown to go down by 20 percent in some areas with new towers. Proposed ordinance would reduce transparency and fail to mitigate key resident concerns City staff in Palo Alto now want to update the wireless ordinance to streamline the approval process by creating a ‘menu’ of pre-approved designs and removing valuable public input from the process. This ‘menu’ would serve as an objective standard that would take the place of the City’s architectural review findings. Currently, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) evaluates the aesthetics of the proposed cell towers to make the required findings and make a recommendation to the Director of Planning. With the plan to use a menu of options, decisions would be made solely by the Director of Planning. This means that in the future there would be no public hearing, public record, transparency, or meaningful public participation at all except through formal appeal of a decision to City Council – which is costly for residents and arguably more time consuming than an ARB hearing. Staff claim that these changes are necessary under the FCC ruling which requires objective standards to be published by April 15, 2019. Remarkably, April 15 is also the date on which City Council is scheduled to consider these changes – with staff pressuring them to decide in favor or else lose the ability to reject applications until alternate standards are approved. However the staff-proposed ‘menu’ is inadequate to address community objections. Other objective standards, such as requirements for undergrounding, setbacks from homes, and size of equipment, would all go further to mitigate many resident concerns. There is also no reason why we could not maintain the ARB public hearings to consider resident input and preserve our transparent process. Other cities and lawsuits against the FCC Other cities have interpreted the FCC ruling completely differently than Palo Alto city staff. In fact, the FCC order is currently being challenged by lawsuits brought forward by dozens of cities. These include such diverse cities as Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Portland, Denver, San Jose, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Monterey and more. In addition, our own Congresswoman Anna Eshoo has introduced a bill to the U.S. House to overturn the FCC order. 4 Within this complicated legal context, dozens of other cities are taking action to protect resident interests and prevent small cell tower installations in such close proximity to homes and schools. For example:  Petaluma, CA now requiresundergrounding of ancillary equipment, 1500 ft minimum spacing of the small cells, and setbacks from residences.  Fairfax, CA passed an urgency ordinance putting a pause on cell tower installations and requiring setbacks from residences, schools, etc., and the city is pursuing a high-speed fiber-optic network.  Mill Valley, CA adopted an urgency ordinance to prohibit cell towers in residential zones, strengthen permitting requirements, set minimum distances and setbacks etc.  Ripon, CA also has a new ordinance that requires setbacks from schools and residences. Ripon, by the way, is having a cell tower removed from a school site after a cancer cluster (with at least 3 teachers and 4 kids affected).  Marin County is updating its ordinance, joined the lawsuit against the FCC and held a public meeting to discuss 5G in Marin County. What can we do? Residents must speak up now to preserve the health and safety of our community in Palo Alto. On April 15, City Council will vote on the Staff-proposed wireless ordinance changes, which would reduce public input and transparency while doing nothing to address public concerns. Contact City Council now (City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org) and attend the City Council meeting (April 15, evening) to tell them we need: 1. A more robust set of objective standards that would include parameters such as setbacks from homes and schools, requirements for undergrounding, size of equipment, etc., informed by an inclusive public process. 2. A short term resident task force to inform standards that better reflect community concerns and values, with quick turn around of a resolution to adopt them. 3. Continued ARB review of applications to ensure public scrutiny and comment on proper application of the standards. Tina Chow lives in Barron Park and is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:02 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:PART 1 -- TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 03-21-19 ARB meeting, Item 3 -- objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards for WCFs ARB Board Members, At the 03-21-19 ARB meeting, http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69898 you considered an item (Item 3) about the City's making objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards for wireless communications facilities (WCFs). Here's the staff report (43 pages). http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69895 I have transcribed the video for this item and added my comments. (Please see below the "######" line. My comments are the paragraphs in red, beginning with "###".) https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-3212019/ GENERAL COMMENTS I think it was unreasonable of the FCC to issue an order (FCC 18-133) saying that, after 04-15-19, the City's only aesthetic, noise, and other standards for WCFs must be objective and published in advance. (Except for exceptions initiated by applicants.) I hope FCC 18-133 is invalidated, whether by litigation (which is ongoing), or legislation (H.R. 530), or some other way. Meanwhile, ARB was asked to participate in creating those objective aesthetic standards. On 03-21-19, I think ARB tried to do a good job, but kept being distracted by what the aesthetic standards should be if the ARB were allowed to continue its current practice of determining them subjectively. It's really hard to create objective aesthetic standards. It's a little like writing a computer program to make aesthetic decisions. I note that the world's best go-playing computer programs weren't written by the world's best go players. Staff's proposal for the objective aesthetic standards was to list a menu of possible designs, with constraints for each, and to forbid anything not on the menu. In theory, there could be other approaches. For example, Chair Furth suggested, why not say that the ancillary equipment for a WCF must be undergrounded if feasible? But she didn't get majority support for that idea. I hope ARB will be willing to help refine the City's objective aesthetic standards for WCFs in the future. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: References: * 03-15-19: "There's No 5G Race" 2 https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/03/15/the-non-existing-race-for-5g/ "There is no 5G race; there is no 5G war; there is no 5G crisis." And: "Please think twice before you buy into the 5G hype." * 03-20-19: "Analysts Question Financial Viability of Verizon Home 5G Fixed Service" https://www.telecompetitor.com/analysts-question-financial-viability-of-verizon-home-5g-fixed-wireless- service/?mc_cid=c91bcef9d9&mc_eid=99443c82f8 * 03-20-19: "Are You Ready For 6G?" https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/03/20/are-you-ready-for-6g/ * 03-15-19: "It's Officially Time to Start Talking About 6G" https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/its-officially-time-to-start-talking-about-6g/a/d- id/750205?mc_cid=7d2040cb96&mc_eid=99443c82f8 I PPS: I had to send this transcript & comments in three separate messages, due to the limitations of my email tool. ############################################################################## Video of 03-21-19 ARB meeting: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-3212019/ 0:47:19: Chair Furth: While we're setting up for Item -- the next item -- Item 3, which is the ARB review and recommendation for draft objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way, I'm going to open the hearing now, before we take a short break, so that -- I have a speaker card here, from a speaker who needs to leave by 9:40. Which is Tina Chow. If you'd like to come and make your remarks. You have three minutes, from when you spell your name and start. 0:47:49: Tina Chow: (unamplified) I can wait ... 0:47:50: Chair Furth: Oh, you can wait? 0:47:51: Tina Chow: (unamplified) I mean, I have to leave at 9:40. 0:47:52: Chair Furth: Why don't you do it now, because it's going to be a little jammed. 0:47:55: Tina Chow: (unamplified) Thank you. OK. 0:48:08: Tina Chow: All right. Good morning, everyone. Is this -- 0:48:10: Chair Furth: Good morning. 0:48:10: 3 Tina Chow: Is this on? OK. My name's Tina Chow. I live in Barron Park. And I'm a professor in civil and environmental engineering at U.C. Berkeley. I already sent you some written comments. So I just want to summarize those briefly, and expand on one of them. My first point was that our neighborhoods are so distinct that I don't believe any menu of options will suffice, in these decisions for the wireless communications facilities. Second, this ARB review process that we're having now allows for critical public input and discussion, and should NOT be removed from the process. So I ask that you please make a specific recommendation to City Council to keep the ARB public hearings, and ensure that every cell tower gets individual review. Third, I asked that you please continue to insist on undergrounding of equipment. And my fourth point was that we need an updated wireless ordinance that safeguards residents and their interests. So, I wanted to take a few moments to expand on this. First, I wanted to just say that I urge you not to incorporate any of the specific FCC standards into our ordinance, because, according to independent law firms, current and future litigation may reverse these standards. And Including such FCC standards into our ordinance's language would bind the city of such standards, regardless of the outcomes of the litigation. So, instead, what I think we should do is work together to create a better ordinance, just like dozens of other cities are doing -- in the Bay Area, across California, and across the country. Some examples are Orinda, San Raphael, San Anselmo, Hillsboro, Danville -- the list goes on and on -- of cities in the Bay Area that are working to improve the ordinance and include resident interests in them. So, some examples of things that we can ask for are minimum spacings between towers -- for example, 1,500 or 2,000 feet. We can ask for minimum setbacks from resident homes and schools. We can even ask for increased fees and revenues for the City. Yes, there are descriptions about this. But we can charge for actual costs of processing these applications. We can ask for requirements that if there are less visually intrusive facilities that become available as technology improves, that these be replaced. We can ask for liability and insurance for each node. We can ask for monitoring requirements of the radio frequencies from these towers. We can ask for property value assessments, protection from trees, and compliance with the American Disabilities Act for electrohypersensitivity. So, the ADA -- I just want to expand on this one a little bit -- as you know, is intended to protect disabled people from discrimination, and provides general definitions for a disability. The U.S. Access Board and the Department of Labor recognize electromagnetic sensitivity as a disability. So I'd like to ask that you ask the City to add an ADA section and an ADA definition that describes a disability as "any physical impairment affecting a major life activity," including language from Title II, which requires public agencies to make all their services, programs, and activities ADA accessible. So, that would mean including language that indicates that ADA claims can be made of some sort of discrimination. For example, that persons -- that is, that persons with disabilities are prevented from some activity can be shown. And we can include language in the exceptions chapter, and in the compliance with laws chapter, saying that the Americans Disabilities Act, which is a federal law -- sorry, the exceptions chapter should INCLUDE the Americans with Disabilities Act as a federal law that is equal in authority to the Federal Communications ... 0:51:23: Chair Furth: Thank you, Doctor. Any last sentence? 0:51:26: Tina Chow: The last sentence is that I ask that you consider making a task force, where residents could actually work on this. Because doing this in three minutes is really hard. And we have a lot of ideas. 0:51:34: Chair Furth: Thank you. I want to say -- Thank you for your presentation. But I want to say to you and others that the ordinance itself has not formally been provided to us. We did get a copy this morning. So, the Planning Commission -- Planning & Transportation Commission -- will be reviewing it -- What's the date, Albert? 0:51:50: Albert Yang: Next Thursday. 0:51:51: Chair Furth: Next Thursday ... 0:51:52: Albert Yang: Next Wednesday. Sorry, next Wednesday. 4 0:51:53: Chair Furth: Next Wednesday. Which is going to be the key hearing on that. Followed by Council action. Thank you. We're going to take a five-minute break before we hear the rest of this. And then we'll be back. Thank you. 0:52:01: BREAK 0:59:05: Chair Furth: Is staff ready? OK. Just before we go on to our next item, ... [comment about Item 2 elided] 0:59:28: Chair Furth: OK. Our next item -- I guess I already read it, but I'll do it again -- is the ARB review and recommendation of draft objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for wireless communications facilities in the public right-of- way. And the staff report will be prepared by Rebecca Atkinson. This is NOT a quasi-judicial matter, I guess. We're commenting on a proposed regulation. So I won't ask anybody about external communications. I will note that we have all received a large number of emails on this. Which staff has made available if they were received before -- before five yesterday? -- what's the cutoff? 1:00:15: Amy French: Correct. Five pm. Then we printed them out in hard copy. If they were emailed after five, they were emailed -- forwarded to you. We had some emails at six in the morning. And -- yeah. 1:00:26: Chair Furth: Right. And they will be passed along -- will they? -- to the Planning & Transportation, which will be considering this next. And staff will, of course, read them. All right. Staff report, please. 1:00:38: Amy French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. With Rebecca Atkinson and Albert Yang, our City Attorney. We also have Jim Fleming in the audience. ### I didn't see him there. And Dave Yuan. ### Dave was there, but didn't speak. From the City. To help with questions. 1:00:52: Chair Furth: From which department are they? 1:00:54: Amy French: Ah -- Utilities. 1:00:56: Chair Furth: Thank you. 1:00:58: 5 Amy French: So, as noted, at places -- I don't know if we noted this -- at places, and at the back table, we have the ordinance that is going to go to the Planning & Transportation Commission next Wednesday. So, members of the public who are interested in reading that can go on the back table. The packet comes out today and will be uploaded online. For those persons who wish to review the ordinance. 1:01:22: Chair Furth: This is the ordinance amending 18.42.110 on wireless telecommunications facilities. 1:01:28: Amy French: Correct. So, we have an existing ordinance. These are amendments that would clarify, based on the FCC order. 1:01:36: Chair Furth: I think "modify" is a more accurate term. Thank you. 1:01:38: Amy French: Yes. Well, there's that. So, just a brief background, and I'll turn it over to Albert. The existing wireless communications facilities in the Palo Alto public rights-of-way. We have 73 AT&T oDAS nodes. And these are on wood utility poles. Those were installed in 2012, before we created the ordinance we have today. So, yes, there's been some noise issues on those poles. Just to be clear about that. Then, we have 19 small cell nodes on streetlight poles. And these were installed by Crown Castle in 2016. ### They are owned and operated by Verizon, right? And I believe those are the ones that use those faux mailboxes. OK? So, we anticipate more coming. We have 93 from Verizon, 17 from AT&T Mobility, and 17 from Crown Castle that we anticipate being installed or submitted for review. There are others in the wings that are not come in yet. We have streetlights in Palo Alto, a total of 6,642. Of those, the City owns 6,500. And then, the state owns 142. Those are located on El Camino and highway -- near Highway 101. Then we have wood utility poles. We have a total of 6,000 again. ### A 09-28-15 staff report about FTTP https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 says (PDF page 68) that there are 6,000 utility poles, and also (PDF page 69) that there are 5,931 utility poles (of various heights from 25 to 80 feet). The issue in that report was how many might have to be made taller to accommodate fiber infrastructure for a citywide municipal FTTP network. Those are in the public right-of-way. 5,400 are jointly owned by the City and AT&T. (Oops. I went too fast. That's really sensitive.) 1:03:21: Albert Yang: Thanks. Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney. So, the reason that we are coming to you today with these draft objective standards is because the Federal Communications Commission -- the FCC -- in September adopted new regulations, which, among several other changes, require any aesthetic regulation by local governments to be reasonable, non-discriminatory, objective, and published in advance. And so, they gave us until April 15th of this year to work on and adopt these standards. And that's what we've prepared and brought for you today. The bottom line is that if we don't have reasonable and objective standards in place after April 15th, the City won't be able to enforce its current aesthetic regulations, which are based on the ARB's subjective architectural review findings. There is ongoing litigation over the validity of that FCC order, that is pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now. The Court, unfortunately, denied a request by municipalities to stay that FCC order until that litigation is resolved. So, at the moment, we are required to comply with that regulation. In addition to the litigation, there is pending legislation in Congress, introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo, that would invalidate the FCC's order as well. We'll be tracking that, in addition to the litigation. 6 So, there are a few different steps -- just to give a roadmap -- of how we're approaching our implementation of the FCC's order. The first meeting is today's, with the ARB, where we're reviewing draft objective standards. The next meeting will be on Wednesday, the 27th, with the Planning & Transportation Commission, to review updates to the ordinance. The City's wireless code. And, finally, both the standards and the ordinance will be presented to the City Council on April 15th. So, we had a question from the Chair about what the ARB's role would be under the revised ordinance. There -- Under the current language of the ordinance, for Tier 2 and Tier 3 applications, which are what the majority of applications to the City -- cities -- fall into, the Planning Director is the deciding authority. And the Director retains -- has the discretion to send any of these applications to the ARB for a public hearing. And under the revised ordinance, that process, and that authority, remains the Planning Director. If there's an issue, or if there's a desire to have a public hearing on an application, can send it to the ARB. In addition, there is a new process that's created for any applications that are seeking exceptions from the objective standards that we adopt, for those applications also to be sent to the ARB for review. And I'll turn it back over to Amy and Rebecca. 1:07:31: Rebecca Atkinson: Thank you, all. So, the wireless ordinance is -- you know, is in effect for citywide. And primarily - - Well, the standards, in their current form, focus on streetlight poles and wood utility poles. There's -- There are other wireless facilities designs that could be deployed in the public right-of-way. Including, you know, using existing or proposed new street furniture, such as benches, and bus shelters, and things like that. That's -- you know, even though some have been deployed in Europe. And maybe somewhere -- elsewhere. We are looking at including innovations in a forthcoming version of the administrative standards. But for the current -- you know, April 15th -- timeframe, we're looking at focusing on streetlights and wood utility poles. To help promote feedback and discussion, staff put together Attachment D, in your packets. And Attachment D contains a wide variety of design images, be it elevations or visual simulations, site photos, and so forth, illustrating the types of different design options that are out there for wood poles and streetlight poles. There are also some designs that you have seen before, that you have previously weighed in on as not preferred. So, just wanted to include those, for your reference. So, in general, these are the types of designs that we'd really appreciate your feedback on. Whether or not they're appropriate for the right-of-way. Any comments. And the actual standards are included as an attachment. Actual draft standards are include in attachments to the staff report. ### That is, Attachments A (for streetlight poles) and B (for wood utility poles). And those are the draft standards that would be moved forward. So if you have any comments on siting -- siting criteria and parameters, design options, ** placement parameters, size parameters, screening through shrouds and vegetation, and so forth, please -- we're looking forward to your feedback. Next steps. To receive public and ARB feedback today. And, of course, as Albert already mentioned, the forthcoming Planning & Transportation Commission review next week. And then, following also with City Council. There's contact information, as well as the email addresses for the ARB and City Council. And then, just so you know, all of the Attachment D images are here in this presentation. So if you would like to discuss anything in particular, we can use this as a point of orientation. Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. 1:10:45: Chair Furth: So, I have an orientation question. And thank you for the marked up copy of the ordinance. Which, I understand, is hot off the press. One of the questions I have is that, under the existing ordinance, when a project comes to the ARB, we review it under the ARB standards. Is that correct? 1:11:16: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:11:17: Chair Furth: And if, in the future, something was referred to the ARB, what standards would we be applying? 7 1:11:23: Albert Yang: They would have to be reviewed against the objective standards that the City has adopted. 1:11:29: Chair Furth: And those would be standards adopted by resolution. 1:11:31: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:11:32: Chair Furth: Which is immediately effective. And the proposed resolution -- Tell us more about that. The objective standards. 1:11:45: Albert Yang: (unamplified) Yeah, so, ... 1:11:45: Chair Furth: It basically creates a "safe harbor"? Is that right? ### FCC 18-133 mentions "safe harbor" (3 times). https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf 1:11:48: Albert Yang: So, the proposed standards are attached to the staff report, and the City Council would adopt a resolution, basically adopting those standards as, you know, mandatory design requirements for the various categories of wireless facilities they apply to. And right now, we have prepared standards that apply to streetlight and wood utility pole deployments. 1:12:20: Chair Furth: So, if somebody had a proposal to locate something on a wood utility pole or a streetlight, that -- I guess there would be a -- well, we'll talk about underground later -- but that basically met one of these preferred or described designs -- certain kind of antenna, certain kind of location -- then that would be a "safe harbor." That would be the objective standard they would be nailed against. If they wanted to do something else, they might require a more complicated hearing? Like used street furniture? 1:12:53: Albert Yang: I -- That's correct. And I guess I would say, even if there was a proposal that, you know, met all of the various criteria, you know, if there were a reason that staff felt, you know, that would benefit from a hearing before the ARB, either to provide a forum for the public to comment, or for any of the ARB's feedback on how these standards are playing out in the real world, you know, the Director would still have that option. 1:13:28: Chair Furth: Thanks. So, looking at page 48 of Attachment B, which is the draft administrative standards, they are not written in mandatory language. You "may" have a shroud. You should "consider" doing this. That's not correct. "May" be mounted. "May" be placed. "May" be enclosed. Why is it all written that way? 1:13:58: Albert Yang: So, we'll take another look at tightening up that language. I believe the intent was to -- There are situations where, you know, there might be two different configurations that are permitted. For example, an antenna may be 8 mounted either at the top of a pole or integrated into the body of the pole. But we'll take another look through all these, to make sure that it's clear that you have to choose among one of the various options that's set forth. 1:14:29: Chair Furth: 'Cause as it's written -- You know what? We should ask the other people questions. I don't mean to overdo this. We'll get back to the public with comment. But we are looking at a series of standards which you've asked us to comment on. So, we have a lot of speaker cards. But here ... 1:14:47: Vice Chair Baltay: (unamplified) The applicant goes first. 1:14:48: Chair Furth: Well, the City's the applicant. 1:14:50: Vice Chair Baltay: (unamplified) There's no wireless **. 1:14:52: Chair Furth: They're not the applicants. The City is the moving party here. I mean, the City is asking us to consider this. All right. Um. The name's perfectly clear. The spelling is a little awkward. Vijay Reddyvari. To be followed by Sharon James. 1:15:19: Vijay Reddyvari: Hi. My name is Vijay Reddyvari. I'm a project manager at Crown Castle. 1:15:23: Chair Furth: I'm sorry. I need to have you spell your name for our transcriber. 1:15:26: Vijay Reddyvari: Oh. OK. V-i-j-a-y. And then R-e-d-d-y-v-a-r-i. Before I go to the presentation, I just want to talk a little bit about Crown Castle. So, I'm a project manager at Crown Castle. Crown Castle is the largest provider of shared communication infrastructure. We have over 25 years of experience building and operating network infrastructure. We have a unique combination of towers, small cells, and fiber. We have about 40,000 towers. 60,000 on air or under contract small cells, both outdoor and indoor. And we have 60,000 route miles of fiber. ### This source provides similar stats. https://fiber.crowncastle.com/about-us Coming to those small cells, we have growing demand for data, for residents, businesses, and research. There's about like 10 trillion megabytes in 2017. ### This 05-23-16 article says, "Americans used nearly 10 trillion megabytes of mobile data last year" (i.e., 2015). https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/05/23/2042213/americans-used-nearly-10-trillion-megabytes-of-mobile-data-last-year In 2017, it was 15.7 trillion megabytes. https://www.ctia.org/news/the-state-of-wireless-2018 This is for all wireless carriers, not just Crown Castle. And it increased like seven times in 2019. So, 47 percent of the total U.S. is using wireless. And 70 percent of the home buyers are looking for a strong cell communication when they're buying home. And an average household has 30 devices connected at all times. And then, there is a growing demand for smart communities, and connected schools, and cloud, and IoT. 9 So, with a huge growing demand, what I have before you is the two flavors of designs that we have for streetlight poles and wood utility poles. (Let me **.) 1:16:54: Chair Furth: So, this is the material that is at-places? 1:16:56: Vijay Reddyvari: Yeah. 1:16:57: Chair Furth: And are there copies at the public table? 1:16:58: Vijay Reddyvari: Yeah. We have ... 1:16:59: Chair Furth: The crowd is indicating yes. 1:17:20: Vijay Reddyvari: What I have before you is standard designs that we have for streetlight poles. These are already active or in place or under contract currently with Crown Castle. So, as you can see, we have different flavors. Like integrated pole design, a top-mounted design, and a trash can design. Going to the integrated pole design, these are the traffic signal poles. These are in Santa Barbara. All equipment will be inside the poles when we have existing user infrastructure of the traffic lights, and incorporated all the equipment inside the poles. This is a fairly new product -- the trash can receptacle. We are currently using it in Piedmont. And also, I think I saw one in Palo Alto. I'm not sure who is the carrier. So, this is a brand new product. The trash can receptacle. The faux mailbox design. You have already seen this in Palo Alto, with our project in 2016, I guess. Under ** streetlights, we have a small mailbox, with a smaller form factor. And you can see the dimensions here, actually -- 24.75 x 48.63 inches, with an integrated pole design. Coming to the next one is the top-mounted design. Where we have a couple of options here. With a wrapped-around combination of equipment and equipment on top of the pole. You can see the dimensions there -- 31 inches x 27. Which is a smaller form factor again. All the small cells that we tried to build have a smaller form factor. The next one is a side-mounted design. Where we cannot achieve the top-mounted design, we try to alternate it with a side-mounted design. Even with this, we have seen a fair amount of success, with the smaller form factor being 14 x 16.5 inches wide x 113 inches. Again, it depends on the equipment, and the requirement of the carrier with the coverage -- what equipment we need. Depending on that we choose this designs. But we do have a lot of options here. As you notice. And I have put before you some additional design options with a pedestal design. A couple of options here for you. One in Piedmont, and the other one in Cupertino. Again, these are proposals for the Palo Alto, which we did for our project. I'm just putting the samples out there. And then you can see the dimensions for the pedestal design -- with the dimensions. Coming for the additional design options, we can use the existing streetlights, or the existing cabinets, which is there in the City. And you can use the space for putting our equipment there. 1:19:56: Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Mr. Reddyvari, but you have run out of time. Thank you for the written presentation. And we will ask you further questions later if we need more information on what you provided to us. 1:20:07: Vijay Reddyvari: Thank you. 1:20:10: Chair Furth: Our next speaker is Sharon James. To be followed by Jeff Hoel. 1:20:17: 10 Sharon James: Hi. Good morning. I'm Sharon James. I'm the government affairs manager for Crown Castle. And I just wanted to speak today to let you know that, you know, as Vijay just showed you, there's a lot of different designs that you can use to incorporate small cell wireless infrastructure. And they're deployed all over the country, in many different configurations. What I've seen happen, that I want to share with you, in other jurisdictions -- Currently, in San Francisco, they have a workshop going on, where they're meeting every couple of weeks with all the carriers, with the CLECs -- like Crown, Ex Genet, Modus -- to come up with a design, and a revised ordinance that works -- that simplifies the process down the road, and includes 5G. That's also happening in -- It's also happened in Cupertino, where they worked with all of the carriers to come up with -- and the CLECs too -- come up with a design that they could incorporate on their city poles, throughout the city. In the city of Santa Barbara, the same thing has happened. So, I'm providing this information to you because I would -- I think you should think about -- and I recommend -- that even though you're revising your ordinance now, to meet the April 15th date that the FCC has ordered, you probably will end up revising it to some extent. And we're sharing information with you today because we want you to be aware that there's a lot of options, we're more than happy to work with you. I would recommend that you set up some workshops with the industry, and do some real -- you know, make some real effort to come up with a design that works for all of you, that maybe you can include as part of your ordinance, that is a form factor that you've approved in -- ahead of time. And then, it expedites the process with the carriers or the applicants. I would also say that in that FCC order, that the time you have to review has been shortened as well. So, some of the process that we go through now, that takes a little longer, you may have to cut out in your revised ordinance. You may have to address. Thank you. 1:22:31: Chair Furth: I have one question for you. So, your company, is not a telecom provider. Right? You are a licensed -- you are a permit obtainer? What do you call your company? What kind of business are you in? 1:22:46: Sharon James: We're a carrier's carrier. I think. It's simplifying it little bit, but -- So, we build infrastructure. We build fiber networks. All across the country. On that fiber network, there are multiple opportunities to use that fiber. But we're called a CLEC. 1:23:04: Chair Furth: That's the word I didn't know. 1:23:05: Sharon James: Yeah. A CLEC. And -- 1:23:08: Chair Furth: Which stands for -- 1:23:08: Sharon James: It stands for -- California Licensed -- what? -- Competitive Licensed Exchange Carrier. ### Google "'competitive licensed exchange carrier'" 0 hits. But Google "' competitive local exchange carrier '" about 109,000 hits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier But we basically build the infrastructure that the carriers can go on. And -- So, when we come to you and we apply, as Crown Castle -- we're building a fiber network here -- we have a contract with a customer -- a carrier -- to put their antennas and radios on that pole. 1:23:38: Chair Furth: And do your antennas and radios accommodate more than one carrier? Or are they exclusive to one carrier? 1:23:43: 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:01 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:PART 2 -- TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 03-21-19 ARB meeting, Item 3 -- objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards for WCFs ARB Board Members, Here's Part 2. Jeff ############################################################################## https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-3212019/ [CONTINUED FROM PART 1] 1:48:03: Chair Furth: All right. Let's start with questions for staff. Alex. Any questions? Peter. Any questions? 1:48:09: Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. For staff. If I could have three questions about the proposed ordinance. Is there any form of public notification or comment provided for in this ordinance? 1:48:23: Amy French: The Planning & Transportation Commission is advertised in the newspaper. 1:48:27: Vice Chair Baltay: No, I'm sorry, not about ... 1:48:28: Amy French: Under the ordinance? 1:48:30: Vice Chair Baltay: Once the ordinance -- If the ordinance is put into effect, ... 1:48:31: Chair Furth: It's really a question to Albert. 1:48:33: Vice Chair Baltay: ... is there a procedure by which the public is notified of an application, and has an opportunity to comment on the application? 2 1:48:40: Albert Yang: Um. So, actually I'm not sure. I think maybe Amy can help with -- Oh. That's right. So, current- -- There's -- There's notice cards that go out, within a certain radius. And we also require carriers, before they submit the application, to hold a meeting -- a community meeting -- within a certain radius of all of these sites. ### Could the City require that the would-be applicant give notice to the whole City about such a community meeting, rather than just people within a certain radius of the site? So that the whole community could become aware, even before the application was submitted? 1:49:08: Vice Chair Baltay: Is that described in the ordinance that you've proposed? 1:49:10: Albert Yang: Yes, it is. 1:49:12: Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. 1:49:12: Albert Yang: That's a current feature, and it's not changing. So, you won't see it in strike-out or underline. It's just already there. 1:48:17: Chair Furth: It's the unmarked -- It's part of the unmarked text in the draft ordinance. I'll see if I can find it. 1:49:22: Vice Chair Baltay: That's good. I just wanted to be clear. I just received the draft ordinance this morning. Secondly, there's an exception process, I assume. Could you describe how that works? If an applicant proposes something that doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance, who ** ... 1:49:35: Albert Yang: So, there's an exception process for situations where the applicant asserts that applying the standards strictly would violate federal law. ### Is this the only reason to have an exception process? What if the applicant wants to propose something that's more beautiful than the standards explicitly permit? Essentially. And in those cases, they're required to provide us -- to inform us that they're seeking an exception at the beginning of the application process. And supply us with all the evidence on which they're relying. They -- There's a provision the allows the Planning Director to refer those applications to the ARB, for a finding that -- um -- I believe it's that the design, you know, deviates from our existing standards to the minimum extent that's technically required. And -- that's essentially ... 1:50:33: Vice Chair Baltay: Is the referral to the ARB mandatory or optional, for the Planning Director? 1:50:38: Albert Yang: I believe it's optional. 1:50:42: 3 Chair Furth: And it's optional under the existing ordinance. 1:50:44: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:50:44: Vice Chair Baltay: I just wanted to be clear. Thank you. 1:50:46: Chair Furth: It's sec- -- page 9. paragraph (g). ### The proposed ordinance is in the staff report for the 03-27-19 PTC meeting. PDF page 13. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69988 1:50:50: Vice Chair Baltay: And then, If someone wanted to appeal one of these approvals, under this ordinance, how does the appeal process work? 1:50:57: Albert Yang: Ah. The appeals go directly to the Council. And they can either be placed on Consent, as the current ARB appeal process works, or they can go directly to a public hearing. And that's likely going to depend on the timeframe that we have. In most cases, it will probably go directly to a public hearing. 1:51:21: Vice Chair Baltay: But anyone can appeal these, under the same process as other decisions made by the Planning Director? 1:51:27: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:51:28: Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. That's all my questions. 1:51:32: Chair Furth: (unamplified) **. 1:51:34: Board Member Thompson: I don't have any questions. 1:51:37: Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. 1:51:40: Board Member Hirsch: (unamplified) Questions to staff? Or ... 1:51:43: Chair Furth: Yes. 4 1:51:46: Board Member Hirsch: (unamplified) I guess we found out that there's a -- (amplified) I guess we found out that there's a limited number of small cell facilities within an area. And increasing the small cells is a question I asked. Doesn't allow us to minimize the equipment sizes in any way? Is that your understanding? 1:52:14: Albert Yang: I -- that's -- I don't think that's entirely correct. You are asking a question of a representative of AT&T, who is already using the smallest form factor that's currently available. 1:52:25: Board Member Hirsch: Yes. OK. 1:52:25: Albert Yang: And so, you know, AT&T, in particular, would not be able to go to an even smaller form factor. They are proposing the smaller form factor that requires more sites. 1:52:41: Board Member Hirsch: OK. Um. Let me come back to -- 1:52:52: Chair Furth: So, does staff have an estimate of how many of these small cell facilities we should anticipate in the next 10 years? Seeing that these are good for 10 years. A range is fine. 1:53:07: **: (whispered) It's complicated. 1:53:11: Albert Yang: Ah ... 1:53:11: Chair Furth: I mean, ... 1:53:12: Albert Yang: ... I think, ... 1:53:12: Chair Furth: ... listening to the -- Listening to the comments, I'm anticipating hundreds. And hundreds. Is that unrealistic? 1:53:21: Rebecca Atkinson: Staff has asked our subconsultants and a wide variety -- you know, we've been researching that particular question. We're interested in knowing that as well. And there isn't conclusive information. And our subconsultants have not given us a number -- like a density per square mile, and things like that. But we are continuing to pursue that information. 1:53:45: 5 Chair Furth: So, the recent applications that we've approved, or recommended denial, what kind of density are those small facilities? Proposed? 1:53:52: Albert Yang: I guess I can take a stab at this. You know, we're seeing from Verizon that they're looking for 93 sites to cover the entire City. For 4G. 1:54:03: Chair Furth: Um hum. 1:54:03: Albert Yang: And those are using, for the most part, the larger form factor. So, if we were to require a smaller form factor, as staff is proposing in these standards, I think we've heard that that generally requires about twice as many sites. So, actually, you know, perhaps Verizon would need almost 200 sites to cover the entire City. 1:54:20: Chair Furth: That's for 4G. 1:54:21: Albert Yang: And that's for 4G. AT&T has proposed 17 sites right now. But, as we saw, earlier in the presentation, I believe they have 72 existing oDAS sites. 1:54:34: Chair Furth: Um hum. 1:54:34: Albert Yang: So, we're also looking at about 100 sites there. Look, going forward, I don't think we can really project how many sites there are going to be. But that's the information that we have about what's currently proposed. 1:54:47: Chair Furth: And do you anticipate more carriers wanting to file applications? I mean, is there an effective duopoly, or are there competitors? 1:54:58: Albert Yang: I don't think we have a way of really answering that question. 1:55:03: Rebecca Atkinson: I think we anticipate applications from those carriers that already have master license agreements. And any new carrier that doesn't have a master license agreement -- The carriers have reached out to the Utilities Department about that. 1:55:18: Chair Furth: And so, who has master license agreements now? 1:55:23: Rebecca Atkinson: The name of the entity ... 1:55:26: 6 Chair Furth: Just tell me how many. How many master license agreements do we have at the moment? 1:55:31: Rebecca Atkinson: Crown, AT&T, and Verizon. 1:55:35: Albert Yang: As well as another carrier's carrier that often works with Sprint. 1:55:44: Chair Furth: So, AT&T and Verizon. Plus two CLECs? Crown and somebody else? 1:55:54: Albert Yang: That's right. I'm not sure if the other -- the other entity is a CLEC. But ... ### Council should require staff to answer this. I think each master license agreement had to be approved by Council. 1:55:59: Chair Furth: Something like that perhaps. OK, so 4[00], maybe 800. Thank you. One of the things that Dr. Chow said in her presentation was that she thought that IF the City found itself approving facilities under these rules -- under the hammer of this existing order, that carrier should be required to replace these facilities with less obtrusive or objectionable facilities if the rules change. These -- The draft agreement, in section (n), on page 13 of the proposed standards, ### The staff report for the 03-27-19 PTC meeting contains a mark-up of the proposed ordinance. Section (n) is on PDF page 17. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69988 says that -- ordinance, rather -- says that, except as provided in a lease or license agreement, these are good for 10 years. Is it possible to -- in your opinion, to do what she's suggesting? To make the entitlement shorter? And is 10 years the shortest period? And what do our license agreements say? In terms of -- with respect to time? 1:57:10: Albert Yang: Um. So, I believe our license agreements -- or, master license agreements for right-of-way facilities -- have 10-year terms, but they're also renewable for a number of 10-year renewal terms. 1:57:24: Chair Furth: And that's at the option of the -- 1:57:26: Albert Yang: Of the carrier, I believe. 1:57:27: Chair Furth: Of the carrier. So they could be infinite. 1:57:29: Albert Yang: I -- There is a -- It's not infinite. I can't remember exactly what the -- you know, what the end date is. We also have leases and license agreements for macro sites that are on City property. And those may have other lengths. I'm not sure, off the top of my head. In terms of whether it's feasible for us to require replacement, you know, this is a condition that some other cities are imposing, and that are -- City Council, I believe, recently imposed on a recent application. It's part of the recommended ordinance to include that as a standard condition. How exactly that will play out, I'm not sure. 7 1:58:27: Chair Furth: Well, so that's -- So, an upgrade requirement is part of this ordinance in front of us? But it says they have a 10-year license? A 10-year permit? I'm confused how those go together. You don't have to answer that now, but it doesn't -- Were you saying that, yes, the City Council is interested in requiring upgrades or modifications, should that become within our power to do? 1:58:49: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:58:59: Chair Furth: And you would draft this ordinance not to eliminate it? 1:58:53: Albert Yang: That's right. 1:58:54: Chair Furth: Thanks. I'm having trouble reconciling the two. OK. Um. So, before we start discussing this, what staff has asked us for is comments on proposed designs that would be generally seen as OK. If a proposal came in that complied with those designs, they would be acceptable. They include installations on posts. They would not -- And poles and light poles. Right? Electrical poles -- wooden electrical poles. Utility poles. And light poles. They do NOT include street furniture. And the public, in their comments, have mostly focused on the ordinance. Which will actually be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. So, does anybody have any comments on the proposed design standards that were in our packet? 1:59:54: Board Member Thompson: I have a question, Chair Furth. So, the exhibits that were provided on packet page 52 onward, ... 2:00:04: Chair Furth: Um hum. 2:00:05: Board Member Thomson: ... those were the designs we should be commenting on. Correct? ### I think ARB should have been commenting on Attachments A and B (the proposed objective aesthetic standards), possibly referring to the designs illustrated in Attachment D as examples of good designs Attachments A and B permit, or examples of bad designs Attachments A and B don't permit. 2:00:10: Chair Furth: Staff want to take us through your proposal? Starts on page -- um -- starts on page 46. Streetlight poles. And then, on [page] 48, it goes on to wood utility poles. And, Rebecca, what are the -- What's the relevance of the illustrations in Attachment D? 2:00:40: Rebecca Atkinson: Thank you very much. So, we're asking for comments on the actual standards. And what types of design options might or might not be acceptable. In order to help work through the draft administrative standards, in order to help understand what types of designs would fall into these categories -- staff put together Attachment D -- with some further comments and notes. So, if you're talking about the particular standards for streetlight poles, there's three proposed: underground, integrated pole, and top-mounted. So, we're looking for comments on those particular designs. Design options. Whether this should all be included, and so forth. Then, are some general standards for all. And then, for wood utility poles, there's the underground design, top-mounted design, side-mounted design, minimal 8 sunshield (or minimal side-mount design), and the strand-mount design. So, we're looking for feedback on which of these might work. So, these actual draft standards that will be going forward to Council. And so, we're hoping that the illustrations and graphics will help promote your discussion on the standards. 2:02:02: Chair Furth: Well, my question is, are those illustrations PART of the guidelines? The design guidelines? I didn't see that. 2:02:09: Albert Yang: They are NOT. And what staff will be pursuing is putting together standard drawings that are more like plans, to illustrate what the designs and the guidelines look like. 2:02:27: Chair Furth: But those won't be part of the guidelines either. 2:02:29: Albert Yang: Not in the first iteration. 2:02:32: Chair Furth: Thank you. 2:02:32: Albert Yang: But we'll work with our Public Works and Utilities Departments to put those together. 2:02:36: Chair Furth: OK. And I had one other question for the Board. We have members of the Utilities Department here. Any questions of them? OK. Seeing none, ... 2:02:47: Board Member Thompson: I had a question of staff. The trash can option -- is that in the ordinance anywhere? Or is that not desired by the City? 2:02:56: Albert Yang: So, that's something that we're looking for feedback from the ARB on. Is that something we should be adding in? 2:03:04: Board Member Thompson: All right. Thank you. 2:03:05: Chair Furth: At present, you're only providing -- you're only proposing design standards that would allow installations on utility poles. And streetlights. And perhaps underground. Is that right? ### Ancillary equipment would be allowed in those three places, but also on a wire between poles. The antenna would be allowed on utility poles, on streetlights, and on a wire between poles. I don't know why an antenna shouldn't be allowed underground, but it's not enumerated. 2:03:21: 9 Albert Yang: That's right. We have much broader standards that will apply to proposals to locate on private property. On rooftops, for example. And as time permits, we'll be working on more detailed and specific standards for those types of applications as well. But because the vast -- almost all of our applications are for these right-of-way projects, we focused on those first. ### So, there isn't much guidance for deployments on private property. 2:03:53: Chair Furth: So, let's just quickly talk about streetlight poles. So it says, radio and other equipment MAY be placed in an underground vault, where space permits. So, they're never required. Correct? 2:04:06: Albert Yang: That's -- 2:04:08: Chair Furth: Undergrounding is never required. 2:04:09: Albert Yang: That's right. It's one of the options ... 2:04:14: Chair Furth: If they came to you and said we have a new silent thing, that doesn't make noise, and it was a space where the Utility Department wasn't feeling quite so expansive, it could be done, but it's never required. 2:04:24: Albert Yang: That's correct. 2:04:26: Chair Furth: Thank you. OK. Anybody got comments on the proposed designs? 2:04:30: Vice Chair Baltay: (unamplified) Can I start? 2:04:32: Chair Furth: (unamplified) Well, let's not tear it all down first. I just want to know if anybody has comments on - - (amplified) OK. So, no comments on the proposals? Is that right? I understand we might want to talk about the whole issue of proposals. But, any comments on the proposed illustrations, designs, options? 2:04:49: Board Member Thompson: Yeah. 2:04:49: Chair Furth: Go ahead, Osma. Board Member Thompson. 2:04:52: Board Member Thompson: Well, so, I went through the images in Attachment D. And wrote little notes next to each of them. In general, the designs that were favorable -- I thought were aesthetically superior to others -- were ones that attempted to integrate within the existing pole designs. So, for example, on sheet -- packet page 55, on the leftmost 10 image, there's an antenna that looks pretty well integrated with the light pole. There were other images on here that were ... 2:05:42: Chair Furth: Excuse me, Osma. You're referring to 12" 4G or the photograph? 2:05:48: Board Member Thompson: I'm referring to the photograph. The photograph, that does not have -- 2:05:53: Chair Furth: The photograph on packet page 55. 2:05:56: Board Member Thompson: Yeah. But even on these other ones, there were a few that were less successful. So, the 12" 4G/5G Multi-Tenant, I felt like, was not successful. 2:06:11: Chair Furth: You're still on page 55? 2:06:12: Board Member Thompson: I am. Yeah. That would be the pole that's the second from the right. Because it has these pieces of equipment that sort of stick out from the pole. But then, again, the pole to the very right -- the 16" smooth -- seems like a better, more sleek choice. Um. So -- So, in that sense -- That was sort of my observation. And, in general, there were some scenarios that seemed more successful than others. In a busy scenario, like in a -- on packet page 59, where there's signage in front of the equipment, that's pretty clever. I don't know that Palo Alto has enough signage **. Maybe there might be a case one day where we become urban enough where that would be acceptable. I actually like the trash can solution. That's why I kept asking about it. I think it's nice to have something that's multi- functional, that blends in with the City. So, I would be open to that as an option. So long as the City is willing to service the trash. That's an important caveat. (laughs) It has to be agreed to. ### Obviously, the dual-purpose trash can design can contain less real trash than a real trash can, and that would affect trash-servicing requirements. Would a dual-purpose trash can design heat the trash? So, in general, I would say, those were probably the most successful designs that I saw in Attachment D. The other ones -- There were a few others that came close. But I feel like those were probably the ones that exhibited the most sleek aesthetic. ### Can the objective aesthetic standards adopt an objective definition for "sleek"? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sleek You probably don't mean shiny, well-groomed, healthy-looking, unctuous, or having a prosperous air. 2:07:48: Chair Furth: Thank you. David. 2:07:50: Board Member Hirsch: Um. I partially agree -- partially agree with what was just said. I think all suppliers should provide an illustration, along with what their applying for 4G or a 5G on each of the poles. On the assumption that we're going to get there at some point, and we'd better see it now. And, as it just indicated, it's likely to be a separate piece of equipment on the pole. So, I would say, it ought to be a requirement of the ordinance that the 5G is part of the presentation. It seems like there's a lot of different variations on the 4G arrangement. And the shroud of it. And that there should be a limitation on the size of that. I've seen some that seem to be only 5 or 6 feet high, and others that are much, much higher. I guess for 12" 4G/SG -- no, 4G/5G -- shown on -- the one that was mentioned -- the second from the right -- 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:00 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:PART 3 -- TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 03-21-19 ARB meeting, Item 3 -- objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards for WCFs ARB Board Members, Here's Part 3. Jeff ############################################################################## [CONTINUED FROM PART 2] https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-3212019/ 2:30:04: OK. Peter. I know you had something you wanted to say. 2:30:08: Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Chair Furth. I've given a lot of thought to this recently, and over the past couple of months. And I just want to put out there, to my colleagues mostly, that I think we should be making a stronger, unified statement regarding what we think is an appropriate way to move forward with these designs. I want to start this by just sort of putting some grounding to this. In Palo Alto, architectural review of these small cell facilities is required by ordinance. I can cite the statement, ### Palo Alto City Code, Section 18.42.110 is about WCFs. http://library.amlegal.com/ nxt/gateway.dll/California/ paloalto_ca/ paloaltomunicipalcode?f= templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$ vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca but it says very clearly, wireless communications facilities must be -- must receive architectural review. ### I'm not sure about this. But maybe it should. (Section 18.42.120 Resource Conservation Energy, (a) says, "Architectural review is required pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.76.20." But there's nothing in Section 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities that says exactly this. Section 18.42.110 (a) says, in part, "A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both.") And I don't see anything in the proposed ordinance that changes that fundamental requirement. What I see is that the proposed ordinance is really a type of architecture review. It sort of makes it a minor review that goes through staff, and then it tries to codify some standards to make it easier. Which makes sense, given the FCC requirements we have. ### FCC 18-133 doesn't require the City to mirror the substance of FCC 18-133 in City code. 2 But I think we fundamentally have to say that the basic REQUIREMENT of architectural review still remains. And I think it's very important for us to stand firm on that. So the question, really, is, does this proposed codification of -- objectification of these things still meet the architectural review standards? And that's where I want to, then, put forth to my colleagues. What I've done is drafted a one-page statement. And I'd like to pass it out to you guys. And then see if we can either agree on it, or modify it, or come to some stipulation this is what we think. So, with that, I'd like to just give this to everybody. And I have one copy for staff. And I'm going to read it also. (There's two more here.) And this is based on the reviews we've been making over the past couple of months. So, what -- I'll read this out, for the record. ### The record thanks you. 2:32:00: The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Statement on Small Cell Wireless Communication Facilities. It is the recommendation of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board that all small cell wireless communication facilities be installed either below grade or sufficiently above the ground to be directly out of -- to be out of the direct line of sight of pedestrians. And I'm putting in parentheses, there, perhaps 20 feet off the ground, or somehow concealed within existing infrastructure. It's a definition we've struggled with. The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board has recently reviewed several applications for small cell wireless communication facilities. Each application has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto ARB findings. ### Palo Alto City Code, Section 18.76.020 Architectural Review, (d) findings. These findings seem to be generic, not specific to WCFs. http://library.amlegal.com/ nxt/gateway.dll/California/ paloalto_ca/ paloaltomunicipalcode?f= templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$ vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca Of note is finding (2)(E), which requires the proposal to enhance the living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas. And finding (3), which requires the proposal to be of high aesthetic quality, using high-quality integrated materials and appropriate construction technique, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. I've highlighted those two terms: "enhance ... living conditions" and "enhance the surrounding area." 2:33:10: Recently, the ARB has found that antennas concealed in an integrated shroud and mounted at the top of either an existing streetlight or utility pole are acceptable design solutions, and are in conformance with the required ARB findings. Two: Radio and power equipment, concealed by a shroud and mounted at the TOP of either an existing street ### streetlight? or utility pole are acceptable design solutions, and are in conformance with the required ARB findings. Three: Radio and power equipment, either exposed or concealed by a shroud, and mounted on the SIDE of an existing streetlight or utility pole, are NOT acceptable design solutions, and PREVENT the ARB from making finding (2)(E) and finding (3). Four: Radio and power equipment located within new ground-mounted equipment enclosures are NOT acceptable design solutions, and prevent the ARB from making finding (2)(E) and (3). Applicants claim that their installations will be carefully integrated and represent only a small, minor visual intrusion on the streetscape. The Planning staff has noted, however, that there are an increasing number of similar applications, and that the number of proposed wireless communication applications and installations is likely to increase. As the quantity of wireless communication facilities installations increases, small negative visual impacts will be multiplied, resulting in a significant overall reduction in the aesthetic quality of the streetscape. The Architectural Review Board EXISTS to help safeguard the aesthetic quality of the built environment in Palo Alto. And it finds that wireless communication facility equipment mounted on the sides of streetlights and utility poles REDUCES the overall aesthetic quality of the streetscape, and is NOT in conformance with the design standards of the City. 3 2:35:02: I don't know if that's exactly what we want to say. But I've tried -- I want to see if we can come together behind SOMETHING that we put out there, as a statement from the ARB. 2:35:11: Chair Furth. Thank you. Albert, to be clear, under the revised ordinance, the ARB standards would no longer apply to these facilities. Is that correct? 2:35:23: Albert Yang: That's correct. Until -- Unless, you know, the FCC order is invalidated in some way, and the City Council repeals the objective standards, the ARB standards would no longer apply. 2:35:38: Chair Furth: Thank you. 2:35:39: Vice Chair Baltay: Are we then changing the ARB ordinance that says otherwise? 2:35:45: Albert Yang: Can you point me to the section that you're citing? 2:35:49: Chair Furth: I think that the AR- -- The reason that we review these is because the wireless facility ordinance currently says that we do. 2:35:59: Vice Chair Baltay: It's Section -- what -- 18.76.020 (3)(D). ### That is, 18.76.020 Architectural Review, (b) Applicability, (3) Minor Projects, (D) Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13. http://library.amlegal.com/ nxt/gateway.dll/California/ paloalto_ca/ paloaltomunicipalcode?f= templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$ vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca Regarding the description of which projects review, "Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment." Etc. ### Chapter 2.11 is about video service providers. Chapter 12.04 is about definitions. Chapter 12.08 is about maintenance and construction of streets, sidewalks, driveways, and driveway approaches. Chapter 12.09 is about equipment or facilities in rights-of-way. Chapter 12.10 is about street cut fees. Chapter 12.13 is about state video franchise fees. 2:36:21: Albert Yang: I believe that that refers to cable equipment, and not to these wireless communication facilities. 2:36:34: 4 Chair Furth: So, it's YOUR intent -- Um. Sorry. So, it's the intent of this revised ordinance that the ARB not apply its standards. Because they are not objective standards, within the meaning of the FCC order. ### Specifically, within FCC 18-133, right? 2:36:55: Albert Yang: That's correct. Ah. As the result of the FCC order, we're NOT permitted to apply our Architectural Review standards. 2:37:05: Chair Furth: OK. And there are a number of City ordinances outside of the one that sets up the ARB that -- sorry, I just lost that page. Um. 2:37:18: Vice Chair Baltay: (unamplified) This is the ARB ordinance. 2:37:19: Chair Furth: Thank you. I've got it in my file too. So, it's 18- -- OK. "Any project relating to the installation of cabinets ..." -- That's the cable cabinet. Cable equipment. That applies to. I'm looking at 18.76.020(b)(3)(D). 2:37:44: Albert Yang: We'll take another look at this issue. But I think, Chair Furth, what you expressed was correct. 2:37:46: Chair Furth: OK. So, I have one prob- -- go ahead. 2:37:53: Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I just want to -- again, to my colleagues -- I don't want us to get wrangled up in what the legal requirements of our reviews are, and things like that. We have a City Attorney and staff, and they're working very hard on this, under a lot of tight conditions. But I do want to remind the five of us that WE'RE here to help safeguard the aesthetic quality of our town. And I think we've consistently felt that when you put this equipment down at eye level, it doesn't -- it just doesn't do that. It looks worse, not better. And I think we need to STATE that. We need to say it very clearly, so that staff and the public can hear us say such. It's just not OK. ### The place to say it is in the objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards. A small bit here and there adds up to be a lot. And I want us to just say that. Loud and clear. Rather than get wrangled up in the details. And the City Council can, in their wisdom, decide how they want to legislate this. That's not our doing. 2:38:43: Chair Furth: So, I just have one comment before the rest of us talk. Before we all talk. Which is that I have felt it's very difficult for us to make the City's ARB findings on these facilities. They're not drawn up to consider these facilities. And, while some applications are better than others -- and certainly some people will consider the availability of more bandwidth in their neighborhoods a good thing, enhancing their residential living experience, it's hard for me to see any of these an aesthetic improvement on existing conditions. So, I am interested in having a statement, independent of -- So, that having been said, I am grateful that we are no longer trying to shoehorn ARB standards into a place where they don't fit. Which is FCC-mandated reviews. So I appreciate that kind of contortion being removed. OK. Comments. 5 2:39:41: Board Member Thompson: I can start. 2:39:42: Chair Furth: Sure. 2:39:43: Board Member Thompson: So, I'm going to comment on the piece of paper you just sent out, Peter. And your statement. I have a few edits that I'd like to propose. And we can discuss it. And I'll kind of go from bottom to up, actually. So, at the bottom, we have the four stipulations of what the ARB has recently found. Item number 4 is about ground-mounted equipment. Enclosures. I wouldn't -- I'd like to talk that. Because I think there are scenarios where that would be acceptable. In the case of trash cans. Or even like planters. And if there's something that could improve the streetscape, or improve the aesthetic quality of that street, then I think it's something that maybe we could consider. 2:40:38: Vice Chair Baltay: I'm all with you. And benches, as Wynne pointed out, are a another good example. 2:40:43: Board Member Thompson: Yeah. So, if there could be a way that we could make an edit that even though, in recent -- we have found that, you know, blatantly, un-designed ground-mounted equipment is not acceptable, designed ground- mounted equipment would be acceptable. So long as it enhances the surrounding landscape. And then, the other note that I would suggest is -- this is in the first paragraph, about -- equipment should be installed either below grade or sufficiently above the ground to be out of the line-of-sight of pedestrians. I think it might be worthwhile to add a note that - - that if it is -- if it is above ground, that it should be designed in a slim-line, sleek, site-specific way. Because it could be - - I have seen some of the pictures in Attachment D where things ARE above the line-of-sight, and they're gigantic. It's a big lollypop on a stick over there. So I think to stress that we are looking for a sleek, small, slim-line design, if it is, in fact, above ground. 2:41:59: Vice Chair Baltay: I agree. Absolutely. I didn't want to get into trying to rewrite again the proposal staff has written. ### But this is exactly what ARB is being asked to do. I think they've done a fairly good job, actually, of defining potential shrouds above the -- on top of utility poles. And all of that struck me as a pretty well-done process. And I think we can just refer to, or support that. It's the fact that they allow it in the middle area, where you see it that bothered me. 2:42:23: Board Member Thompson: OK. And you're referring to the top-mounted note on page 46? 2:42:28: Vice Chair Baltay: Um. 2:42:31: Chair Furth: (unamplified) So those are your -- (amplified) Do you have any other proposals? 2:42:33: 6 Board Member Thompson: Those are my two notes, David, on this -- 2:42:47: Board Member Hirsch: The issue of other equipment on the street -- 2:42:51: Chair Furth: You're going to have to be close to the mike, again. 2:42:54: Board Member Hirsch: OK. The trash can concept -- of including some of the equipment in ground items of that sort -- I can understand that in a larger context. I don't see its possibility in Palo Alto. Except maybe in a few areas. So, I really think it shouldn't be an open possibility, but is a possibility in very specific areas where there's enough sidewalk and other amenities on the ground, that it would -- and it wouldn't disturb the immediate surrounding. ### How do you specify that objectively? I absolutely agree with the minimizing of the facility at the top of the pole. But I also want to comment that even if you state that -- it really is important to state that it's symmetrical to the pole. We've seen different, off -- off-the-side kind of concepts, that -- or materials, that really wouldn't enhance the look at the top of the pole. There are some that are symmetrical to the pole, or around the pole, the way it shows on the top. And I think that's the only way in which the equipment should be placed. Close to the top. So that it enhances the look of the top of the pole, not adds another element to the side of the pole. 2:44:26: I'm very concerned about the way the electric comes up the pole. ### I assume Board Member Hirsch is talking only about wood utility poles. For streetlight poles, the electric goes up inside the pole. And I'm wondering if there are other ways to bring the electric to the facilities that are on the top. And that's not really discussed anywhere here in these standards. I don't have an easy answer, of course. These metal poles are great for that because everything goes up the middle, and there are handholes that you can find your way into the pole, and do whatever maintenance is necessary. But glomming those wires on the side of the wood pole certainly isn't delightful, in the many communities that have the wood poles. But I don't know what the answer might be. And I think that ought to be studied. Maybe by Public Works. How that can be done more aesthetically. And I would add that item, somehow, to what Peter's written here. But, in general, I agree with all of what's stated here. 2:45:30: Except that the -- installing vaults in the neighborhoods doesn't seem to be a reasonable alternative. It's an additional problem in the street. You know. ### I don't think it's proposed to install vaults in the street. Things get stuck in vaults. They get filled up with garbage. And maintenance is a problem. I can see maintenance in the downtown area. Certainly a better possibility. But not in the neighborhoods with the wooden poles. ### This seems not to be an aesthetic judgment. 2:46:04: Chair Furth: OK? 7 2:46:06: Board Member Hirsch: OK. 2:46:07: Chair Furth: Alex. 2:46:11: Board Member Lew: OK. So, I think I internally don't support the letter, because, really, the bulk of the letter is about finding (2) and finding (3), which are going away. So, to me, the letter is not relevant to the issue at hand today. I do support many of the things IN here, but I -- Yeah, it just doesn't -- the letter, to me, just seems out of place. Um. And, just in some detail. Like -- For example, like, item number three says, "Radio and power equipment, either concealed or exposed by a shroud, and on the side of an existing streetlight or utility pole, are not acceptable design solutions ...." But - - Like, say, for example, in the packet, there's a -- there are photos of the Cesar Chavez cell sites. ### Packet page 58. http://cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/documents/ 69895 (The staff report says "Caesar.") And, actually, I looked at those, even before this ... 2:47:08: Chair Furth: Alex, would you mind giving us a page number? 2:47:09: Board Member Lew: Sure. Um. So, packet page 58. And it's the image on the left. Um. So I've been like stuck traffic on Army street before -- Cesar Chavez street. And I've looked at them. And I've said, oh, that looks like attractive. And that's very nice. And the side equipment is tiny. And so, I don't like these sort of very broad statements saying that there's really no situation where it's acceptable. I really don't like those very blanket statements generally. ### Yes, but in a way, objective aesthetic standards are blanket statements. Right? So, -- Yeah. So, that's where I am on the letter. I think it's fine to send the letter to the Council. But I think it's something -- I guess I would say, it would be backwards-looking. Just commenting on previous proposals. Because the findings really aren't relevant anymore. 2:48:07: Vice Chair Baltay: If we were to remove the paragraph regarding the findings, Alex, would you be able to support it then? I'm -- I think it would be great if we could be unanimous on something. 2:48:23: Board Member Lew: No, I think that's still -- I think, generally, the letter is still too broad. I think, like, those comments about furniture -- and here, there can be side-mounted things that are very small, that are very discrete. Yeah. And it seems to me that if you have issues with the design, then it should be put in the objectives. ### Bingo. But that's not necessarily easy. I mean, that's going to live on. Any letter that you send to the Council, that will go, and it will -- They'll think about it. But it won't go into any ordinance or code. ### Yes. I'd be surprised if Council want to wordsmith the objective aesthetic standards. 8 So, it seems to me like the focus should be on the objective standards. I mean, that's where the energy should be put, and not on this letter. ### Or, if you get the objective standards right, you don't need a letter? 2:49:07: Chair Furth: So, I have a thought. I don't know if it helps. I'm generally in favor -- I mean, I find this a very helpful summary of what we've done, and what we've learned. And when you think back to our first hearings. I mean, I wasn't here for the original AT&T hearings. But a LOT of information has emerged over time. From the applicants, the citizens, and the City staff, who have all worked long and hard on this. And staff asked us for comments on a specific set of possible design standards, which will be adopted by resolution. Which means they can be changed frequently. They can be updated relatively easily. They're not ordinances. And I just heard more from you in your comment to Peter's letter than I heard in our earlier rounds. For example, you ... 2:49:50: Board Member Lew: I have other comments, but they're not -- They're more general. 2:49:53: Chair Furth: OK. But, I mean, it's helpful to know that the Concealed/Fab Dual SUP Sunshield, in your experience, can work quite well in some settings. ### (Packet page 58.) Um. I guess there are a couple points that I think it might be useful to make. And one of them is to say -- and -- but -- do we have consensus that, on the whole, the addition of these small cell wireless communication facilities does NOT -- does have an adverse aesthetic impact on neighborhoods? In the City? 2:50:27: Vice Chair Baltay: I think so. 2:50:30: Board Member Hirsch: I think so, too. 2:50:31: Chair Furth: Osma? 2:50:33: Board Member Thompson: If it's done well, then it would be OK. 2:50:36: Chair Furth: So you think it's possible. 2:50:38: Board Member Thompson: I think it's possible to do it right. Yeah. ### Next question, obviously: Is it possible to write objective aesthetic standard that compel WCFs to be done right? 9 2:50:40: Chair Furth: Alex? 2:50:43: Board Member Lew: Ah. I've not thought about it. I would say that some of them have come to the Board. But not all of them. And I have gone out there and seen sites that haven't come to the Board. Right? So, there are more out there than I know that I'm aware of. 2:50:57: Chair Furth: ** sites? 2:50:59: Board Member Lew: No. They're AT- -- They're old. 2:51:01: Chair Furth: Old? AT&T? 2:51:01: Board Member Lew: They're AT&T sites that were -- let me see -- they were approved after the first batch. Right? And I think it was done by staff. Is my guess. 2:51:13: Chair Furth: OK. So, two of us -- at least two of us -- feel that -- I guess I would say that I feel that the small cell wireless equipment installed in the City to date, generally, does NOT -- generally has an adverse effect on the streetscape and neighborhoods. Um. And I would say that there's going to be greatly increased demand for these. For that. ### If the City deployed a citywide municipal FTTP network, there would be a lot less demand for fixed 5G services from WCFs. And I would say that the application of -- that -- um -- because these facilities, as they've been proposed, are difficult -- I mean, don't enhance -- typically do not visually enhance neighborhoods, the ARB standards are not at present likely to be consistent with the federal requirements that we're facing. Um. That's not a very well put together sentence. I mean, what I'd like to say is, they don't look good. And so, reviewing them under ARB standards makes us go into contortions, because we're trying to work within a federal overlay that requires approval of SOMETHING, and we have not yet seen SOMETHING that would meet our traditional ARB standards. Um. I'd like to say -- um -- I'm trying to find Peter's document again. I would like to say that we're fine with Item 1 -- that those are generally the best design solutions we've found. I'd like to say that you can also design radio and power equipment concealed by a shroud and mounted at the top of an existing street or utility pole. And that's acceptable, provided that it's a sleek, well-integrated design. I'd like to say, that there may be situations in which equipment can be placed in well-designed street furniture that is otherwise desirable at that location. And I'd like to say that there may be other designs that are unobtrusive, sleek, and well-integrated, that may be acceptable after further review. And that the board believes that a workshop or other process to continue to explore these design standards -- after the urgency standards are placed into -- after the first round are placed into effect -- would be very valuable. 2:54:18: Vice Chair Baltay: Let me try to, Alex, counter what you just said about the design of these things. Because I don't actually disagree with you, in practice. I think that good architects -- good designers -- could design this equipment to go in many places. Even within the visual realm that we're talking about. I think that what's missing from you is that that's not the condition we have here. We're under a very tight approval process. These applications are generally being done 10 by companies that don't have an interest in design. They're interested -- their engineers are interested in the functionality of it. And I think we're not being realistic when we say -- I agree. This box you showed that's on page 58. The small pod-mounted box is fine. But that's not what we're receiving as applications. And we're not likely to receive that. And I think you're trying too hard for the very good, rather than being willing to say a broader statement that will fit the needs right now of the City. And the risk is going to be that we're going to have many of these that are much worse than this. And we'll be allowing them. And we're giving it our stamp of approval, as the ARB. And that's where I'm concerned. 2:55:28: Board Member Lew: ** Like, if we -- so, if you don't -- so, if we like this, it should go in the objective standards. Right? On packet page 58. And then, if there's an example that, say, we've seen recently that we don't like - - I mean, I would just -- I would recommend putting that in the objective standards and saying this is not acceptable. 2:55:45: Vice Chair Baltay: I just think it's too complicated, to try to make standards that are this detailed, under something that's changing this much, with this much restriction from the government. 2:55:53: Board Member Lew: Right. But what is the -- But, then, what is your letter do? 2:55:55: Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just ... 2:55:56: Board Member Lew: Nothing. That's the problem. 2:55:58: Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to give City Council the backup to say, look, we just have to make a broader statement of where these things are acceptable. Until we have a better process. If they want to remove the public review process -- which is what we are -- which is how we could ask for this kind of thing -- then the Council has to be aware of what they're doing. That's really the point of this letter. I'm not trying to stipulate how they have to design it. But rather just to say, as the Architecture Board, I don't want to put our stamp of approval on something that I think is not going to be as attractive as you're pointing to. 2:56:30: Board Member Lew: If we don't like a particular thing, it should be in this document. If people see it -- if the public sees it -- they will complain. And the Planning Director can refer it to the ARB. ### FCC 18-133 says, in effect, that if the City's objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards don't forbid a certain design, then an applicant can propose such a design, and there's nothing the City can do to stop it. I mean, that's the way it should go. And then there's something on the table, that the companies can see, neighbors can see it. And the staff have something to work with, and something to leverage. And -- Yeah. AndI think that's where I am on this. And I don't disagree with you that some of the recent 5G ones are kind of -- are a little funny looking. With things bolted on the side. So, I have no disagreement about that. But -- And I'm fine with putting it in, saying it's not acceptable. I also think it's fine to put it in a letter, saying -- like, a summary of the issues that we face. I have no issues with doing that. But I'm thinking that, going forward, we should -- what do I want to say -- I think maybe we should separate it. Right? There's one thing about going forward, and the second thing is just all our view of the existing approval -- um -- approval process. The existing approval process for the cellphones -- cell sites. 2:57:56: Board Member Hirsch: ** up to this. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:02 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:PART 1 -- TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 03-21-19 ARB meeting, Item 3 -- objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards for WCFs ARB Board Members, At the 03-21-19 ARB meeting, http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69898 you considered an item (Item 3) about the City's making objective aesthetic, noise, etc. standards for wireless communications facilities (WCFs). Here's the staff report (43 pages). http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69895 I have transcribed the video for this item and added my comments. (Please see below the "######" line. My comments are the paragraphs in red, beginning with "###".) https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-3212019/ GENERAL COMMENTS I think it was unreasonable of the FCC to issue an order (FCC 18-133) saying that, after 04-15-19, the City's only aesthetic, noise, and other standards for WCFs must be objective and published in advance. (Except for exceptions initiated by applicants.) I hope FCC 18-133 is invalidated, whether by litigation (which is ongoing), or legislation (H.R. 530), or some other way. Meanwhile, ARB was asked to participate in creating those objective aesthetic standards. On 03-21-19, I think ARB tried to do a good job, but kept being distracted by what the aesthetic standards should be if the ARB were allowed to continue its current practice of determining them subjectively. It's really hard to create objective aesthetic standards. It's a little like writing a computer program to make aesthetic decisions. I note that the world's best go-playing computer programs weren't written by the world's best go players. Staff's proposal for the objective aesthetic standards was to list a menu of possible designs, with constraints for each, and to forbid anything not on the menu. In theory, there could be other approaches. For example, Chair Furth suggested, why not say that the ancillary equipment for a WCF must be undergrounded if feasible? But she didn't get majority support for that idea. I hope ARB will be willing to help refine the City's objective aesthetic standards for WCFs in the future. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: References: * 03-15-19: "There's No 5G Race" 2 https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/03/15/the-non-existing-race-for-5g/ "There is no 5G race; there is no 5G war; there is no 5G crisis." And: "Please think twice before you buy into the 5G hype." * 03-20-19: "Analysts Question Financial Viability of Verizon Home 5G Fixed Service" https://www.telecompetitor.com/analysts-question-financial-viability-of-verizon-home-5g-fixed-wireless- service/?mc_cid=c91bcef9d9&mc_eid=99443c82f8 * 03-20-19: "Are You Ready For 6G?" https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/03/20/are-you-ready-for-6g/ * 03-15-19: "It's Officially Time to Start Talking About 6G" https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/its-officially-time-to-start-talking-about-6g/a/d- id/750205?mc_cid=7d2040cb96&mc_eid=99443c82f8 I PPS: I had to send this transcript & comments in three separate messages, due to the limitations of my email tool. ############################################################################## Video of 03-21-19 ARB meeting: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-3212019/ 0:47:19: Chair Furth: While we're setting up for Item -- the next item -- Item 3, which is the ARB review and recommendation for draft objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way, I'm going to open the hearing now, before we take a short break, so that -- I have a speaker card here, from a speaker who needs to leave by 9:40. Which is Tina Chow. If you'd like to come and make your remarks. You have three minutes, from when you spell your name and start. 0:47:49: Tina Chow: (unamplified) I can wait ... 0:47:50: Chair Furth: Oh, you can wait? 0:47:51: Tina Chow: (unamplified) I mean, I have to leave at 9:40. 0:47:52: Chair Furth: Why don't you do it now, because it's going to be a little jammed. 0:47:55: Tina Chow: (unamplified) Thank you. OK. 0:48:08: Tina Chow: All right. Good morning, everyone. Is this -- 0:48:10: Chair Furth: Good morning. 0:48:10: 3 Tina Chow: Is this on? OK. My name's Tina Chow. I live in Barron Park. And I'm a professor in civil and environmental engineering at U.C. Berkeley. I already sent you some written comments. So I just want to summarize those briefly, and expand on one of them. My first point was that our neighborhoods are so distinct that I don't believe any menu of options will suffice, in these decisions for the wireless communications facilities. Second, this ARB review process that we're having now allows for critical public input and discussion, and should NOT be removed from the process. So I ask that you please make a specific recommendation to City Council to keep the ARB public hearings, and ensure that every cell tower gets individual review. Third, I asked that you please continue to insist on undergrounding of equipment. And my fourth point was that we need an updated wireless ordinance that safeguards residents and their interests. So, I wanted to take a few moments to expand on this. First, I wanted to just say that I urge you not to incorporate any of the specific FCC standards into our ordinance, because, according to independent law firms, current and future litigation may reverse these standards. And Including such FCC standards into our ordinance's language would bind the city of such standards, regardless of the outcomes of the litigation. So, instead, what I think we should do is work together to create a better ordinance, just like dozens of other cities are doing -- in the Bay Area, across California, and across the country. Some examples are Orinda, San Raphael, San Anselmo, Hillsboro, Danville -- the list goes on and on -- of cities in the Bay Area that are working to improve the ordinance and include resident interests in them. So, some examples of things that we can ask for are minimum spacings between towers -- for example, 1,500 or 2,000 feet. We can ask for minimum setbacks from resident homes and schools. We can even ask for increased fees and revenues for the City. Yes, there are descriptions about this. But we can charge for actual costs of processing these applications. We can ask for requirements that if there are less visually intrusive facilities that become available as technology improves, that these be replaced. We can ask for liability and insurance for each node. We can ask for monitoring requirements of the radio frequencies from these towers. We can ask for property value assessments, protection from trees, and compliance with the American Disabilities Act for electrohypersensitivity. So, the ADA -- I just want to expand on this one a little bit -- as you know, is intended to protect disabled people from discrimination, and provides general definitions for a disability. The U.S. Access Board and the Department of Labor recognize electromagnetic sensitivity as a disability. So I'd like to ask that you ask the City to add an ADA section and an ADA definition that describes a disability as "any physical impairment affecting a major life activity," including language from Title II, which requires public agencies to make all their services, programs, and activities ADA accessible. So, that would mean including language that indicates that ADA claims can be made of some sort of discrimination. For example, that persons -- that is, that persons with disabilities are prevented from some activity can be shown. And we can include language in the exceptions chapter, and in the compliance with laws chapter, saying that the Americans Disabilities Act, which is a federal law -- sorry, the exceptions chapter should INCLUDE the Americans with Disabilities Act as a federal law that is equal in authority to the Federal Communications ... 0:51:23: Chair Furth: Thank you, Doctor. Any last sentence? 0:51:26: Tina Chow: The last sentence is that I ask that you consider making a task force, where residents could actually work on this. Because doing this in three minutes is really hard. And we have a lot of ideas. 0:51:34: Chair Furth: Thank you. I want to say -- Thank you for your presentation. But I want to say to you and others that the ordinance itself has not formally been provided to us. We did get a copy this morning. So, the Planning Commission -- Planning & Transportation Commission -- will be reviewing it -- What's the date, Albert? 0:51:50: Albert Yang: Next Thursday. 0:51:51: Chair Furth: Next Thursday ... 0:51:52: Albert Yang: Next Wednesday. Sorry, next Wednesday. 4 0:51:53: Chair Furth: Next Wednesday. Which is going to be the key hearing on that. Followed by Council action. Thank you. We're going to take a five-minute break before we hear the rest of this. And then we'll be back. Thank you. 0:52:01: BREAK 0:59:05: Chair Furth: Is staff ready? OK. Just before we go on to our next item, ... [comment about Item 2 elided] 0:59:28: Chair Furth: OK. Our next item -- I guess I already read it, but I'll do it again -- is the ARB review and recommendation of draft objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for wireless communications facilities in the public right-of- way. And the staff report will be prepared by Rebecca Atkinson. This is NOT a quasi-judicial matter, I guess. We're commenting on a proposed regulation. So I won't ask anybody about external communications. I will note that we have all received a large number of emails on this. Which staff has made available if they were received before -- before five yesterday? -- what's the cutoff? 1:00:15: Amy French: Correct. Five pm. Then we printed them out in hard copy. If they were emailed after five, they were emailed -- forwarded to you. We had some emails at six in the morning. And -- yeah. 1:00:26: Chair Furth: Right. And they will be passed along -- will they? -- to the Planning & Transportation, which will be considering this next. And staff will, of course, read them. All right. Staff report, please. 1:00:38: Amy French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. With Rebecca Atkinson and Albert Yang, our City Attorney. We also have Jim Fleming in the audience. ### I didn't see him there. And Dave Yuan. ### Dave was there, but didn't speak. From the City. To help with questions. 1:00:52: Chair Furth: From which department are they? 1:00:54: Amy French: Ah -- Utilities. 1:00:56: Chair Furth: Thank you. 1:00:58: 5 Amy French: So, as noted, at places -- I don't know if we noted this -- at places, and at the back table, we have the ordinance that is going to go to the Planning & Transportation Commission next Wednesday. So, members of the public who are interested in reading that can go on the back table. The packet comes out today and will be uploaded online. For those persons who wish to review the ordinance. 1:01:22: Chair Furth: This is the ordinance amending 18.42.110 on wireless telecommunications facilities. 1:01:28: Amy French: Correct. So, we have an existing ordinance. These are amendments that would clarify, based on the FCC order. 1:01:36: Chair Furth: I think "modify" is a more accurate term. Thank you. 1:01:38: Amy French: Yes. Well, there's that. So, just a brief background, and I'll turn it over to Albert. The existing wireless communications facilities in the Palo Alto public rights-of-way. We have 73 AT&T oDAS nodes. And these are on wood utility poles. Those were installed in 2012, before we created the ordinance we have today. So, yes, there's been some noise issues on those poles. Just to be clear about that. Then, we have 19 small cell nodes on streetlight poles. And these were installed by Crown Castle in 2016. ### They are owned and operated by Verizon, right? And I believe those are the ones that use those faux mailboxes. OK? So, we anticipate more coming. We have 93 from Verizon, 17 from AT&T Mobility, and 17 from Crown Castle that we anticipate being installed or submitted for review. There are others in the wings that are not come in yet. We have streetlights in Palo Alto, a total of 6,642. Of those, the City owns 6,500. And then, the state owns 142. Those are located on El Camino and highway -- near Highway 101. Then we have wood utility poles. We have a total of 6,000 again. ### A 09-28-15 staff report about FTTP https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 says (PDF page 68) that there are 6,000 utility poles, and also (PDF page 69) that there are 5,931 utility poles (of various heights from 25 to 80 feet). The issue in that report was how many might have to be made taller to accommodate fiber infrastructure for a citywide municipal FTTP network. Those are in the public right-of-way. 5,400 are jointly owned by the City and AT&T. (Oops. I went too fast. That's really sensitive.) 1:03:21: Albert Yang: Thanks. Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney. So, the reason that we are coming to you today with these draft objective standards is because the Federal Communications Commission -- the FCC -- in September adopted new regulations, which, among several other changes, require any aesthetic regulation by local governments to be reasonable, non-discriminatory, objective, and published in advance. And so, they gave us until April 15th of this year to work on and adopt these standards. And that's what we've prepared and brought for you today. The bottom line is that if we don't have reasonable and objective standards in place after April 15th, the City won't be able to enforce its current aesthetic regulations, which are based on the ARB's subjective architectural review findings. There is ongoing litigation over the validity of that FCC order, that is pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now. The Court, unfortunately, denied a request by municipalities to stay that FCC order until that litigation is resolved. So, at the moment, we are required to comply with that regulation. In addition to the litigation, there is pending legislation in Congress, introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo, that would invalidate the FCC's order as well. We'll be tracking that, in addition to the litigation. 6 So, there are a few different steps -- just to give a roadmap -- of how we're approaching our implementation of the FCC's order. The first meeting is today's, with the ARB, where we're reviewing draft objective standards. The next meeting will be on Wednesday, the 27th, with the Planning & Transportation Commission, to review updates to the ordinance. The City's wireless code. And, finally, both the standards and the ordinance will be presented to the City Council on April 15th. So, we had a question from the Chair about what the ARB's role would be under the revised ordinance. There -- Under the current language of the ordinance, for Tier 2 and Tier 3 applications, which are what the majority of applications to the City -- cities -- fall into, the Planning Director is the deciding authority. And the Director retains -- has the discretion to send any of these applications to the ARB for a public hearing. And under the revised ordinance, that process, and that authority, remains the Planning Director. If there's an issue, or if there's a desire to have a public hearing on an application, can send it to the ARB. In addition, there is a new process that's created for any applications that are seeking exceptions from the objective standards that we adopt, for those applications also to be sent to the ARB for review. And I'll turn it back over to Amy and Rebecca. 1:07:31: Rebecca Atkinson: Thank you, all. So, the wireless ordinance is -- you know, is in effect for citywide. And primarily - - Well, the standards, in their current form, focus on streetlight poles and wood utility poles. There's -- There are other wireless facilities designs that could be deployed in the public right-of-way. Including, you know, using existing or proposed new street furniture, such as benches, and bus shelters, and things like that. That's -- you know, even though some have been deployed in Europe. And maybe somewhere -- elsewhere. We are looking at including innovations in a forthcoming version of the administrative standards. But for the current -- you know, April 15th -- timeframe, we're looking at focusing on streetlights and wood utility poles. To help promote feedback and discussion, staff put together Attachment D, in your packets. And Attachment D contains a wide variety of design images, be it elevations or visual simulations, site photos, and so forth, illustrating the types of different design options that are out there for wood poles and streetlight poles. There are also some designs that you have seen before, that you have previously weighed in on as not preferred. So, just wanted to include those, for your reference. So, in general, these are the types of designs that we'd really appreciate your feedback on. Whether or not they're appropriate for the right-of-way. Any comments. And the actual standards are included as an attachment. Actual draft standards are include in attachments to the staff report. ### That is, Attachments A (for streetlight poles) and B (for wood utility poles). And those are the draft standards that would be moved forward. So if you have any comments on siting -- siting criteria and parameters, design options, ** placement parameters, size parameters, screening through shrouds and vegetation, and so forth, please -- we're looking forward to your feedback. Next steps. To receive public and ARB feedback today. And, of course, as Albert already mentioned, the forthcoming Planning & Transportation Commission review next week. And then, following also with City Council. There's contact information, as well as the email addresses for the ARB and City Council. And then, just so you know, all of the Attachment D images are here in this presentation. So if you would like to discuss anything in particular, we can use this as a point of orientation. Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions you may have. 1:10:45: Chair Furth: So, I have an orientation question. And thank you for the marked up copy of the ordinance. Which, I understand, is hot off the press. One of the questions I have is that, under the existing ordinance, when a project comes to the ARB, we review it under the ARB standards. Is that correct? 1:11:16: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:11:17: Chair Furth: And if, in the future, something was referred to the ARB, what standards would we be applying? 7 1:11:23: Albert Yang: They would have to be reviewed against the objective standards that the City has adopted. 1:11:29: Chair Furth: And those would be standards adopted by resolution. 1:11:31: Albert Yang: That's correct. 1:11:32: Chair Furth: Which is immediately effective. And the proposed resolution -- Tell us more about that. The objective standards. 1:11:45: Albert Yang: (unamplified) Yeah, so, ... 1:11:45: Chair Furth: It basically creates a "safe harbor"? Is that right? ### FCC 18-133 mentions "safe harbor" (3 times). https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf 1:11:48: Albert Yang: So, the proposed standards are attached to the staff report, and the City Council would adopt a resolution, basically adopting those standards as, you know, mandatory design requirements for the various categories of wireless facilities they apply to. And right now, we have prepared standards that apply to streetlight and wood utility pole deployments. 1:12:20: Chair Furth: So, if somebody had a proposal to locate something on a wood utility pole or a streetlight, that -- I guess there would be a -- well, we'll talk about underground later -- but that basically met one of these preferred or described designs -- certain kind of antenna, certain kind of location -- then that would be a "safe harbor." That would be the objective standard they would be nailed against. If they wanted to do something else, they might require a more complicated hearing? Like used street furniture? 1:12:53: Albert Yang: I -- That's correct. And I guess I would say, even if there was a proposal that, you know, met all of the various criteria, you know, if there were a reason that staff felt, you know, that would benefit from a hearing before the ARB, either to provide a forum for the public to comment, or for any of the ARB's feedback on how these standards are playing out in the real world, you know, the Director would still have that option. 1:13:28: Chair Furth: Thanks. So, looking at page 48 of Attachment B, which is the draft administrative standards, they are not written in mandatory language. You "may" have a shroud. You should "consider" doing this. That's not correct. "May" be mounted. "May" be placed. "May" be enclosed. Why is it all written that way? 1:13:58: Albert Yang: So, we'll take another look at tightening up that language. I believe the intent was to -- There are situations where, you know, there might be two different configurations that are permitted. For example, an antenna may be 8 mounted either at the top of a pole or integrated into the body of the pole. But we'll take another look through all these, to make sure that it's clear that you have to choose among one of the various options that's set forth. 1:14:29: Chair Furth: 'Cause as it's written -- You know what? We should ask the other people questions. I don't mean to overdo this. We'll get back to the public with comment. But we are looking at a series of standards which you've asked us to comment on. So, we have a lot of speaker cards. But here ... 1:14:47: Vice Chair Baltay: (unamplified) The applicant goes first. 1:14:48: Chair Furth: Well, the City's the applicant. 1:14:50: Vice Chair Baltay: (unamplified) There's no wireless **. 1:14:52: Chair Furth: They're not the applicants. The City is the moving party here. I mean, the City is asking us to consider this. All right. Um. The name's perfectly clear. The spelling is a little awkward. Vijay Reddyvari. To be followed by Sharon James. 1:15:19: Vijay Reddyvari: Hi. My name is Vijay Reddyvari. I'm a project manager at Crown Castle. 1:15:23: Chair Furth: I'm sorry. I need to have you spell your name for our transcriber. 1:15:26: Vijay Reddyvari: Oh. OK. V-i-j-a-y. And then R-e-d-d-y-v-a-r-i. Before I go to the presentation, I just want to talk a little bit about Crown Castle. So, I'm a project manager at Crown Castle. Crown Castle is the largest provider of shared communication infrastructure. We have over 25 years of experience building and operating network infrastructure. We have a unique combination of towers, small cells, and fiber. We have about 40,000 towers. 60,000 on air or under contract small cells, both outdoor and indoor. And we have 60,000 route miles of fiber. ### This source provides similar stats. https://fiber.crowncastle.com/about-us Coming to those small cells, we have growing demand for data, for residents, businesses, and research. There's about like 10 trillion megabytes in 2017. ### This 05-23-16 article says, "Americans used nearly 10 trillion megabytes of mobile data last year" (i.e., 2015). https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/05/23/2042213/americans-used-nearly-10-trillion-megabytes-of-mobile-data-last-year In 2017, it was 15.7 trillion megabytes. https://www.ctia.org/news/the-state-of-wireless-2018 This is for all wireless carriers, not just Crown Castle. And it increased like seven times in 2019. So, 47 percent of the total U.S. is using wireless. And 70 percent of the home buyers are looking for a strong cell communication when they're buying home. And an average household has 30 devices connected at all times. And then, there is a growing demand for smart communities, and connected schools, and cloud, and IoT. 9 So, with a huge growing demand, what I have before you is the two flavors of designs that we have for streetlight poles and wood utility poles. (Let me **.) 1:16:54: Chair Furth: So, this is the material that is at-places? 1:16:56: Vijay Reddyvari: Yeah. 1:16:57: Chair Furth: And are there copies at the public table? 1:16:58: Vijay Reddyvari: Yeah. We have ... 1:16:59: Chair Furth: The crowd is indicating yes. 1:17:20: Vijay Reddyvari: What I have before you is standard designs that we have for streetlight poles. These are already active or in place or under contract currently with Crown Castle. So, as you can see, we have different flavors. Like integrated pole design, a top-mounted design, and a trash can design. Going to the integrated pole design, these are the traffic signal poles. These are in Santa Barbara. All equipment will be inside the poles when we have existing user infrastructure of the traffic lights, and incorporated all the equipment inside the poles. This is a fairly new product -- the trash can receptacle. We are currently using it in Piedmont. And also, I think I saw one in Palo Alto. I'm not sure who is the carrier. So, this is a brand new product. The trash can receptacle. The faux mailbox design. You have already seen this in Palo Alto, with our project in 2016, I guess. Under ** streetlights, we have a small mailbox, with a smaller form factor. And you can see the dimensions here, actually -- 24.75 x 48.63 inches, with an integrated pole design. Coming to the next one is the top-mounted design. Where we have a couple of options here. With a wrapped-around combination of equipment and equipment on top of the pole. You can see the dimensions there -- 31 inches x 27. Which is a smaller form factor again. All the small cells that we tried to build have a smaller form factor. The next one is a side-mounted design. Where we cannot achieve the top-mounted design, we try to alternate it with a side-mounted design. Even with this, we have seen a fair amount of success, with the smaller form factor being 14 x 16.5 inches wide x 113 inches. Again, it depends on the equipment, and the requirement of the carrier with the coverage -- what equipment we need. Depending on that we choose this designs. But we do have a lot of options here. As you notice. And I have put before you some additional design options with a pedestal design. A couple of options here for you. One in Piedmont, and the other one in Cupertino. Again, these are proposals for the Palo Alto, which we did for our project. I'm just putting the samples out there. And then you can see the dimensions for the pedestal design -- with the dimensions. Coming for the additional design options, we can use the existing streetlights, or the existing cabinets, which is there in the City. And you can use the space for putting our equipment there. 1:19:56: Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Mr. Reddyvari, but you have run out of time. Thank you for the written presentation. And we will ask you further questions later if we need more information on what you provided to us. 1:20:07: Vijay Reddyvari: Thank you. 1:20:10: Chair Furth: Our next speaker is Sharon James. To be followed by Jeff Hoel. 1:20:17: 10 Sharon James: Hi. Good morning. I'm Sharon James. I'm the government affairs manager for Crown Castle. And I just wanted to speak today to let you know that, you know, as Vijay just showed you, there's a lot of different designs that you can use to incorporate small cell wireless infrastructure. And they're deployed all over the country, in many different configurations. What I've seen happen, that I want to share with you, in other jurisdictions -- Currently, in San Francisco, they have a workshop going on, where they're meeting every couple of weeks with all the carriers, with the CLECs -- like Crown, Ex Genet, Modus -- to come up with a design, and a revised ordinance that works -- that simplifies the process down the road, and includes 5G. That's also happening in -- It's also happened in Cupertino, where they worked with all of the carriers to come up with -- and the CLECs too -- come up with a design that they could incorporate on their city poles, throughout the city. In the city of Santa Barbara, the same thing has happened. So, I'm providing this information to you because I would -- I think you should think about -- and I recommend -- that even though you're revising your ordinance now, to meet the April 15th date that the FCC has ordered, you probably will end up revising it to some extent. And we're sharing information with you today because we want you to be aware that there's a lot of options, we're more than happy to work with you. I would recommend that you set up some workshops with the industry, and do some real -- you know, make some real effort to come up with a design that works for all of you, that maybe you can include as part of your ordinance, that is a form factor that you've approved in -- ahead of time. And then, it expedites the process with the carriers or the applicants. I would also say that in that FCC order, that the time you have to review has been shortened as well. So, some of the process that we go through now, that takes a little longer, you may have to cut out in your revised ordinance. You may have to address. Thank you. 1:22:31: Chair Furth: I have one question for you. So, your company, is not a telecom provider. Right? You are a licensed -- you are a permit obtainer? What do you call your company? What kind of business are you in? 1:22:46: Sharon James: We're a carrier's carrier. I think. It's simplifying it little bit, but -- So, we build infrastructure. We build fiber networks. All across the country. On that fiber network, there are multiple opportunities to use that fiber. But we're called a CLEC. 1:23:04: Chair Furth: That's the word I didn't know. 1:23:05: Sharon James: Yeah. A CLEC. And -- 1:23:08: Chair Furth: Which stands for -- 1:23:08: Sharon James: It stands for -- California Licensed -- what? -- Competitive Licensed Exchange Carrier. ### Google "'competitive licensed exchange carrier'" 0 hits. But Google "' competitive local exchange carrier '" about 109,000 hits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier But we basically build the infrastructure that the carriers can go on. And -- So, when we come to you and we apply, as Crown Castle -- we're building a fiber network here -- we have a contract with a customer -- a carrier -- to put their antennas and radios on that pole. 1:23:38: Chair Furth: And do your antennas and radios accommodate more than one carrier? Or are they exclusive to one carrier? 1:23:43: 1 Carnahan, David From:Neil Raffan <neil.raffan@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 7, 2019 3:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Small cell towers Good afternoon    I hear the city might vote soon on streamlining approvals for these as part of potential 5G roll out. If so, please can you  share more information about the pros and cons for consideration ‐ I haven't seen any outreach by the City on what  could be a very public impacting matter, though I might have missed it.    Yours sincerely    Neil Raffan  260 Fernando Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306    1 Carnahan, David From:Ann L <annyeawon@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:22 PM Subject:SV Parents for Safe Tech Update April 8, 2019 Dear SV Parents,    Good news, sad news and action points to share with you:    1.  The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of local governance of cell tower placement in San Francisco vs. T‐Mobile  on April 4, 2019.    This ruling affirms the authority and policing powers of local governments per the California Constitution to regulate  utilities.  For those who are fighting cell towers or are working on wireless ordinances in your communities in California,  please forward this Supreme Court opinion to your local officials and planning commissions.      See the court's ruling here:  https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S238001.PDF    2.  Two hundred students walked out of school to protest the cell towers on Ripon Elementary School installed in 2009,  where at least 4 children and 2 teachers have been diagnosed with cancer.     https://www.newsweek.com/can‐cell‐phone‐tower‐cause‐cancer‐children‐1362314    Sprint has agreed to remove their cell tower from Ripon Elementary school, which parents have been protesting since  2017, when the first 2 children and 2 teachers were diagnosed with cancer.  Now, at least 8 children and teachers have  been diagnosed with cancer.      https://fox40.com/2019/03/23/ripon‐cell‐tower‐to‐be‐removed‐from‐school‐grounds‐mothers‐of‐cancer‐survivors‐ share‐feelings‐of‐relief/?fbclid=IwAR0wQdXq8qAoY2PR‐ksl6mMjZLV1YdgG2vCfg67vVGs5b‐kM4Q9X1fwMUJo      3.  The Palo Alto city council will be meeting on April 15, 2019 to decide on an ordinance that would essentially  eliminate public input and make it easier, cheaper and faster for telecom companies to install commercial cell tower  equipment around the city.      How are they doing this?  By proposing to eliminate review of cell tower installation by the Architectural Review Board.    The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is charged with design review of all new construction, and changes and additions  to commercial, industrial and multiple‐family projects. This ordinance proposes to make an exception for the installation  of commercial cell tower equipment. By bypassing ARB and public committee hearings on projects, community residents  will not have adequate opportunity to comment on the installation of this equipment even when installed as close as 20  feet from their homes, libraries and schools.    Please come to make your voice heard on April 15th at Palo Alto City Hall, from 7:45pm to 9:00pm.    For our children,  Ann    1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Schmidt <jenniferschmidt097@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:36 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Request to vote on against the proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance Dear City Council Members,  I am writing to respectfully ask you to use your vote on September 15th to keep our city beautiful and to protect children and property values by:  1. Voting against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance;   2. Voting against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it.   3. To vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, establishing a minimum set back for cell towers from homes, establishing a minimum distance between cell towers and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.    Many other cities are pushing back on this very important issue by requiring telco companies conform to standards set by a city to keep their city beautiful. The latest example of this is the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the City of San Francisco that the city has local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That local power includes the ability to establish aesthetic conditions for land use. This sets a legal precedence we should leverage to determine aesthetic standards for the City of Palo Alto and hold the telcos accountable for meeting them.    Residents of Palo Alto do not want hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes or our schools. This issue directly impacts our neighborhoods, and therefore, residents must retain their voice in these decisions through the local public hearing process. Also, decisions about cell towers needs proper checks and balances within the city's process; no one person or single board should be solely responsible for cell tower related decisions. The Architectural Review Board should remain in the process as the body that determines whether or not the proposed towers meet the aesthetic standards established by the City of Palo Alto.     And as you vote, ask yourself, do you want a cell tower installed directly in front of your house, and further, one that had little to no standards applied to it? Left to the telcos, they will install the cheapest version possible (i.e. loud and ugly).    2 The City of Palo Alto has always had our city's beauty at the forefront. Please continue to keep our city beautiful by voting against the proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance.     Sincerely,  Jennifer Schmidt  Barron Park Resident  Mother of two boys attending Barron Park Elementary      1 Carnahan, David From:Maria <mariambrown4@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 11:41 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Allow for Public Hearings and Protect Residents' Interests Dear Council Members,  I am a mother of two young children, living in the Bay Area for the last few years. Like many others, my family and I moved here from the east coast, on a work assignment that was supposed to last a couple of years, before we'd head back "home". Well, fast forward eight years and we are happy to say that we're staying - Palo Alto is our home. And we are invested in our neighborhood, our town and our wider community.     I am writing to you because I am hoping you will vote against the proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance, particularly, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. I am also asking that you vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, establishing a minimum set back for cell towers from homes, establishing a minimum distance between cell towers and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.    I plan on attending the City Council meeting next week (4/15). Thank you for considering what I, and many of my neighbors, believe is right for our community.    Maria Brown   Greenmeadow, Palo Alto resident   1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Rahn <annetterahn@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 9, 2019 10:33 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; alisoncormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers in Palo Alto Considering cell towers in Palo Alto, I am asking you to do the following at the April 15th meeting:    1. Vote against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance;   2. Vote in particular, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. (Recall that we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.); and finally,   3. Vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, establishing a minimum set back for cell towers from homes, establishing a minimum distance between cell towers and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.    Thank you for your consideration.    Annette Rahn  590 Santa Rita  Palo Alto    2 :Judge: Cities can limit cell antenna 'he Ca.hfcwng Supreme Court Nied ~ I.bat auct ha\-.: • npt cu qWac.c lhc pbttMtne o( "'•rc-ku ltdr .. ~ cqurpmem C)ll Ub11'y pcib, &o ... ~c lk5dtirtic l'ObCCtlU.. Tht kVC9-manbn" ('(lUl1 ~ .-ly opbcld a 20 II s.. ""°°"""' """ ............ 1<kphooc """""'*' IO otic... • pcntMI bcfMI plae~ tqU'P'" .,. Ofl llhld.) P'Qk~ 00 public Jll"CC'U ......... alb. The SAii ~*° ordln..wcic tt>o ...... • bdglucocd -of ICldlitU; (lldOB ln l.'Utlbl .lb., tft· clDilills taMbual d.Mncu. bHIOOc ell~ .ad .oc•.c ~ bt(orc .. """"' ""' bt ~ T+\'<*lrc \\.Ct' C"'P-8ld two (Ith.. er •1ttkt-t. .:~ ih.11 cbllknac:d t.ho<Wdllll.lk'C~ It \inlilkd. s.i• On utility poles for aesthetic reasons taw lhM. aiio-, ac:lqlhc:lhc COCDplllio to C'OMlfUCt. lints Md taMall cqu~M aloog pul>llc ....... 'fht .aa1c law M)"'\ lht iftmllacioli n:aaaM be done Ill wt)'t Mid ill to:.aoat dw do OOI .. tOO:WIVl!Ode (CW •IX!OnYe· nil:~) !ht puMJc iaw of Jbe "*1 • , ............... T·).'6bik ~that tbt mc.i.u~ allowfd mctktlofls Oflly ilrl bell nctdcd fO Pf't''l:Ol l~lUiocl> from lmpcd:IGI U&f1io. a.. ... """"""'""'the -.... corttmodc .. 11..:lilkb ba\i• • Dtplivt cftC'\..--t Ofl pce«ful Clf.IO>"fl'ICQI ol public -i. .... ..,...olb. Uld Wt Sm Fnn- cbro fhcR(orc had • ri;h4 to ~ Yi.Raal <-ffccu. Juwcc CatQI Ccmpn "'1'tlk, '1'hc C'l1y bQ 10bcmll loc#.I pol.cc powet io dttnmU!c! cbc •ppropnatc U3CS "' Jud ~-itbl11 ill )uNdiCtiOll. 1bM pc1\'U in~ dllilb 1bc uhcqty 10 tsr.abllsh IC>' lhcbc condJltotb: f()f land ~ .. We make property management easy! ' . . - 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:cell towers and court ruling Dear City Council Members,  As you probably know, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “the city has inherit local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use.” This unequivocally gives the city of Palo Alto the right to insist that any cell towers installed in our residential neighborhoods conform to our aesthetics ordinances and meet with the approval of our architectural review board. We urge you to consider this ruling and not approve the amendments proposed by city staff that would allow the city to ignore the architectural review board’s recommendations and the inputs from the public. It is our understanding that the council originally voted by a narrow margin to allow the cell towers because of their concern about the legal ramifications. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling eliminates this concern. The architectural review board and the public have clearly expressed their views on the proposal to place cell towers in the neighborhoods. There is no longer any legal reason to ignore these inputs. Thank you for your consideration. Richard and Carol Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Carnahan, David From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2019 7:38 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:David Shen Subject:Regarding the cell tower installations within Palo Alto Distinguished Councilmembers and Staff,    Recently I was made aware of the desire to install more cell towers within Palo Alto, and most notably some that will be  close to Barron Park Elementary School.    I am very concerned that the school and community was not made aware of this possibility. There has always been  concern about the proximity of cell towers and electrical lines to our children, whose growing bodies are more prone to  the negative effects of electromagnetic radiation. With the introduction of 5G technology, this risk grows dramatically  due to the way 5G works relative to older technologies as it broadcasts more frequently, requires more stations, and is  of higher strength.    Numerous studies abound on the negative and harmful effects of radio frequency radiation on humans and other  species from the US Department of the Interior, the NIH, the US Fish and Wildlife Services, and the Department of Entomology at Cornell. In the European Union, it is much more recognized that RF radiation can harm humans and their regulations are much more strict than ours in the US.     At PAUSD, there already exist many children who are "electrosensitive", the term being given to those who develop headaches and other maladies when in the presence of strong RF signals, such as cellphones and WIFI. RF radiation mitigation is now being used as a treatment in many diseases like autism to helping to resolve other immune dysfunctions that result from environmental toxin exposure and infections such as Lyme disease. When the disruption that results from RF radiation exposure taxes and weakens the immune system, other problems result and cannot be dealt with until the radiation exposure is removed.    We are finally beginning to understand the mechanisms by which this cellular disruption occurs. FCC guidelines are woefully inadequate as they only care about whether tissues are heated due to radiation (think microwave ovens). However, research is showing that negative cellular effects happen at radiation levels far, far below those of FCC standards. Other CA cities have created their own ordinances to combat the proliferation of cell towers in their neighborhoods.    In addition, as this initiative was being shepherded through Council, the Barron Park principal and PAUSD were not made aware that this was happening. This is not a good process to follow for this kind of initiative. The community and PAUSD must be involved, as we are talking about the state of health for not only our children but adults as well.    I would urge our Council and Staff to hit pause on this initiative and study this issue more fully as other cities in CA already have. I would support following other CA cities in severely restricting new cell tower installations to mitigate health risks, as well as Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's proposed legislation to overturn the FCC order to install more cell tower technology.    Thank you for your consideration,    David Shen  Old Palo Alto  2 Carnahan, David From:Ingrid Ou <ying.ingrid.ou@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 9, 2019 8:21 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:amendments to the Wireless Ordinance   Dear Sir:  I am a resident of Palo Alto.   We have lived in Palo Alto for almost 10 year.  I have written this email/letter to city many times regarding a wireless cell  tower that will be installed closer to my home, near 371 Carolina Ln, Palo Alto, CA 94306.   Once again, I am against this installment.     I have a small children at home and I myself got a PhD in environmental health from U of Washington. Many studies  have clearly indicate the harm of this can bring to small children who are particularly sensitive to the exposure.    In addition, I am opposed to the amendments City Staff is proposing (e.g., to eliminate the requirement for Architectural Review Board public hearings), and in favor of the amendments United Neighbors/Tina Chow are proposing (e.g., minimum spacing between cell towers, undergrounding of ancillary equipment, minimum setbacks from homes).      Thank you for being responsible for residents of Palo Alto!    Sincerely,   Ying (Ingrid) Ou, PhD   Michael Wu, DDS    1 Carnahan, David From:Ofer Bruhis <ofer.bruhis@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2019 9:22 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon Towers All,    I wanted to let you know that I am opposed to the amendments City Staff is proposing (e.g., to eliminate the requirement for Architectural Review Board public hearings), and in favor of the amendments United Neighbors/Tina Chow are proposing (e.g., minimum spacing between cell towers, undergrounding of ancillary equipment, minimum setbacks from homes).    I am sure that you are aware that the California Supreme Court’s ruling last week against T-Mobile was a game changer. No longer does the telecom industry, or City Staff, have any basis at all for claiming that what we have been asking Council to do is unlawful.    I know that some of you voted against these towers. For the ones that voted for, you wonder what is the motivation, and how would you feel if they placed one of these structures in front of your house when you have young children living there…    best    ofer bruhis  3272 Bryant Street  Palo Alto, CA 94306    1 Carnahan, David From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:24 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Regarding recent Cell Tower matters Hello All ‐    I am:  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐ Opposed to the amendments City Staff is proposing with regard to eliminating the requirement         for Architectural Review Board public hearings    ‐ In favor of the amendments minimum spacing between cell towers, under‐grounding of         ancillary equipment, minimum setbacks from homes. I was there at last Monday’s (4/8/19)           council meeting where Tina Chow gave specifics on this.     Additionally, it is vitally important for our local government to take into account the recent California Supreme Court’s  ruling last week against T‐Mobile where no longer does the telecom industry, or City Staff, have any basis at all for  claiming that what many Palo Alto residents have been asking Council to do is unlawful.    Thank you for your time, considerations, and actions on these matters.    Regards,    ‐Phil Coulson   Longtime resident of Palo Alto...  1 Carnahan, David From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2019 6:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; francesca kautz; Shermfam@pacbell.net; Rishi1@gmail.com; Kathryn.howe@gmail.com; brookegreen333@gmail.com; mcurr09@gmail.com; Nonotates@gmail.com; mf@sfsu.edu; Sarahm.clark@gmail.com; brigitriley@gmail.com; Phil.yu@yahoo.com; archana.june@gmail.com; usmoore@gmail.com; shekharkapoor@gmail.com; Verderec@yahoo.com; rcuthomas@gmail.com; Ihaleycourtney@gmail.com; samkraut@gmail.com; clamkraut@gmail.com; eviklein@sbcglobal.net; cberwaldt@hotmail.com; krhusty@hotmail.com; stellafiller@yahoo.com; vfiller@pacbell.net; kev_800 @hotmail.com; am.laca@hotmail.com; eladaron49@gmail.com; pattyvinyard12@gmail.com; anickum@juno.com; Limor.Toledo@yahoo.com; ewhalleyus@yahoo.com; klmoffeit@gmail.com; ben@shaibe.com; rolandvogl@yahoo.com; jaynei275@aol.com; enosfamily@yahoo.com; heidifeldman@me.com; LK_Meyers@yahoo.com; denaseki@yahoo.com; richa55@yahoo.com; flaotinglaughter@yahoo.com; bradbeldner@yahoo.com; glasak@yahoo.com; pivanoff@seanet.com; kalibsf@yahoo.com; adamofkriegel@gmail.com; diann@eisnor.com; AA755@cornell.edu; jezrock1 @gmail.com; rpearlson@yahoo.com; klucafortobiz@gmail.com; Valerie.milligan@gmail.com; drait@icloud.com; dcruffner@gmail.com; epmanson@gmail.com; abstar22@gmail.com; vdewoody@gmail.com; adamstorr@gmail.com; marinairgon@gmail.com; xin.tim.gu@gmail.com; lawong_hee@yahoo.com; oppenpitt@earthlink.net; katyabhan@gmail.com; abhan111@gmail.com; ninaluu@hotmail.com; jenniferbrito75@hotmail.com; ashini_srivastava@yahoo.com; nevayarkin@gmail.com; susanrdowns@hotmail.com; swcie@yahoo.com; vmvelkoff@gmail.com; dscharff2005@yahoo.com; loveoverplastic@gmail.com; georgek@birketthouse.com; annette.fazzino@gmail.com; chan_bk@yahoo.com; schroeder_alan@hotmail.com; lindseykschroeder@gmail.com; mariambrown4@hotmail.com; monica83y@yahoo.com; lisa.overbey@stanford.edu; yijmans@gmail.com; ljnewell800@gmail.com; melindamccomb@gmail.com; guoping.su.3@gmail.com; angelastreet@hotmail.com Subject:100+ Local Residents Sign On Against Cell Towers in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members Du Bois, Kou, Tanaka, Cormack, Fine and Kniss,    We would like to add our names to the long list of Palo Alto residents who object to the telecom industry’s plans to  install towers right next to our homes and schools. Like other residents, we are concerned about aesthetics, noise,  health, property value, and fire safety.     On April 15, please take action to require setbacks from homes and schools and minimum spacing of small cells in Palo  Alto. Please also preserve our public process by requiring Architectural Review for all cell tower applications.    We are also writing you to join other residents in asking you to hear an appeal of the decision to approve the 7 cell  towers in Cluster 2 that Vinculums/Verizon are applying to install in Barron Park and nearby, including one to be placed  very close to Barron Park Elementary School. The school community received NO notice of the Cluster 2 decision to  place a cell phone tower near the school.     Many cities have ordinances addressing these resident concerns by requiring setbacks from residences and schools.  2 These include Petaluma, Fairfax, Ripon, Mill Valley, San Rafael, San Anselmo, Hillsborough, and more. Furthermore, in  2009, the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a resolution opposing cell towers placed on or in close proximity  to schools to protect children from potential health effects from exposure to radio‐frequency radiation. Palo Alto can do  the same.    Sincerely,    Francesca Kautz                            Palo Alto     Kathy Sherman                      Gunn High School      Lowell Wg R.N.   South San Francisco      Janie Newell                              Rishi Kumar                               Kathy Howe                          College Terrace   Ohlone      Janet Elliott  Crescent Park      Brooke Greene                    3 Barron Park      Megan Amer                          Redwood City     N. Tates                                   South Gate     M. Felstiner                             Stanford University     S. Clark                                    Old Palo Alto     T. Clark  Old Palo Alto     B. Riley                                  Old Palo Alto     P. Yu                                       Old Palo Alto     Monica Yod                            Palo Alto     4 Archana S.                             Mountain View     Ursula Moore                        Barron Park     Shekhar Kapoor                     Palo Verde      Chris Philpel                            Escondido      R. Thomas                              Midtown     H. Courtney                           Mountain View     Susan Amkraut                        Palo Alto     Claire Amkraut                        Palo Alto     E. Klein                                    Midtown  5    C. Erwaldt                              Palo Alto     Kip Husty                                Palo Alto     Stella Filler                               Palo Alto     Victor Filler                               Palo Alto     Kevin Carlson                       Walter Hays      Rosemary McGuire  El Carmelo      Asya Marder                         Palo Verde      Elad Berwoudi                        Jane Lathrop Stanford     Annaloy Nickum                     6    Patricia Vinyard                       East Palo Alto     Limor Toledo                         Los Altos     Elizabeth Whalley                   College Terrace     Lisa Overbey                                             Stanford University     Karen Moffeit                          Ventura      Ben Shaibe                               Roland Vogl                           Ohlone      Jayne Laz                                              Stanford University     Stephanie Enos                    Barron Park  7    Heidi Feldman                                  Midtown      Lori Meyers                            Midtown     Eileen Stolee  College Terrace     Dena Seki                                  Downtown      Richa Jain                              Menlo Park     Yijman Shaski                         Greenmeadow      Clark Akatiff                                                                                          Old Palo Alto    Karen Price                                                                                           College Terrace     Gloria Kreitman  8 Green Acres     Kim Acker                                                                                             Portola Valley     Anfisa Kupriyanova                San Jose     Hannah Giusson  Ventura      Lynn Abraham                      Menlo Park     Brad Beldner                          Midtown     Katherine Glasa                      Palo Alto     Peter Ivanoff                                          Greenmeadow     Natalie Ivanoff                                         Greenmeadow     9 Adam Kriegel                         Mountain View     Di‐Ann Eisnor                        Palo Alto     Abhishek Anand                    Mountain View     Jeremy Rock                                      Palo Alto     Rotem Pearlson                     Ohlone     Kathleen Lucaforto                 San Mateo     Valerie Milligan                       Palo Alto     Doug Rait                                Addison     Kathryn Harmon  El Carmelo  10    Derek Ruffner                         El Carmelo     Elana Manson                        Green Acres     Bhavya Rehari                      Downtown     Victoria Storr                          Downtown     Adam Storr                            Downtown     Marina Gu                              Everygreen Park     Tim Gu                                   Evergreen Park     Laain Wong                           Palo Alto     Cris Oppenheimer               14 Carnahan, David From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2019 2:13 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Jeanne Fleming; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Re: Opposing -- Stuff's amendments to the Wireless Ordinance _ meeting on April 15 Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,     as a long time concerned resident I support United Neighbors in this matter and would like to please ask you:  1. To vote against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance;   2. To vote, in particular, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. (Recall that we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.); and finally,   3. To vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, establishing a minimum set back for cell towers from homes, establishing a minimum distance between cell towers and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.    Thank you for your continued leadership.     Sincerely,  Leo Povolotsky  Palo Alto resident for 28years,   HOA Board Member for 8years   1 Carnahan, David From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:44 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Wireless ordinance amendments Dear City Council,    Please do NOT approve the Wireless Ordinance amendments that City Staff will be presenting to you this Monday, April 15th.    In the wake of recent news (e.g., last week’s California Supreme Court ruling against T-Mobile, pushback from other leading cities, etc.), it seems even more apparent that that there is no basis at all for bypassing the long-established precedent of conducting ARB reviews and public hearings. In addition, it seems completely appropriate that amendments proposed by United Neighbors/Tina Chow (e.g., minimum spacing between cell towers, undergrounding of ancillary equipment, reasonable setbacks from homes, schools and senior living facilities like Channing House) should be adopted.    The argument that we need good cell coverage is a given. But that doesn’t mean we need to have cell towers 20 feet in front of people’s bedrooms or have all ancillary equipment above ground or ignore aesthetics. We need to avoid making dichotomous statements. We can have a balanced solution that gives us communication infrastructure yet respecting residents’ needs re: siting. Maybe it won’t be done in the cheapest way that telecom wants. That’s ok. But we will have cell coverage and emergency services even if we adopt United Neighbors’ proposed amendments.    The City Attorney’s job, understandably, is to minimize risk to the City, and it is my understanding that the telecom industry is indemnifying the city against lawsuits associated with these cell towers. So the City Attorney’s position regarding telecom cell tower requests is understandable. That said, I’m sure many of you, like I, have made business decisions that are contrary to what counsel has advised because doing so was the right/ethical thing to do when looking at the total picture vs. just minimizing legal risk. I feel strongly that this is one of those situations. The legal risk of pushing back on telecom’s unreasonable requests is worth the benefit (building trust and considering residents’ concerns regarding safety, aesthetics, property values, noise, etc). Other cities are siding with what residents want and not capitulating to telecom demands for doubling down on street lights and utilities poles with sitings near residents’ homes and schools.       Please do what other leading cities are doing and consider what the vast majority of Palo Alto residents want.    Thank you,  Chris Robell  1 Brettle, Jessica From:David <david@ecomagic.org> Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:22 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Cellular communications equipment Dear Councilmembers,    The California Supreme Court’s ruling last week against T-Mobile has made clear that telecom industry representatives and employees of the City of Palo Alto are without basis to assert that you lack authority to enforce aesthetic standards of our community when considering applications to place cellular communications equipment here.    Please reject the amendments to our zoning ordinance proposed by your staff, and please accept those proposed by United Neighbors. We will benefit by public review, transparency, and requirements that equipment be undergrounded, set away from residences, and minimized to the extent consistent with quality service.    Thank you for considering these views.    David Schrom  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 2:57 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Agenda Item 7 - ARB Wireless Communication Dear City Council,     I am requesting that Council vote against the proposed amendments by City Staff, including:   eliminating the requirement for public hearings,the Architectural Review Board's review, and   giving the Planning Director the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they are  installed.  Instead, I urge Council to vote for amendments that protect residents’ interests by requiring:   minimum spacing between cell towers,   undergrounding of ancillary equipment, and   minimum setbacks for cell towers from homes.  The recent California Supreme Court ruling against T-Mobile said that cities have the right to insist that the telecommunications industry abide by our aesthetics and other ordinances. In addition, cities across the U.S. are suing the FCC about its September Order and Congresswoman Eshoo has proposed legislation to overturn the FCC Order.     Sincerely, Mary Dimit Palo Alto owner and resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cindy Russell <cindyleerussell@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 7:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinance Attachments:Palo Alto City Council Letter Re New Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2019 PDF .pdf Dear City of Palo Alto :  Enclosed is a letter regarding small cell tower ordinance to be discussed  April 15, 2019. Please distribute to city council members.   Thank you!    ‐‐   Cindy Lee Russell, M.D.  Physicians for Safe Technology  WWW.MDSafeTech.org  Our vision is a world where technology serves our needs without undermining our physical, psychosocial or environmental health.  Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94028 Cindy Russell 112 Foxwood Road Portola Valley, CA 94301 Date: April 12, 2019 Re: Proposed Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance Dear Honorable Mayor Kniss and Palo Alto City Council Members: As you know FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report FCC 18-133 impacts local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities siting. This ruling accelerates the deployment of small cell antenna in the public right of way. There are measures that can be taken to give as much strength to a city ordinance and that other cities have included in their ordinances. I have listed these below. I know you are aware of Congresswoman Eshoo’s HR430 to reverse the FCC ruling 18-133 of which you are in support. There is also a lawsuit against the FCC challenging the ruling as an overreach of authority. . Some cities, such as Palos Verdes have used to maintain as much control over authority as possible and hold telecommunications companies accountable. Several aspects of other ordinances that would be useful to include are below and are from other cities emergency ordinances. Also note that the California Supreme Court just issued a ruling allowing cities , such as SF who brought the lawsuit, to maintain control of placement of antenna as it relates to aesthetics, changing the interpretation of “incommode” not only to include blockage of roadway but also other uses, stating, “the Court recognized there are “significant local interests” in regulating use and management of public streets and the “goal of technological advancement is not paramount to all others.” “ Ordinance Regulating Aesthetics of Wireless in Public Rights of Way OK’d by California Supreme Court. https://www.bbklaw.com/news- events/insights/2019/legal-alerts/04/ordinance-regulating-aesthetics-of-wireless-in- pub Court upholds SF’s right to prevent telecom companies from marring scenic views. April 4, 2019. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Court-upholds-SF-s- right-to-prevent-telecom-13742615.php Small Cells I would like to point out that • These small cells are not really small and have powerful antennas that radiate 3G and 4G telecommunications frequencies. 5G is proposed and in the pilot stages now. It is still years in the making • These small cell antennaw will be densely spaced i.e. 25-30 per square mile • Small Cells will be close to homes, schools and businesses. • This will impact the Public Right of Ways far more than it ever has • Public Right of Ways are valuable real estate • The cities are asked to give away this real estate without planning for future development and infrastructure which may preclude other communication development i.e. pure fiberoptic which is faster, safer, and more secure Health and Environmental Effects I understand that the 1996 Telecommunications Act prevents a decision based on health or environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation that these cell towers emit and we are not supposed to bring this issue up. The unfortunate and inconvenient reality is that a growing body of scientific literature has determined that not only are there human health effects from RF radiation, there are adverse effects on trees, plants, insects and animals. This radiation is absorbed by and passes through all living organisms and affects cellular processes along the way. There is cumulative damage with RF thus short exposures would not give much evidence of harm. As we are exposed to a mix of other toxins all acting on our immune, endocrine, nervous and metabolic systems, we can rarely determine the cause of any particular chronic illness. The recent $25 million, 10 year study by the National Toxicology Program on Cell Phones and Cancer concluded that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage along with clear evidence of carcinogenicity of the heart, significant findings for brain cancer as well as higher cancer rates above controls for prostate, pituitary, pancreas, liver and lung. A robust study by Dr. De Kun Li of Kaiser looked at 900 pregnant women and found a 3 fold increase in miscarriage at the high levels of everyday exposures. This radiation acts like a toxic exposure similar to chemicals, acting through a process of free radical formation or oxidation. Ripon School has 4 Children with Rare Cancers After Cell Tower Placed The Ripon school in California is not known for its high academic achievement but rather the increasing number of children now suffering cancer after a cell tower was placed in their school. The cell tower has now been turned off. Note that 3G and 4G will be placed on the new “small cells” antenna well before 5G, if it comes to fruition as there are already technical difficultiess with 5G. See CELL TOWER TO BE REMOVED AFTER 4TH RIPON STUDENT DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-student- diagnosed-with-cancer/ Congressmembers Blumenthal and Eshoo Ask for Evidence of Safety for 5G The evidence of harm from 2,3 and 4G radiofrequencies is contrasted with the lack of safety for 5G telecommunications. Congressmembers Blumenthal and our own Representative Anna Eshoo have asked the FCC for scientific proof of safety prior to the rollout of this novel technology. They stated in their letter that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018. There has been no response. In a press conference with Senator Blumenthal author Blake Levitt, noted that thin skinned amphibians and insects will be most affected by this technology with potentially disastrous results. She warns that it is not the power density or tissue absorption but the signaling characteristics that are harmful with damage even at low power levels. In addition, she emphasizes that there are inadequate protective regulations for chronic human exposures for current wireless frequencies and no oversight for wildlife or the environment. She concluded that “The FCC is completely unprepared, unable and possibly unwilling to oversee 5G for safety, even at it barrels toward us.” Although we should be reevaluating the FCC safety guidelines and amending the 1996 Telecommunications Act we are now faced with trying to have the strongest possible ordinance to protect the character, safety and health of the city. I have looked at several different urgency ordinances in California including Sonoma City, Palo Verdes, Glendora and Belveldere. They have taken the opportunity to craft emergency ordinances that reflect the current law with regards to siting of wireless communications facilities including small cells, maintaining as much control and oversight as possible until April. Here are additions I have found in these other ordinances that would be important 1) Maintain that all wireless facilities both small cells and cell towers require a Conditional Use Permit by the planning department followed by an encroachment permit. (remove Minor wireless permit section 18.41.050 and add all wireless communications facilities to section 18.41.060) which is reopened every 3 to 5 years- Sonoma City 2) Maintain requirement for significant gap in coverage to be identified for approval of both small cells and cell towers 3) Maintain requirement for the least intrusive methods to fill the gap for both small cells and cell towers 4) Have a thorough radiofrequency data requirement as part of the submittal for consultants. For all applications require that both an RF Compliance Report signed by a registered Professional Engineer, and a supporting RF Data Request Form as Attachment A as provided is mandatory. RF DATA SHEET (can be an attached form to be filled out and submitted with application). 5) In addition to residential areas, designate areas where cell towers are disfavored and not permitted near schools, city buildings, sensitive habitats. 6) Public notifications of planning commission hearings; Either in newspaper, website no less than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing. 7) Notification of all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed installation within X timeframe 8) No facility shall be permitted to be installed in the drip line of any tree in the right-of-way…. Palos Verdes 9) Speculative Equipment Prohibited. The city finds that the practice of “pre- approving” wireless equipment or other improvements that the applicant does not presently intend to install but may wish to install at some undetermined future time does not serve the public’s best interest. The city shall not approve any equipment or other improvements in connection with a Wireless Telecommunications Facility 10) Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. All facilities shall be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 11) No applicant seeking to install wireless antennas shall seek an encroachment permit for fiber or coaxial cable only. Applicants shall simultaneously request fiber installation or other cable installation when seeking to install antennas in the right-of-way 12) If the facility will be located on or in the property of someone other than the owner of the facility (such as a street light pole, street signal pole, utility pole, utility cabinet, vault, or cable conduit), the applicant shall provide a duly executed written authorization from the property owner(s) authorizing the placement of the facility on or in the property owner’s property. 13) The applicant would be required to hold a community meeting at least two weeks prior to the planning commission hearing on the use permit. 14) If a nearby property owner registers a noise complaint, the city shall forward the same to the permittee. Said compliant shall be reviewed and evaluated by the applicant. The permittee shall have ten (10) business days to file a written response regarding the complaint which shall include any applicable remedial measures. If the city determines the complaint is valid and the applicant has not taken any steps to minimize the noise, the city may hire a consultant to study, examine and evaluate the noise complaint and the permittee shall pay the fee for the consultant if the site is found in violation of this chapter. The matter shall be reviewed by the director. If the director determines sound proofing or other sound attenuation measures should be required to bring the project into compliance with the Code, the director may impose conditions on the project to achieve said objective. 15) The permittee shall not transfer the permit to any person prior to the completion of the construction of the facility covered by the permit, unless and until the transferee of the permit has submitted the security instrument required by section 12.18.080(B)(5). 16) Insurance. The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the public right-of-way, an insurance policy or policies of commercial general liability insurance, with minimum limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for each occurrence and Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) in the aggregate, that fully protects the city from claims and suits for bodily injury and property damage. The insurance must name the city and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers as additional named insureds, be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California with a rating of at least a A:VII in the latest edition of A.M. Best’s Insurance Guide, and include an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except with thirty (30) days prior written notice to the city, except for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium…. Palos Verdes 17) No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location. 18) Independent Expert. The director is authorized to retain on behalf of the city an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. The review is intended to be a review of technical aspects of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and shall address any or all of the following: California Cities with Emergency/Urgency Ordinances Sonoma City Draft Urgency Ordinance Wireless Communications Facilities Nov 5, 2018 https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/document/17797 City of Belvedere, California- Urgency Ordinance, Dec 10, 2018 https://www.cityofbelvedere.org/DocumentCenter/View/5641/Item-11 Glendora, California Urgency Ordinance , Aril 11, 2018 http://www.cityofglendora.org/home/showdocument?id=21881 Palos Verdes, California- Emergency ordinance- PV of the South. https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7952/RPV---ROW-Wireless- Telecommunications-Urgency-Ordinance Thank you for your consideration and long-time service to a very special and unique Bay Area community. Cindy Russell, MD 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Baback Elmieh <belmieh@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 9:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:Very concerned about 150+ cell tower installation Hello,    Our family of 4 are homeowners in south of mid‐town area on Bryant street with two elementary school aged children.  Our daughter attends Fairmeadow and our son will start Kindergarten next year there.    We just learned that telecom companies want to install 150+ small cell towers in Palo Alto right next to our homes and  schools. I feel this really needs to be debated openly and transparently with lots of public input. It should not be  something that a single person should approve, I understand the council is thinking about making it easier for cell towers  to be approved and I feel this is very wrong.    Some of the things our family in particular is worried about are:  ‐ I've seen that Los Angeles Unified School District and European Union countries have prohibited cell tower installations  next to schools, we are concerned that Children are more vulnerable to radiofrequency radiation and while the science  may still be out on this we absolutely don't want to be the community that takes the risk especially with the precedence  of forward thinking places like LA and Europe having made the determination that the risk is not worth it    ‐ Cities like Hillsborough, Petaluma, San Rafael, and Mill Valley are revising their telecom ordinances to protect the  health and safety of their residents and make it harder for telecom companies to install towers by enforcing setbacks  from homes and schools. We should have  public hearings about this and adopt the same best practices    ‐ The cell towers are unsightly and we're concerned about impact to property values. Cities like San Jose, LA, NYC ,  Seattle, Denver and Burlingame have sued the FCC for overstepping its bounds and CA supreme court says cities can  regulate aesthetics of cell towers, we should not expect anything less for our community. Again we need healthy public  hearings    ‐ There is evidence in 100s of studies over last 50 years that show long term exposure to radiofrequency radiation at low  levels affects human health and radiation from 3G and 4G cellular emissions cause brain and heart cancer in rates. This is  super concerning and we don't want our children exposed to these emissions, again the need for public hearings.    I understand there is a council meeting on April 15th at 730p I would appreciate if you can address our concerns in that  meeting  and vote to make sure we can have a public hearings about these installations.    Best,  ‐ Baback  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 12:13 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; alisonlcormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Vote AGAINST Staff's proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance, please Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine and Council Members Cormack, Dubois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka:    I am writing again to urge you to protect our beautiful residential environments by voting AGAINST City Staff's proposed  amendments to the Wireless Ordinance.    Frankly, I am flummoxed. Palo Alto is becoming increasingly isolated as more and more cities are standing up to the big  Telecoms and insisting that their installations align with their aesthetics ordinances. Yet, Palo Alto has been, instead,  catering to the telecoms instead of the residents.     As recently as April 4, the City of San Francisco prevailed against T‐Mobile to stop the proliferation of heavy,  unattractive, potentially hazardous small cell towers in the city. In fact, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled  that San Francisco had that right to stop the invasion of the small cell towers. Cities in California have the right to ensure  that any cell towers installed in our residential neighborhoods align with our aesthetics ordinances and are approved by  our Architectural Review Board. It is the telecoms who exist to serve us; Palo Alto is NOT the servant of the telecoms.    Please do the following:    1. Vote AGAINST the City Staff's proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance. Do NOT allow amending the  ordinance to eliminate public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board.   2. Vote IN FAVOR of amending the Wireless Ordinance to protect our residents of beautiful Palo Alto. Require a  minimum set back for cell towers from homes. Require all ancillary cell tower equipment be placed and located  underground.    In voting this way, we will be joining so many cities in doing what is right for residents. The list is growing and includes  New York, LA, Portland, Seattle, Denver, San Jose, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Fairfax, Mill Valley, Ross, Calabasas, Rancho  Palos Verdes, Piedmont, Hillsborough, Monterey, and more. And remember, our very own Congressional  Representative, Anna Eshoo, has introduced legislation to overturn the FCC order. Follow her instead of City Staff, who  seem to want to do everything for the telecoms. Remember that the telecoms work for US. Require that they do things  correctly.    Keep Palo Alto beautiful. Protect our residents. Protect our property values. Keep the neighborhoods peaceful by not  allowing these noisy small cell towers.    Please, Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and all Council Members: Be brave. Be bold. Take a stand for us, the residents.  Do 5G correctly.    Thank you for your consideration.    Annette Evans Fazzino      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 6:07 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Invasion Regarding the Monday, April 15, 2019 meeting, as concerned citizens, we are writing to urge you to:     Vote against the Staff's proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance   Vote, in particular, against amending the Ordinance that would eliminate the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board, giving Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. (Recall that we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.) Bearing this burden is unacceptable!  Vote instead for amending the Ordinance so that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, making it more difficult to place cell towers in residential neighborhoods, and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.   Sincerely,    George & Barbara Kelly  444 Washington Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chunming Niu <chunming_niu@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 6:30 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Subject:Up coming voting Attachments:Slide1.jpeg; Slide1.jpeg Dear council members:    We are writing to ask you to vote against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance, in  particular, amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by  the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director the sole authority to decide what a telecom  company can install and where they can install it and vote in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it  does more to protect residents’ interests, for example, making it more difficult to place cell towers in  residential neighborhoods, and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.       We moved into Palo Alto in 2003. It's our feeling that the living quality of the Palo Alto have being  deteriorating precipitately in last few years, much more cars are running on the streets, low flying airplanes  are sundering constantly overhead. Now this cell tower madness. I already have a tower from AT&T erected  outside my house on the Kipling side of the street(see attached). I can hear its humming inside my yard. Now  proposal to build one on the side of Loma Verde is post on a pole ~5 yards away form my bed room by  Verison. What is the next? Towers from XT&T or Norion in my yard on my roof?    In light of ongoing investigation of potential corruption of City's former Chief Information Officer Jonathan  Reichental, I can't believe the staff, unelected, is trying to grab more power, take away our rights to an hearing  and eliminate the process of professional review on the matters which will have profound impact on what we  see, we hear, we smell and potentially our health. The city development is important, but the decision of how  ought to be in the hands of us‐citizen and you‐our elected representatives, not some unelected bureaucrats,  worse powerful telecommunication corporations.     We strongly urge you to take a stand on this power grab, together stop rapid deteriorating of our living  environment and make Palo Alto a more proud living place.          Chunming Niu and Jilan Yin  Residents of 450 Loma Verde Ave., Palo Alto     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 9:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:cell towers Must businesses place cell towers in residential neighborhoods anywhere they want and without regard for neighbors  concern's.  I do not believe so, do you!    Thank you    Paul Machado  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pamela Wible <roxywible@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 7:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:ATTN: Mayor Filseth and Council Members, Physician Statement on EMF/5G     Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members,    I am Dr. Pamela Wible, a family physician practicing in Eugene, Oregon, writing on behalf of  vulnerable citizens of your town.    As a medical doctor, I am against the untested proliferation of EMF‐emitting cell towers in our  neighborhoods. I request that the Palo Alto City Council vote against staff’s proposed  amendments to the Wireless Ordinance which serve to weaken the opportunity for public input  on this vital issue.  Instead I request that the Council vote to amend the Ordinance to do more to  protect residents’ interests and to stop 4 and 5G cell installations near our homes and schools.    Human exposure to man‐made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased to unprecedented  levels, accompanied by an increase in health problems from technologies never tested on  humans. As new EMF technology is introduced in a fashion that prevents vulnerable individuals  from avoiding it, new groups become sensitized to health effects. This is particularly true for  pulsed signals in the radiowave and microwave portion of the spectrum.    Substantial scientific evidence reveals EMF‐linked oxidative stress mechanisms including damage  to mitochondria (the energy producing parts of cells). These mechanisms have known  involvement in induction of brain cancer, metabolic diseases like obesity and diabetes, autism,  autoimmune disease, and neurodegenerative conditions.  Such radiation also has toxic effects in  pregnancy—to the fetus and subsequent offspring—including at low levels and is tied to  developmental problems in later life such as attention deficit and hyperactivity. It is critical to  defend pregnant women (and the ovaries of young girls) from exposures with such toxicity. Such  radiation also has effects on sperm and the DNA of sperm that may impact generations to come.    Each new roll‐out of electromagnetic technology (for which exposure is obligatory) swells the  ranks of those who develop medical conditions from exposure. Please defend the public and our  future. Protect the rights of individuals and your community against a form of incursion that will  lead to serious harm to some – and set a terrible precedent.     Thank you for your time and attention to this critical issue.  2   Pamela Wible, MD    Pamela Wible, M.D.  3575 Donald St. #220  Eugene, OR 97405  IdealMedicalCare    1 Brettle, Jessica From:blake nilsson <blakenilsson@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 8:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers Dear City Council,      My name is Blake Nilsson, I reside with my wife and 1 year old daughter in Barron Park.  I am writing to express my  absolute objection to the proposed cell tower across the street from my home (pole 302 on Whitsell Ave.) and to the  placement of these cell towers in residential neighborhoods or near schools.      I don’t understand why you all, and the City of Palo Alto are not doing more to protect the health of us residents.   There have been studies showing the adverse effects of the radiation emitted from these towers.  They have no place in  residential neighborhoods or near schools.  I am concerned about the effects it would have on the brain development of  my daughter as well as long term cancer risks to myself or my wife.      If the LA Unified School District has passed a resolution preventing these towers near schools why has Palo Alto not  done the same?      Furthermore other cities in the region (Hillsborough, Petaluma, San Rafael and others) are proactively addressing this  issue.  I would expect Palo Alto to be at the forefront of this given its location in Silicon Valley and its highly educated,  largely upper class population.      In addition to the adverse health effects, they emit a constant hum.  This no doubt would adversely impact property  values and have negative quality of life impacts for residents nearby (such as myself and my family).  Finally, the pole in  question near my house is adjacent to a tree, and the proposal mentions placing an 11ft tall antenna atop the poll, I  would think it extremely difficult to continue with the project without cutting down part of the tree.  This would be an  unfortunate and entirely avoidable adverse effect.  These are more negative impacts of this proposal.      I urge you all to reconsider this proposal and advocate for us residents, as you have been elected to do.  I am planning  on attending the City Council meeting on Monday April 15th at 730pm and I look forward to speaking further about this.     Sincerely,  Blake Nilsson    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:neva yarkin <nevayarkin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 9:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:from neva yarkin April 13, 2019    Dear Mayor and City Council,    I am not a technical person but I have read a little to try and understand what 5G cell towers mean.       From what I can understand, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity cell towers that would emit  radiation.  So, that would mean that the radio frequency radiation exposure would increase greatly.  Many more mini  cell towers (every 2 to 8 houses) would be needed.  If this is all correct, we would be blanketed with mini cell towers all  over town.       What I do understand is that for 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency and 5G uses between 24 to  90 gigahertz frequency. That is a big jump and will affect all of us.       These mini towers could be placed on sides or tops of buildings, on street light poles and many other places.     Would you want mini towers in front of your house or on your street?  Would you want your family, relatives, neighbors  or friends exposed to this radiation when there could be health risks?   Would we want this by schools, on top of  businesses or where people gather?     I think we as a city need to take our time and not be pushed by telephone carriers, or other companies into making a  decision that could really affect our health.       Thank you for taking the time to read this email.    Sincerely,   Neva Yarkin  nevayarkin@gmail.com      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 14, 2019 3:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:regulating WCFs Council members, At your 04-15-19 meeting, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40946.96&BlobID=70171 there's an item about wireless communications facilities (WCFs). Here's the staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70193 At its 03-21-19 meeting, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) considered an earlier staff report: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69895 The official verbatim minutes for this meeting are not posted online yet, but a transcript, with my comments, is available in this Letters From Citizens document, pp. 28-112. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=42472.09&BlobID=70489 The 04-15-19 staff report asks Council to adopt objective aesthetic, noise, and other standards for WCFs. The motivation is that FCC 18-133 says that, after 04-15-19, the City can't object (on aesthetic, noise, or other grounds) to any small cell facilities proposals that meet the City's objective standards (for aesthetics, noise, and other). So, OK, Council should adopt objective aesthetic standards on 04-15-19. On 03-21-19, ARB had a go at helping to refine a staff proposal for these objective standards. But I think ARB members are chosen for their ability to apply subjective aesthetic standards, not for their experience at debugging objective aesthetic standards. So I think the aesthetic standards proposed in the 04-15-19 staff report are probably not exactly what the City wants. So Council should consider how the objective standards can evolve in the future. One way to do this is for ARB to continue to consider WCF applications, for the purpose of commenting on what the objective aesthetic standards should have said, and how they can be improved. I haven't studied the proposed changes to municipal code 18.42.110 in detail. So I hope staff is right when it says the intent is that, should FCC 18-133 be invalidated, either by the courts or via federal legislation, the new 18.42.110 won't require anything that FCC 18-133 required. But I do have a question about the proposed section (k) "exceptions" (PDF page 35). (I guess this is section 18.42.110(k), right?) Section 18.42.110(k)(4) says, in part, "The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue." This seems to suggest that the City will never grant an exception to the objective standards unless it's required by federal or state law. What if the applicant wants to ask for an exception to deploy something that's even more aesthetic than the designs in the objective aesthetic standards? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- 2 PS: Please see my comments about Attachment A, the proposed objective standards, below the "######" line. (My comments are paragraphs in red beginning with "###".) ############################################################################# ### Specific comments on Attachment A -- objective aesthetic standards: ### Generally, Attachment A enumerates a menu of design options, without saying which should be preferred if feasible. For example, how about saying that if an undergrounded design (either for streetlight poles or wood utility poles) is feasible, then it must be chosen? --- page 19 --- Streetlight Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Streetlights – An applicant proposing to attach to a Streetlight in the public right of way shall utilize one of the other ### other? designs specified herein. a) Underground design: Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault in the pedestrian right of way. The antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. ### Why limit where the antenna can be in a way that doesn't limit where the antenna can be for other designs? ### This doesn't mention ancillary equipment like power supplies. (Neither do the other designs.) Conceivably, there could be different rules for radios and ancillary equipment. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. ### Verizon says OSHA says there needs to be enough volume for a worker to get inside the vault to work on the equipment. I don't think that requirement has been verified independently. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2-inches x 5 feet 7-inches ### Are the dashes ("-") necessary? Why not 5 feet 8 inches x 8 feet 2 inches x 5 feet 7 inches? or 260 cu. ft., ### Why say "or 260 cu. ft."? Does this permit anything up to this volume, regardless of shape? ### Why is there a size limit at all? excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. ### In the 03-21-19 staff report (PDF page 9), at this point, there used to be an "Integrated pole design," where radios and ancillary equipment went inside the streetlight pole. When ARB discussed this on 03-21-19, some board members were reluctant to permit this option without first seeing what such a pole would look like, and having a objective aesthetic standard about what it would look like. I see this as a future opportunity. b) Top-mounted design: All equipment shall be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole containing both radio and antenna equipment. i) Top-mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the streetlight pole and shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. c) Minimal sunshield design: Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. Sunshields shall be attached at least 12 3 feet above ground level. To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. d) Existing signage: Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing signage under the following conditions: i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not exceed the dimensions of the sign in height and width, nor 4 inches in depth, including any required mounting bracket. ii) In no event shall WCF equipment obscure or interfere with the visibility or functioning of the signage. iii) To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. General standards for all WCFs located on Streetlights WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Except in the case of top- mounted designs, antennae shall not exceed 3 feet from the top of the streetlight pole and the associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match Public Works Department (PWD) standards or the existing pole, as applicable. 3) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 4) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to a streetlight pole at a height of 2 feet below the light mast or higher. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of such equipment and any shrouding exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per streetlight pole. Height 5) Except for top-mounted designs, poles and all attachments will not exceed the height of similar surrounding poles by more than 3 feet. For top-mounted designs, poles and all attachments shall not exceed the height of similar surrounding poles by more than 6 feet. --- page 20 --- 6) Replacement poles will conform to PWD style guidelines where the City has adopted standards and will match the pole being replaced where no standards exist. For integrated pole designs, poles shall incorporate decorative elements (e.g. fluting, decorative mast arm and luminaire, etc.) from PWD standards or existing poles, as applicable. ### Since no "integrated pole" design is listed (on PDF page 19), this item has no referent. Well, maybe the "integrated pole" design can return in a future version. Landscaping 7) At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. ### Since trees interfere with wireless signals, especially higher-frequency signals (used by 5G), is this a problem? 8) Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Noise 9) Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise-related 4 ### At the 03-21-19 ARB meeting, Chair Furth wanted the City to consider the possibility that a WCF design might be permitted to make more noise if it had better visual aesthetics. At this point, it's a future opportunity. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a) In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB ### 60 dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b) In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 10) If placed below 16’ above ground level, attachments shall not be placed closer than 18” to the curb, nor shall they extend over the sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). 11) WCF node equipment must be at least 3’ from a curb cut. Miscellaneous 12) WCF installations shall not require any changes in the City’s existing banner marketing program. 13) All cabling shall be routed entirely within the pole or an attached shroud. 14) Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 15) Power disconnects shall be placed in a vault near the base of the pole. 16) Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. ### I didn't see any exceptions specified elsewhere. So does this means that no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade? 17) Light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. ### Is this here to support an "integrated pole" design? Pole location 18) Nodes shall utilize existing streetlight pole locations. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. ### Is this talking about a new streetlight pole? (This section is about streetlight poles.) 19) Streetlight nodes at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall not utilize a top-mounted design. --- page 21 --- Wood Utility Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles – An applicant proposing to attach to a wood utility pole in the public right of way shall utilize one of the other ### other? designs specified herein. 5 ### At the highest level, should the standard say that if a WCF can be deployed on a streetlight pole, then it must not be deployed on a wood utility pole? The City has a decades-old undergrounding program that wants to get rid of utility poles over time. ### At the highest level, the section on wood utility poles is largely the same as the section on streetlight poles. Is there a reason the objective aesthetic standards document should be organized this way? If I've already commented on a detail in the streetlight poles section, I won't comment again on the same detail in the wood utility poles section. a) Underground design: Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault in the pedestrian right of way. The antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2- inches x 5 feet 7-inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. b) Top-mounted design: All equipment shall be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole containing both radio and antenna equipment. i) Top-mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used, and shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. c) Minimal sunshield design: Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. d) Existing signage: Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing signage under the following conditions: i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not exceed the dimensions of the sign in height and width, nor 4 inches in depth, including any required mounting bracket. ii) In no event shall WCF equipment obscure or interfere with the visibility or functioning of the signage. iii) To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. General standards for all WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Antennae shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) Bayonet attachments and equipment or antennae at the top of the shroud shall be covered by a single integrated shroud and “antenna skirt” that shall meet the pole without any gaps. 3) All conduit shall be mounted flush to the pole. ### It doesn't say that all wires have to be in conduit. 4) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match PWD standards or the existing pole, as applicable. Paint shall be maintained regularly and shrouds shall be repainted if necessary to match changes in pole color over time. 5) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 6) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to the top of the pole or on a cross arm or brace protruding from the pole to the minimum extent necessary to comply with safety standards including GO95. Such cross arm shall be placed as high on the pole as technically feasible. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of 6 --- page 22 --- such equipment exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per wood utility pole. Height 7) For wood utility poles carrying power lines, replacement poles and pole-top bayonet attachments shall be the minimum height necessary to provide GO-95 mandated clearance between WCF equipment and power lines. 8) For wood utility poles without power lines, any pole top equipment shall not increase the height of the pole by more than six feet. 9) In no event shall the total height of a pole or replacement pole, including all equipment exceed 55 feet. 10) Replacement poles will conform to all standards adopted by CPAU. Landscaping 11) At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. 12) Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Noise 13) Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a) In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b) In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 14) If placed below 16’ above ground level, attachments shall not be placed closer than 18” to the curb, nor shall they extend over the sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). 15) WCF node equipment must be at least 3’ from a curb cut. Miscellaneous 16) Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 17) Power disconnects shall be placed on the wood pole or in a vault near the base of the pole. ### It's interesting that there's an on-the-pole option. But where on the pole? 18) Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. 19) If applicable, light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. ### When is this ever applicable? Pole location 7 20) Nodes shall utilize existing streetlight pole locations. ### Since this is the wood utility pole section, don't talk about streetlight poles. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. ### Should this kind of new pole have its own section (since it wouldn't be a wood utility pole)? 21) Wood utility poles at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall not utilize a top-mounted design. 22) WCF equipment and antennas shall be located on poles such that they do not fall within the horizontal plane defined by a 45 degree angle extending 50 feet from the center point of upper story windows, doors, balconies, and other openings. Why wouldn't this also be required of streetlight pole designs? Does "doors" mean all doors, or only "upper story" doors? 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bruce Hodge <hodge@tenaya.com> Sent:Sunday, April 14, 2019 10:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:2019 Earth Day Report Honorable Council Members,    Careful readers of the 2019 Earth Day Report should note that City Staff has doubled down on the idea of a “carbon neutral” gas utility, and now counts the offsets we purchase as if that actually reduces our carbon emissions. According to this logic, our natural gas usage can be safely ignored and we can attribute 94% of GHG emissions to transportation. Compounding the misrepresentation, the 94% figure has been reported by the press, with no details as to how that number is computed by the City.     Furthermore, the putative impact of the offsets are blithely counted as reductions that supposedly result in a 51% decrease in emissions since 2005. The fact of the matter is that, actions by the City have done very little to decrease emissions except for the conversion of the electric utility to carbon neutral electricity in 2013. This is graphically depicted in Figure 7 from the report.    Figure 7: Palo Alto Municipal Operations and Community GHG Emissions  2013 – 2018 compared to 1990, 2005 baselines    2     We find it very troubling that the City is taking this greenwashing approach and making claims that our combined electric and gas utility is “carbon neutral”. We run a gas utility that is making a significant contribution to climate change. Period.    The City also ignores at its peril a more realistic accounting of the climate impacts of the use of natural gas (NG). Currently data indicates that the climate impacts of burning NG should be multiplied by around 2.5, to account for fugitive emissions of methane, the principal component of NG. This means the blue bar in the graph above should be more than twice as tall and the offsets that the city purchases do not account for this. Furthermore, the cost of the offsets is criminally low - at a level that does not begin to account for the real costs of eliminating NG. The use of offsets as a forward thinking climate action strategy is leading to costly delays in decarbonization efforts and continued build-up of stranded assets. The market has failed to price emissions at the appropriate level for them to have any effect.    In terms of actual GHG emissions reductions achieved in buildings we continue to sleepwalk into probable climate catastrophe. For example, the report says the actual reductions achieved in fossil fuel use in buildings due to energy efficiency and the heat pump water heater program total less than 1% (0.97% efficiency, 0.02% (4.9k therms) heat pump). As we have been saying since 2014, the strategies of efficiency and electrification of building and vehicles and SOV reduction laid out in the SIP are indeed the only effective ways forward. Yet there seems to be no commitment to establishing scalable plans with annual GHG reduction targets to get us anywhere near the 80/30 goal. Our community heavily depends on Council to ask hard questions in these few critical program areas and to demand options to get on track.    3 Rather than spending staff time pumping up Palo Alto’s putative green credentials, Palo Alto should be taking the rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented steps needed to put in place programs and policies that have a measurable and direct impact on local emissions.     Carbon Free Palo Alto    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ann L <annyeawon@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 6:39 AM Subject:Reminder: Palo Alto City Council Meets TONIGHT to Vote On Cell Tower Ordinance Palo Alto residents ‐ PLEASE ACT NOW.    Palo Alto residents must call for more robust and transparent approval process for  small cell antennas.      Why?  Because the Palo Alto city staff are at present taking actions to codify controversial federal rules that streamline  the cell tower approval process, limit public input, and reduce transparency.    What can we do?  Residents and local supporters must speak up now to preserve the health and safety of the Palo Alto community. On  April 15, City Council will vote on the Staff‐proposed wireless ordinance changes, which would reduce public input and  transparency while doing nothing to address public concerns.  Contact City Council now (City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org) and attend the City Council meeting (April 15, evening) to tell  them we need:  1. A more robust set of objective standards that would include parameters such as setbacks from homes and  schools, requirements for undergrounding, size of equipment, etc., informed by an inclusive public process.  2. A short term resident task force to inform standards that better reflect community concerns and values, with  quick turn around of a resolution to adopt them.   3. Continued ARB review of applications to ensure public scrutiny and comment on proper application of the  standards.  Want more information?  The above is an abbreviated excerpt of an article written by Dr. Tina Chow, Ph.D, Palo Alto  resident and professor of engineering at UC Berkeley, in Palo Alto Matters:  https://paloaltomatters.org/get‐ informed/newsletters/march‐30‐2019‐newsletter/    Speak up now before City Council takes action on April 15, 2019!  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 8:33 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Addrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Request vote in opposition to staff's proposed amendments to the wireless ordinance To The Members of the Palo Alto City Council:  I request that you vote against the staff's proposed amendments to the  wireless ordinance.    Please vote to retain public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board.    Please vote to limit and regulate the Planning Director's role in installation decisions.    Please vote to protect the residents' interests and concerns for both appearance and health risks.    Please do not compromise our city owned utility system in this process of renting city poles to outside telecom interests.   Thank you,  Kathleen Martin  Palo Alto resident  1 Brettle, Jessica From:John D Melnychuk <jmelnychuk@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 9:09 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers in Palo Alto - Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members,    Please do not accept Telecommunications’ Industry demand to install the cheapest ugliest, noisy antennas and equipment above  ground in residential neighborhoods.  Beyond the aesthetics and fire danger, let’s not fry ourselves and our kids with  electromagnetic and other radiation just because telecommunications’ industry lobbyists managed to write a law that demands that  we not consider health issues in regards to cell tower placement.  This law in effect, tells us we must put our hands on a hot stove,  but that we can’t consider the heat emitting from it.  Radiation is not benign.    I support the findings of the ARB and I disagree decisions proposed by Mr. Lait and the Planning Department Staff to acquiesce to  favor Industry over Residents.    The recent California Supreme Court’s April 4th, 2019, ruling against T-Mobile has removed it affirms that our City has the legal right to determine what type of equipment may be placed, and where it may be placed.    Dozens of the largest cities in the United States are suing the FCC regarding its September Order, saying that the Order is unlawful. These cities include New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Denver and our neighbor, San Jose. Moreover, the League of California Cities has joined this lawsuit. Yet it is the telecom-friendly language of this disputed FCC Order that City Staff want to incorporate wholesale into our Wireless Ordinance. Does that make sense?  Our representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, has proposed legislation to overturn the FCC Order. Yet, again, it is the telecom-friendly language of this FCC Order that City Staff want to incorporate wholesale into our Wireless Ordinance.   The City of Palo Alto, right now, charges an even lower pole rental fee to telecom companies than the fee that the plaintiffs in the FCC lawsuit and Congresswoman Eshoo say is much too low. How can this be right?   Many cities—for example, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Fairfax, Mill Valley, Ross, Calabasas, Rancho Palos Verdes, Piedmont, Hillsborough, and Monterey—have incorporated, or are in the process of incorporating, strong language in their Municipal Codes that is intended to keep unsightly and unsafe cell towers away from homes and schools. These cities are doing the opposite of what City Staff is urging Palo Alto’s City Council to do, namely, allow telecom companies to install whatever they want, where ever they want it, in our neighborhoods..  Some cities—for example—Mill Valley, have decided that a moratorium is the right answer. They have temporarily halted all cell tower installations.  Studies show that property values are negatively affected by proximity to a cell tower.  Cell tower equipment poses a fire danger, and the “co-location” of different carriers’ installations, which overloads poles with heavy equipment, is especially dangerous.   Numerous studies by, among others, the US Department of the Interior, the National Institute of Health, the US Fish and Wildlife Services, and the Department of Entomology at Cornell have found that radio frequency radiation is harmful to many different species. All federal agencies, including the FCC, are required to comply with the Endangered Species Act.    Whatever the FCC may say, it is always the duty of Palo Alto’s City Council to consider whether its decisions could lead to adverse health effects the for the residents of Palo Alto.      2 The American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) recognizes electromagnetic sensitivity as a disability and requires accommodation. Cell tower installations represent a hazard for residents with electromagnetic sensitivity.  Hundreds of studies have shown that long-term exposure to non-ionizing RF radiation, even non-ionizing RF radiation at very low levels, has a negative impact on human health. For example, the National Tumor Board of the National Institute of Health reported that long-term exposure to non-ionizing RF radiation causes brain and heart cancer in mice. And a recent Kaiser-Permanente study found that pregnant women exposed to non-ionizing RF radiation were significantly more likely to miscarry  Respectfully,    John    John D Melnychuk 3707 Lindero Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306     1 Brettle, Jessica From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 11:27 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:April 15 2019 Palo Alto City Council Wireless Ordinance Issue Please vote against staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance; Please vote, in particular, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. Eliminating citizen oversight on and contribution to city measures is unsafe and unwise. And denies our city’s residents their right to participate in their own governance. Eliminating resident participation in the development of their own city in favor of obdurate, short-sighted staff demands and is not a trend that should be encouraged. Please vote in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests — help protect us making it more difficult to place cell towers in residential neighborhoods, and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground. Michael Maurier Fairmede Avenue 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Parris Schmidt <Parris.Schmidt@bowmanandbrooke.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 11:44 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Request to vote AGAINST the proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance *IMPORTANT*   Dear City Council Members,    I am writing to respectfully ask you to use your vote tonight to keep our City beautiful and to protect children and property values by:    1. Voting against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance;   2. Voting against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it.   3. To vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, establishing a minimum set back for cell towers from homes, establishing a minimum distance between cell towers and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.    Given the California Supreme Court’s April 4, 2019 decision in T-Mobile West v. City and Country of San Francisco, the City of Palo Alto is in a great position because it now knows it has authority and the power (and obligation) under the California Constitution, Article XII, section 8, and the PUC sections 2901 and 7901 to regulate and control the time, place, and manner in which its roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, including the design and location of wireless facilities.     Key quotes from the Supreme Court you should keep in mind when voting:    “The state Constitution vests principal regulatory authority over utilities with the PUC, but carves out an ongoing area of municipal control. (Cal. Const., art. XII, § 8.)”    “Municipalities may surrender to the PUC regulation of a utility’s relations with its customers (§ 2901), but they are forbidden from yielding to the PUC their police powers to protect the public from the adverse impacts of utilities operations (§ 2902).”    2 Consistent with these statutes, the PUC’s default policy is one of deference to municipalities in matters concerning the design and location of wireless facilities. In a 1996 opinion adopting the general order governing wireless facility construction, the PUC states the general order “recognize[s] that primary authority regarding cell siting issues should continue to be deferred to local authorities. . . . The [PUC’s] role continues to be that of the agency of last resort, intervening only when a utility contends that local actions impede statewide goals . . . .” (cite and footnote removed). The order itself “acknowledges that local citizens and local government are often in a better position than the [PUC] to measure local impact and to identify alternative sites. Accordingly, the [PUC] will generally defer to local governments to regulate the location and design of cell sites . . . .”    Many other cities are pushing back on this very important issue by requiring telco companies conform to standards set by a city to keep their city beautiful. The latest example of this is the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the City of San Francisco that the city has local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That local power includes the ability to establish aesthetic conditions for land use. This sets a legal precedence we should leverage to determine aesthetic standards for the City of Palo Alto and hold the telephone companies accountable for meeting them.    Residents of Palo Alto do not want hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes or our schools. This issue directly impacts our neighborhoods, and therefore, residents must retain their voice in these decisions through the local public hearing process. Also, decisions about cell towers needs proper checks and balances within the city's process; no one person or single board should be solely responsible for cell tower related decisions. The Architectural Review Board should remain in the process as the body that determines whether or not the proposed towers meet the aesthetic standards established by the City of Palo Alto.     The City of Palo Alto has always had our city's beauty at the forefront. Please continue to keep our city beautiful by voting against the proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance.    If the City wants to avoid litigation costs by defending lawsuits from residents, I suggest and recommend, it take action and use its municipal powers to protect the public from the adverse impacts of utilities operations.      Sincerely,  Parris Schmidt, Esq.  Longtime resident of Barron Park  Father of two boys attending Barron Park Elementary      3     _________________________________________________________   Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that  is attorney‐client privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you have  received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete both the message and reply. Thank you.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding Cell technologies and small cell antennas for tonite's Council Meeting To Whom it May Concern:    As  Palo Alto resident for 31 years I am very concerned about the  ubiquitous use of digital technologies without due process and  consideration.  Therefore I am requesting that the City Council develope:   1. A more robust set of objective standards that would include  parameters such as setbacks from homes and schools, requirements  for undergrounding, size of equipment, etc., informed by an  inclusive public process.  2. A short term resident task force to inform standards that better  reflect community concerns and values, with quick turn around of a  resolution to adopt them.   3. Continued ARB review of applications to ensure public scrutiny and  comment on proper application of the standards.    Thank you very much.  Sumitra Joy   2020 Princeton St.  Palo Alto, CA.  94306  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Shank, Aaron M. <AShank@porterwright.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 12:45 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Yang, Albert; SLADE, JEFFREY M (Legal) (JS593D@att.com) Subject:AT&T Comments on proposed ordinance and resolution to regulate wireless facilities in the PROW Attachments:AT&T Comments April 15 2019.pdf Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, and Mr. Yang:  Please accept this letter from Jeff Slade on behalf of AT&T to provide comments on the city’s proposed ordinance  amending Chapter 18.42.110 of the City Code and proposed resolution adopting design standards for wireless facilities  in the public rights‐of‐way. Please consider these comments in connection with Item 7 of this evening’s City Council  meeting. If you have questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.    Aaron M. Shank  Outside Legal Counsel for AT&T      AARON M. SHANK     Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP  Bio / ashank@porterwright.com  D: 614.227.2110 / M: 614.578.5036 / F: 614.227.2100  41 South High Street, Suite 2900 / Columbus, OH 43215     / YOU INSPIRE US, CHICAGO.  We are proud to announce that on February 1, 2019, Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP merged into Porter Wright, marking our firm’s expansion into the Chicago market. Learn more.       NOTICE FROM PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP:  This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read, print or forward it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.  END OF NOTICE  JEFFREY SLADE Assistant Vice President - Senior Legal Counsel AT&T Services, Inc. 208 S Akard Street Room 3002 Dallas, TX 75202 214.782.3858 Phone jeff.slade@att.com April 15, 2019 Via E-Mail City of Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re. AT&T’s Comments on Proposed Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 and Proposed Resolution Adopting Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, and Councilmembers Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka: I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) to provide comments on the City of Palo Alto’s proposed ordinance to update its wireless communications facility siting regulations (“Proposed Ordinance”), and proposed resolution to adopt standards for wireless communication facilities in the public rights-of-way (“Proposed Resolution”). AT&T appreciates the city’s commitment to working with industry stakeholders as it develops wireless siting policies to accommodate advances in wireless technologies and to address changes in applicable state and federal laws, including the Federal Communications Commission’s Infrastructure Order.1 With some revisions to the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed Resolution, the Council can make sure that the city’s policies foster responsible siting without prohibiting access to wireless services that are critical to its residents and businesses. With these goals in mind, AT&T offers the following comments. Key Legal Concepts Applicable laws related to wireless facility deployments focus on the broad interests in allowing broad access to wireless services and encouraging competition in the industry to that end. The crux of these laws is to eliminate discrimination and prohibitions on wireless services, which are AT&T’s primary concerns with respect to the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed Resolution. 1 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) (“Infrastructure Order”). Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2019 Page 2 of 6 The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Act”) establishes key limitations on local regulations. The Act defines the scope and parameters of review by local governments of AT&T’s applications. Under the Act, the local authority must take action on AT&T’s applications “within a reasonable period of time.”2 The Act also requires that review of AT&T’s applications must be based on substantial evidence.3 Under the Act, state and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services.4 The Act also prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” AT&T from providing wireless telecommunications services.5 The FCC has ruled that an effective prohibition occurs when the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services.6 The FCC explained that the “effective prohibition analysis focuses on the service the provider wishes to provide, incorporating the capabilities and performance characteristics it wishes to employ, including facilities deployment to provide existing services more robustly, or at a better level of quality, all to offer a more robust and competitive wireless service for the benefit of the public.”7 Thus, a local government “could materially inhibit service in numerous ways – not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services.”8 In September 2018, the FCC issued its small cell deployment order and associated rules, which went into effect on January 14, 2019. Under this Infrastructure Order, the FCC established standard for local aesthetic regulations that they must be (1) reasonable (i.e., has to be technically feasible), (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance.9 AT&T has a statewide franchise right to access and construct telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way. Under Public Utilities Code Section 7901, AT&T has the right to access and construct facilities in public rights-of-way in order to furnish wireless services, so long as it does not “incommode” the public use of the public right-of-way. And under Section 7901.1, AT&T’s right is subject only to a local government’s reasonable and equivalent time, place, and manner regulations as to how AT&T constructs in the public rights- of-way. 2 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 3 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). 4 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). 5 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 6 See Infrastructure Order (The FCC rejected the significant gap/least intrusive means test for an effective prohibition that many courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have applied); see also, In the Matter of California Payphone Association Petition for Preemption, Etc., Opinion and Order, FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Rcd 14191 (July 17, 1997). 7 Infrastructure Order at n. 95. 8 Id. at ¶ 37. 9 See id. at ¶ 86; the FCC delayed the effective date for this aesthetic standard to April 15, 2019 in order to give local governments time to adopt appropriate regulations. Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Specific Comments on Proposed Resolution The Proposed Resolution establishes design standards for wireless communication facilities attached to streetlight poles and to wood utility poles. AT&T recognizes that City Staff has worked hard to develop design standards to comply with the FCC’s aesthetic standard for small wireless facilities under the Infrastructure Order. There are, however, significant problems that the city must address before finalizing these standards. 1. Prohibitions Should Be Eliminated. In order to avoid materially inhibiting AT&T from providing wireless services in the city, the design standards need to build in greater flexibility to accommodate common design elements.  Item 19 of the proposed streetlight pole design guidelines and Item 21 of the proposed wood utility pole design guidelines prohibit installations at “a designated gateway location” or along “scenic corridors.” This risks effectively prohibiting wireless service depending on where and how prevalent such locations are throughout the city (and I note that these terms are not defined or used in the Palo Alto Municipal Code). Rather than to prohibit entire portions of the city, the city could require small wireless facilities to match nearby installations.  Item 20 of the proposed wood utility pole design guidelines provides a general rule prohibiting new wood poles. AT&T has the right to place poles in the public rights-of- way, and this prohibition may violate that right. In addition, this prohibition is unlawful to the extent other right-of-way users are allowed to place new wood poles.  The Proposed Resolution does not contemplate use of traffic signals or strand-mounted small wireless facilities. The city should make allowance for such attachments to the extent feasible and non-interfering. With respect to traffic signals, placements at intersections often allow wider coverage than a mid-block site.  The Proposed Resolution also broadly prohibits cabinets located at grade. AT&T has the right to place facilities in the public rights-of-way, and this prohibition may violate that right. In addition, this prohibition is unlawful to the extent it is more burdensome than restrictions imposed on other infrastructure deployments.  The Proposed Resolution prohibits nearly all small wireless facilities. Item (a) of both the sets of proposed design guidelines requires radio equipment to be placed underground and requires the antenna to be mounted at the top of the pole. But radios must be placed in close proximity to antennas to function properly. Small wireless facilities with pole-top antennas will require radios to be on the top of the pole or pole-mounted. At a minimum, this provision must be limited “to the extent feasible.” More appropriately, the requirement to underground radio equipment should be deleted.  The Proposed Resolution will prohibit all small wireless facilities on utility poles, which is unreasonable and discriminatory. While perhaps unintended, the four specified options Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2019 Page 4 of 6 under the wood utility pole design guidelines do not accommodate AT&T’s small cells. Again, radio units cannot be placed underground because they must be placed in close proximity to antennas to function properly. The 8-inch width limitation on the city’s “minimal sunshield design” will accommodate only certain types of small cells, and those small cells cannot function with antennas at the top of a utility pole because they will be too high to provide and improve wireless services. In addition, the city’s 4-inch depth limitation for sign-mounted radios will not accommodate any of AT&T’s small cell designs. To accommodate real-world small cells, the city must introduce added flexibility to these design criteria. 2. Discriminatory Standards Should Be Eliminated. The Proposed Resolution includes many provisions that risk discriminating against wireless installations. In addition to other state and federal laws that require equal treatment, under the FCC’s aesthetic standard for small wireless facilities restrictions on small wireless facilities are unlawful to the extent they are more burdensome than restrictions imposed on other infrastructure deployments.  Undergrounding requirements for radio equipment under the Proposed Resolution is unlawful because it is more burdensome than restrictions applied to other infrastructure deployments. For example, electric distribution facilities in some parts of the city are located above ground.  Concealment requirements under the Proposed Resolution are also discriminatory and must be eliminated or significantly pared back to avoid discrimination as compared to other infrastructure deployments that are not concealed.  The requirement to plant new street trees is also likely discriminatory and should be eliminated. In addition, requiring placement of street trees is unreasonable and may rise to the level of an unconstitutional condition, particularly in the aggregate. 3. Design Guidelines Require Added Flexibility. AT&T appreciates that the city has developed design standards that will suit some of its specific designs for small wireless facilities. But the very specific dimensional limitations will likely result in need for revisions sooner than otherwise necessary, and risk prohibiting the ability to swap or add equipment as technologies continue to advance.  In speaking with the City Attorney, we understand that Item 4 of the proposed streetlight pole design guidelines and Item 6 of the proposed wood utility pole design guidelines will accommodate one of AT&T’s current designs for small wireless facilities. Specifically, we understand that facilities that comply with this provision will not also need to comply with the 15-inch diameter requirement under Item 1 of both sets of guidelines. In other words, the 15-inch diameter limit does not apply where the volumetric allowance of 2.6 cubic feet is applied. AT&T recommends that the city make this more clear in the Proposed Resolution. Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2019 Page 5 of 6  In addition to that clarification, AT&T is concerned that this very specific volumetric standard may inhibit future deployments. The city should consider authorizing somewhat larger equipment to the extent needed to avoid prohibiting deployments.  The city should limit concealment requirements to the extent technically feasible and nondiscriminatory.  The city should add provisions to expressly allow for attachments to traffic signals and for strand-mounted small wireless facilities. Specific Comments on Proposed Ordinance 1. Discriminatory Requirements Should Be Eliminated. Again, the city needs to be mindful that requirements for screening and other concealment are unlawful to the extent that they are not imposed on other infrastructure deployments. AT&T will certainly work with the city to deploy appropriate facilities, and recommends that the city take time now to eliminate its discriminatory concealment requirements rather than risk future disputes. 2. Process Problems. The Proposed Ordinance establishes several processes that are unreasonable and will risk violations of the FCC shot clock. Particularly for small wireless facilities, the city needs to take steps now to avoid future violations that will almost certainly occur under the proposed processes. The following comments are intended to help the city comply with the legal review timeframes.  AT&T recommends that the city include collocations of small wireless facilities in Tier 1 review. Such applications must be reviewed based on objective criteria and are subject to a 60-day shot clock. The city’s processes for Tier 2 and Tier 3 facilities include significant risk of being unable to meet that timeframe.  The city should revise or eliminate the requirements for public notice and a community meeting as a precondition to application completeness under Section 18.42.110(d)(7). Aside from likely being more burdensome than for other infrastructure deployments, these requirements are unreasonable and cause serious problems with timing for application reviews. The FCC has made clear that pre-application requirements trigger the applicable shot clock. In order for an applicant to file a complete application under the Proposed Ordinance, including the affidavit showing that the community meeting has been held, the applicant will need to send the public notice about the meeting at least 14 days ahead of filing its application. That will trigger the shot clock, leaving the city only 46 days to process all permits to finality.  Tier 2 applications will also risk shot clock violation whenever an application is referred to the Architecture Review Board, as contemplated under Section 18.42.110(g)(1). Likewise, Tier 2 applications may be subject to appeals. Meeting a 60-day shot clock through this process is unrealistic. The city must revise and streamline the process for small wireless facility collocations. Palo Alto City Council April 15, 2019 Page 6 of 6  Tier 3 applications will risk shot clock violation whenever an application is referred to the Architecture Review Board or the Planning and Transportation Commission, as contemplated under Section 18.42.110(h)(1). Likewise, Tier 3 applications may be subject to appeals which will put the city at risk of failing to act within the 90-day FCC shot clock for small wireless facilities on new structures and the 90-day FCC shot clock for other collocation applications. The city should revise this process as well. 3. Additional Concerns.  Concealment. As with the Proposed Resolution, various provisions of the Proposed Ordinance require screening and other concealment. Again, such requirements should be eliminated to the extent that they may be technically infeasible and to the extent the requirements are more burdensome than those imposed on other infrastructure deployments.  Indemnification. Section 18.42.110(j)(4) requires an applicant to indemnify the city. This provision needs to carve out exceptions to indemnity in instances of the city’s own negligence. And AT&T must retain the right to select its own counsel.  Replacement or Upgrades within Permit Term. Section 18.42.110(j)(8) requires a permittee to replace above-ground equipment with underground equipment, and to obtain a new permit therefor, when new technology allows such a move. The city must eliminate this requirement. State law requires a permit term of not less than ten years; anything less is unreasonable and unlawful.10 AT&T will discuss replacements or upgrades in the context of a permit renewal. Conclusion AT&T appreciates the city’s efforts to develop wireless facility siting policies to for new and emerging technologies and changes in law. By addressing the items we raise here, the city will go a long way toward encouraging deployments consistent with state and federal policies and to the great benefit of Palo Alto’s residents and businesses. Sincerely, /s/ Jeffrey M. Slade Jeffrey M. Slade cc: Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney 10 See Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 65964(b). 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kevin Carlson <kevin.c.carlson@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wireless ordinance changes Good afternoon,    I feel very strongly that Palo Alto needs to maintain the current framework for installation of new wireless points  throughout the City. There exist substantial differences between 4G and 5G technology, and it seems incredibly reckless  to move forward with the installation of additional/new 5G wireless antennas in our neighborhoods. If these are  installed, I will have no choice whether to expose myself to more EMF radiation ‐‐ in our family we take reasonable steps  to limit exposure to EMF radiation, including turning off our wireless router in the evenings, and to utilize airplane mode  on our phones. Any family that takes preventative measures for their health, including eating healthy foods, organics,  exercising, and wearing bicycle helmets should likewise consider limiting exposure to radiofrequency radiation. It seems  unreasonable to me that the City would be fast‐tracking installation of small cell towers in neighborhoods where its  citizens sleep without further research. To this end, I would like you all to pursue the following course of action:    1. A more robust set of objective standards that would include parameters such as setbacks from homes and schools, requirements for undergrounding, size of equipment, etc., informed by an inclusive public process. 2. A short term resident task force to inform standards that better reflect community concerns and values, with quick turn around of a resolution to adopt them. 3. Continued ARB review of applications to ensure public scrutiny and comment on proper application of the standards.   Very truly yours,    Kevin Carlson  Leland Manor    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:CELL TOWERS       Tina Chow, resident of Barron Park and a Professor at Berkeley in Civic and Environmental  Engineering, has written a piece that I have read and totally support.  Staff needs to put the health  and well being of our citizens before that of corporations, the FCC etc.  We want more  transparency not less.  The radiation from these towers do have a negative effect on the human  body. There is a lot of information that supports this subject.       I urge you toTo vote against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless OrdinaTo vote, in particular, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. (Recall that we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.); and finally,        To vote, in particular, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. (Recall that we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.); and finally, To vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, making it more difficult to place cell towers in residential neighborhoods, and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground.  To vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us by, for example, making it more difficult to place cell towers in residential neighborhoods, and requiring that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground    Thank You,    Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  Palo Alto, 94308      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Herc Kwan <herc.kwan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:49 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Objections to the staff-proposed wireless ordinance changes Dear Members of the City Council,    I am writing again to voice my strong objections to the staff‐proposed wireless ordinance changes. These proposed  changes will remove public opinions, reviews, and concerns and enable the Telecom industry to install ugly antennas  and cell equipment all over the City of Palo Alto without the needs of going through public hearing and a transparent  process for approvals.    By now we have learned that cities like Chicago and Minneapolis have been used as testing grounds for the new Verizon  5G networks. Why are we allowing the City Staff and Telecom industry to turn Palo Alto into another victim of degraded  quality of life by installing ugly and unsafe antennas and cell tower equipment without allowing its residents to review  these proposals and being a vital part of the careful decisions? Also why are the City Staff doing it in such a hurry as if  they were instructed by an invisible hand to pass through these amendments to facilitate the massive number of  installations across the entire City of Palo Alto?    Please help us the ordinary residents in the City of Palo Alto restore our faith in the City Council by doing the following:    1. To vote against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance;     2. To vote, in particular, against amending the Ordinance such that it eliminates the requirement for public hearings and  review by the Architectural Review Board and gives Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom  company can install and where they can install it.  (Recall that we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is  acceptable:  Hanging hundreds of pounds of unsightly, noisy, unsafe equipment on utility poles right next to our  homes.); and finally,     3. To vote instead in favor of amending the Ordinance such that it does more to protect residents’ interests—protect us  by, for example, making it more difficult to place cell towers in residential neighborhoods, and requiring that ancillary  cell tower equipment be located underground.    Thanks,    Herc Kwan and Kaori Shuji  Parents of a 3rd grader and a 1st grader and residents of 2490 Louis Rd    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 6:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support Council of Cities Resolution Dear Mayor Filseth and Members of the City Council:    Please pass a Resolution supporting the Santa Clara County Cities Association's letter regarding the state legislation,  which SB 50 is a part of, that threatens the loss of local zoning control and gives the state  "one size, fits all" mandates, largely created by developers.   Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 7:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support Filseth/DuBois Colleagues Memo on State Housing Legislation Dear Palo Alto City Council Members –    I’ve read the Colleagues Memo by Mayor Eric Filseth and Council Member Tom DuBois about supporting the Cities’  Association of Santa Clara County’s Position Paper on Housing Initiatives, and I urge you to give it your full support.  The  Position Paper contains many valid points, most important of which is to preserve local control over zoning and land  development.  Palo Alto should add it’s approval to these positions.    Thank You,  Ben Lerner  3482 Janice Way  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 11:25 AM To:Council, City Cc:Nelson Ng Subject:Opposed to the SB50 legislation Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I was informed of this colleague's memo: A neighborhood watchdog alerted us to this. "Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilman Tom DuBois are introducing a colleague's memo in support of the Santa Clara County Cities Association's letter regarding the state legislation, which SB 50 is a part of, that threatens the loss of local zoning control and gives the state "one size, fits all" mandates, largely created by developers." I agree with the memo created by Mayor Filseth and councilmember DuBois. SB 50 will not allow for local zoning control of Palo Alto. The state does not understand that building these gargantuan housing units in the heart of Palo Alto will destroy the community and further aggravate the traffic issues we already face in this city. The state cannot understand that the livability and walkability of our town is what sets us apart from the other neighboring communities. Let's not cave in to the greed of developers. Please vote for what is right for our neighborhoods and residents. Thank you, Kimberley Wong and Nelson Ng, Residents of Palo Alto Alto for over 20 years 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Colleagues Memo       To the City Council,    I've read the Colleagues Memo and the Cities Association of Santa Clara's position paper.  I urge  you to support it as it is certainly better than SB 50.  I would have liked putting a hard limit on  building more office space, since that is the reason for the housing shortage. The position paper  does keep local control over land development and zoning.  I hope you will give it your full support.    Thank You,  Suzanne Keehn  4076 Orme St.  94306  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 11:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane flights -- unbelievably bad Attachments:Screenshot_20190415-225519_Chrome.jpg See attached. Sometimes I feel like every one of them goes over my house. Help... This did not happen five years ago,  and it's gotten worse every year. From 5am to 11pm.    Sherry Listgarten  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 3:01 PM To:Jocelyn Dong; Council, City Subject:Alma Street Construction Please consider more publicity on the Alma Street Road Closures for PG&E work next week when the construction increase from 9-4 to 9-9 from Colorado to E. Meadow. I encourage the entire city council to try to navigate Alma Street at 5PM next week to gain a better understanding of the potential outcomes if Alma Street is ever permanently reduced to two lanes. Alma Street will narrow to two lanes from 9AM to 9PM Apr. 15-Apr 19 2019 from Colorado to East Meadow. There is a sign up saying that Alma will be closed - but the city website says it will just be narrowed to two lanes. I am supportive of any needed PG&E repairs to the its gas lines (the same one that blew up under El Carmelo School in 1965. So safety is the most important thing. https://pap.accela.com/envista-public- web/index/PaloAltoorg/Palo%20Alto%20Site/PaloAlto?status=%5B%22Planned%22%2C%22Under+Construction%22%5 D You will need to zoom in to see the extent of the closure. I am impressed with the newest Palo Alto beta website showing upcoming road closures. However, I could only find it because I have subscribed to weekly updates from the City of Palo Alto on construction and road closures. When I went to the city website, I could not find any link to this site. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but a search for Alma Street construction only linked to articles from prior years - nothing current. There was also no link on the planning site. This may be because the construction is due to PG&E upgrading/replacing the gas line (which I'm glad they are doing), not by the City. Still the beta website is great - I just wish it were easier to find. This closure will give us a great test of the consequences if the Caltrain 2040 plan to expand to four tracks from Mountain View to CA Avenue, results in two-three lanes on Alma being closed. Although Caltrain has not announced the need to close 2-3 lanes of Alma in order to add the passing tracks, the HSR plan did propose a permanent closure on the last Environmental Impact Statement before the blended solution was adopted. Caltrain does not have a 100 foot right of way over portions of the track from Mountain View to Palo Alto. 100 feet is necessary for four tracks. Please investigate. Kathleen Goldfein Alma Street near Loma Verde Palo Alto, CA 94306 Resident since 1989 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 4:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:April 15 Agenda Item 8- Colleagues Memo Regarding Santa Clara County Cities Association: Housing Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council members    I urge you to not support the Colleagues Memo and to not agendize further discussion of the SCC Cities Association  position on housing and taking a blanket position on housing bills per the association’s position paper.     By taking such action you are abdicating your role as a Palo Alto City Council member. Well  informed and thoughtful  Council members should evaluation housing bills on their strengths and weaknesses relative to our housing goals and  the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.     We should use our Housing Element as our policy guide and not simply follow the guidance of the Cities Association.  Historically, staff has completed legislative evaluations and then taken their recommendations to Council for action   That is the best and most thoughtful approach.     We all recognize that the lack of a range of housing is at a crisis point. It’s not only so called “affordability” it is the need  for a range of housing and overall capacity.     Please carefully consider your actions and recognize the memo is  short‐sighted and not in the best interest of Palo Alto.  Palo Alto has a strong reputation for careful evaluations.     Thank you,  Gail Price           Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sundaresh Begur <sundaresh@begurconsulting.com> Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2019 9:04 PM To:City Mgr Cc:Council, City Subject:Assistant Director of PW - Breach of Candidate Trust Dear City Manger and Council Members,    I am thoroughly disturbed calling the below incident to your prompt attention.    I know too well the liberal environment that city fosters.     One of the interview selection committee panel member has informed my first line supervisor about my attempt for this  position and I was somewhat disciplined. Should I face serious consequence because of this breach of trust, consider this  message as my notice to initiate legal action in protection of my individual civil rights under the applicable laws and  statutes.    In all humbleness and utmost sincerity, I recently competed and interviewed for Assistant Director of Public Works  position. I am not complaining as to the outcome of the process. As always, as an American Citizen, I believe in an  honest qualifications based selection of the most qualified candidate for the public agency position.    Bay Area is an unique area where people move from agency to agency for lots of reasons. On a personal level having  lived in the valley for decades, I realize that qualifications do not matter, it’s who you know does.    Please correct this unfair practice from ever diluting the most trusted process. A level of confidentiality is presumed and  you have a duty under state and federal laws including civil rights to ensure that you protect one’s confidentiality and  trust.    Sincerely,  Sundar      Sundaresh N. Begur, M.S., P.E.  Principal Consulting Civil Engineer       DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message may contain confidential or legally privileged information  and is intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any  transmission error. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please immediately delete the e‐mail and  all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender either by telephone or return e‐ mail. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Thank you.    2 This e‐mail, an electronic communication as defined by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and  any accompanying attachments contain information that is confidential to sender and is only intended to the recipient  addressed.    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Melinda McGee <melinda_mcgee@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 7:19 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Subject:Cell Towers Dear City Council Members,    I will be attending tonight's meeting and since there probably wont be time to speak...    Please vote against Staff’s proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance.    We want to maintain the public hearings and a review by the Architectural Review Board.    Residents should be protected from wi-fi equipment near their homes, a minimum set-back should be required.    Why doesn't Palo Alto have underground cable?    Thank you for your service to our community and thank you for paying attention to our health and security.    Melinda McGee  3707 Lindero Drive.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-704-6236    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 6:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Council ---- Oppose SB 50 - Send Lobbyist to stand up for your residents To Palo Alto City Council members:    I write to express my strong opposition to SB 50 and ask that you work as our representatives to preserve local zoning,  local control, and single family home neighborhoods for Palo Altans.     Let's work together and find another way to address mass transit and housing affordability needs rather than destroying  the fabric of existing communities in California like ours.      Single family home owners are not immoral and racist, as the idealogue behind these zoning override bills has claimed;  we are simply homeowners who along with our parents and grandparents have worked hard and played by the rules to  try to achieve our version of the American Dream.  Members of my family only emigrated around 1900, were working  class, and suffered discrimination too!  Yet SB 50 and its companion bills seek to attack us, and all that we have saved  and built up over time, which came about through standing on the shoulders of our parents and grandparents.     Please take a united stand against SB 50 as a City Council, our City Council, and please direct the City's lobbyist in  Sacramento to lobby against SB 50 and all the complementary housing bills being put forth that override local zoning  control.   Let's find a better way.     Thank you for listening.     Best,    Kathy Jordan  1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:02 PM To:Sara Cody; Joe Simitian Subject:Early Shot can damage Fertility Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com In Brief: * Merck is in 8 year battle to defend Mumps' vaccine in court * Mumps is harmless in small children, serious when delayed til teens/adults * Mumps vaccine effective 69%, not 95% as Merck claims, so the expired vaccine delays mumps for many boys/men when fertility is damaged * Merck has mumps monopoly, making $720 million in 2014 alone * Whistleblowers say Merck falsifies information * Legislators back Merck, causing mumps delay in many w/ineffective shot * US Navy ship in Persian Gulf has mumps outbreak after all got vaccines APRIL 04, 2019 MMR Vaccine’s Poison Pill: Mumps After Puberty, Reduced Testosterone and Sperm Counts This article represents Part I of a two-part series on mumps. Part II will delve further into the mumps vaccine’s spillover effects on fertility. By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Children’s Health Defense Forwarded with permission from Children's Health Defense Across the country, frenzied legislators are responding to the pharmaceutical industry’s orchestrated fear campaign around measles by seeking to impose further mandating of Merck’s measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Although ongoing mumps outbreaks involving thousands of at-risk adolescents and young adults completely dwarf the number of measles cases, no one is covering the mumps story—because it will expose the fact that Merck has been in court for over eight years due to scientists blowing the whistle on Merck’s fabrication and falsification of the effectiveness of the mumps component of its MMR vaccine. Instead of punishing Merck for its chicanery, legislatures are rewarding the company by making it impossible to refuse Merck’s profitable vaccine, subjecting a generation of American children to the risk of serious complications from mumps infection at an age that nature never intended. When younger children experience mumps, the virus is relatively harmless; infected children often exhibit no symptoms. When mumps strikes adolescents or adults, on the other hand, the infection can cause far more serious adverse effects, including inflammation of various organs (brain, pancreas, ovaries and testicles)—as well as damage to male fertility. Inflammation of one or both testicles (a condition called orchitis) occurs in approximately one in three post-pubertal men who get mumps and can contribute to sperm defects and subfertility as well as impairing the function of cells that produce testosterone. 2 An estimated 30% to 87% of men with bilateral orchitis induced by mumps experience full-blown infertility—a major cause for concern given the significant declines in male fertility observed over the past several decades. Thus, it appears that Merck’s vaccine, instead of protecting children, not only delays onset of disease to later age cohorts but has the potential to cause serious and permanent injury. Merck and mumps vaccines Let’s look at a quick history of mumps and MMR vaccination in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed Merck’s initial mumps-only vaccine in 1967. In 1971, Merck introduced its first combination MMR vaccine, followed by the MMR-II vaccine in 1978 (which repurposed the rubella component) and the MMR-plus-varicella (MMRV) ProQuad vaccine in 2005. Since the initial 1967 vaccine, Merck has enjoyed a unique monopoly position in the U.S. market for mumps and MMR vaccines, with combined sales of MMR-II and ProQuad bringing in over $720 million in 2014 alone. Merck consistently places in the top five pharmaceutical companies globally, and the market valued its stocks at a seven-year high as of late 2018. … Merck has willfully and illegally maintained its monopoly through ongoing manipulation and by representing to the public and government agencies a falsely inflated efficacy rate for its Mumps Vaccine. In order to score the lucrative MMR monopoly, Merck needed to satisfy the FDA that all three components of the combination vaccine could achieve 95% efficacy, but the mumps portion was bedeviling. In fact, as alleged in a lawsuit filed by two senior Merck scientists in 2010 under the False Claims Act, the company has known since the late 1990s that the mumps component of the MMR is “far less” than 95% effective. A 2005 study published in Vaccine estimated the effectiveness of mumps vaccination to be closer to 69%, and the authors noted that their results were consistent with other studies. The two whistleblowers assert in the lawsuit—which is reportedly headed to trial sometime this year—that Merck has “willfully and illegally maintained its monopoly” through “ongoing manipulation” and by “representing to the public and government agencies a falsely inflated efficacy rate for its Mumps Vaccine.” Specifically, the two scientists claim that Merck executives ordered them to use “rigged” methodologies, including taking antibodies from rabbits and adding them to human blood vials, in order to gull regulators into assuming an antibody response robust and durable enough to merit licensing. When those “enhanced” tactics did not achieve Merck’s “fabricated [95%] efficacy rate,” the whistleblowers allege, the company resorted to simply falsifying the test data and engaging in other fraudulent activities. The fact that we have mumps showing up in highly immunized populations likely reflects something about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Unprotected adolescents and young adults The poor performance of the MMR’s mumps component and the doubtful “durability” of mumps-specific immunity following vaccination are of concern. In fact, we are already living with the legacy of this badly flawed vaccine. Rather than protecting a generation of American children from mumps infection in childhood, the vaccine has merely postponed the onset of the virus to older age groups, putting them at much greater risk. Researchers confirm an increase in the median age of mumps patients, a surge in the size and number of mumps outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations and higher rates of complications—including orchitis. 3 Across the country, galloping mumps epidemics have been ravishing an older generation of vaccinated individuals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 150 outbreaks (9,200 cases) in the year and a half from January 2016 to June 2017, affecting “schools, universities, athletics teams and facilities, church groups, workplaces, and large parties and events.” Over the past several years, the number of college campuses reporting mumps outbreaks has exploded—at institutions ranging from Harvard and Temple to Syracuse, Louisiana State and Indiana universities. At the University of Missouri, which in 2016 reported 193 mumps cases on campus, the health center director reported not having seen anything like it “in her 31 years at the school.” Commenting on the fact that all of the afflicted students had had the requisite two doses of MMR, she noted, “The fact that we have mumps showing up in highly immunized populations likely reflects something about the effectiveness of the vaccine.” Mumps Comeback The mumps virus has also made a “comeback” in other settings where younger adults congregate. For example, a naval ship deployed to the Persian Gulf, the USS Fort McHenry, has been unable to come ashore since early January because of a mumps contagion that has devastated its crew—even though the military vaccinates all personnel against the virus and despite the Navy having immediately subjected the crew in question to another MMR booster. News accounts have declined to comment on mumps complications but describe the quarantine as “a morale killer” for crew members who are accustomed to having monthly port calls. Infection control protocols stipulate that the Navy cannot declare the situation “under control” until “50 days after the last affected service member recovers.” Endangering rather than protecting youth All of these cohorts are part of an age group that should never get mumps. As Children’s Health Defense recently noted, whereas “flares of illness in vaccinated groups should prompt some serious questions about vaccine failure,” legislators and government agencies “are displaying a dangerous indifference to vaccination’s unintended consequences.” Dancing to puppet strings manipulated by Merck, legislators across the country are trying to foist even harsher MMR mandates on unwilling Americans, dooming a generation of children to the serious risks of late-onset mumps infections. Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:42 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Tanda, Wayne Cc:Allen Akin; Norman H. Beamer; John Guislin; Mary Gallagher; Kuo-Jung Chang; Marion Odell; Paul Machado; Chris Robell; Wolfgang Dueregger; Carol Scott; Holzemer/hernandez Subject:Finance Committee and TMA To: City Council/City Finance Committee I had intended to attend tonight's finance committee but I am conserving my health after a bad bout with flu and allergies. I am not confident that the TMA's future is being presented in the ideal context. I have been an very strong proponent of the TMA concept since the initial RPP stakeholder process. I am clearly on the public record that PATMA requires a larger geographic area to reach scale. Multi- employer TMAs with vague TDMs are political and economic challenges. I urge the Finance Committee to focus on #1 An operationally efficient base of employees and employers. I would hope that this year the Council will be clear about expansion to the concentration of employers/employees not only to California Avenue but also to other locations in Palo Alto. Next year I strongly feel that Palo Alto TMA must enter the realm of a multi-city sub-region service area. This means the smallest, practical subset of adjacent towns. #2 Stable, diversified revenues. At the earliest possible time, revenues must flow not only from the participating employers but also adjacent cities. This is not easy because city staff and Council have not been aggressive on this principle. PATMA learning curve is now sufficient to conclude that proof of concept will only demonstrated in FY19/20 when participating business find a way to significantly match city funding. Hopefully other supportive funds will be found to push the TMA to further success. #3 Management. I want to emphasize that TDM/TMA is a difficult management process for any organization which is not very large employer such as Stanford, Google, Facebook, et al. Nevertheless, the Finance Committee/Council is in a position with its FY19/20 budget cycle to set expectation for a properly organized TMA capable of much greater success in the next 36 months. Bottom line: Tonight is the time to set incremental, high expectations for outcomes and a TMA organization to achieve those outcomes. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell 2 cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:22 PM To:Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor; margaret- sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Cathy Lewis; terry; huidentalsanmateo; David Balakian; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Joel Stiner; Council, City Subject:Fire safety and Calif. building rules              Thurs. April 11, 2019                 https://thebusinessjournal.com/california‐building‐rules‐may‐protect‐homes‐from‐ wildfires/?utm_source=Daily+Update&utm_campaign=c358389a79‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_11_08_38&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fb834d017b‐c358389a79‐ 71619973&mc_cid=c358389a79&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3                  LH  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Holmlund <jjh2000@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 10:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Gas powered leaf blowers Interesting story about them:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/james‐fallows‐leaf‐blower‐ban/583210/    I presume you and your predecessors  know all that, since these machines have been banned in Palo Alto for a long  time.    > Q. When did the ban become effective?  > A. July 1, 2005  >  > Q. How will the leaf blower ban be enforced?  > A. Citizens who believe they observe a violation will be asked to call   > in to the Police Department on the non‐emergency number at   > 650‐329‐2413. Citizens will be required to identify themselves,   > provide contact information, and answer a few questions about their   > observations. Anonymous complaints will not be investigated.  >  > Q. Besides their name and contact information, what other specific   > information does someone making a complaint need to provide?  > A. Persons calling or reporting online should provide the location of   > the violation including the exact address whenever possible, as well   > as any vehicle license plate number or name of the gardening company   > on the truck (when applicable). All of this information will be very   > important if a citation is required.  >  > Q. How do I report a violation of the ban?  > A. The best first step to take is to report neighborhood gas powered   > leaf blower violation to PALOALTO311. You can speak to the gardener or   > to the homeowner to see if they are aware of the ban. Reports of noise   > violations may be made by calling the Police Department at 329‐2413.      And yet, we hear them every day, so clearly, this isn't working.  It is asking too much of homeowners to confront their  neighbors or their neighbors gardeners.    You need to come up with a better solution.    ‐‐  jjh     1 4/15/2019 City Council Meeting Public Comments Good evening Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I’m Amy Halpern-Laff. This is my dog Zaktivist, Zak for short. His shirt says, “Shrink your carbon pawprint.” One subject that doesn’t seem to be on our climate agenda is food. Animal agriculture creates more greenhouse gases worldwide than the entire transportation sector - more than cars, planes, trains, and ships combined. According to the World Resources Institute, when one person replaces a hamburger with a veggie burger once a week for a year, the reduction in GHG emissions is equivalent to driving 320 fewer miles. If 34,000 people (or about half the population of PA) replace a hamburger with a veggie burger once a week, it’s the GHG equivalent of driving 10,880,000 fewer miles or taking 403 internal combustion cars off the road. That’s one meal. I’d like to share a program called Green Monday. The two objectives are: 1. to reduce our meat and dairy consumption in order to substantially shrink our carbon footprint, and 2. to bring public awareness to the devastating impact of meat and dairy production on climate change and the environment. Last fall, I wrote a Green Monday Resolution that passed unanimously in Berkeley and is now being considered in a half dozen Bay Area cities. Here’s what citywide Green Monday looks like: Sustainable Menus 1. Leading by example, the City Council procures plant-based meals for meetings and events.  2 2. City-owned and city-managed facilities and programs feature healthy plant- based meals on Mondays and identify them as “Green Monday Specials.” 3. Restaurants are encouraged to add plant-based “Green Monday Specials” to their menus and to display Green Monday badges. Community Education 1. Green Monday volunteers and interns table at farmers’ markets, fairs, and other community events. 2. The City schedules educational programs on the environmental impacts of our food choices. Green Monday provides speakers and videos free of charge. 3. Libraries and community centers display Green Monday posters and booklists, all downloadable on the Green Monday website. Finally, we talk about buying local, and there are good reasons to support our local farmers. But in terms of GHG emissions, switching from meat and dairy to plant-based foods just one day per week saves more greenhouse gas emissions than eating local food 100% of the time. I invite you to look at the Green Monday website, greenmondayus.org. As well, I’d be honored to give presentations on the climate and environmental impacts of animal agriculture to the Council and to any interested community groups. My email is amy@greenmondayus.org. Thank you. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amy Halpern-Laff <amyhlaff@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 9:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Green Monday remarks Attachments:2019-4-14PAclimtemtg.docx Mayor Filseth and Councilmembers,    Thank you for the opportunity to comment this evening. For your reference, I’m sending you my remarks on Green  Monday along with links to resources. I’d like to present this material in more detail and to share my draft Palo Alto  Green Monday Resolution with you.       Respectfully,  Amy    Amy Halpern-Laff amyhlaff@gmail.com (650) 665-0266 (text/voice) 533 Bryant St., #5  Palo Alto, CA 94301        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Luke S <neuronthebarron2@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Hacker stalking people on computer networks A bunch of rogue fed hackers are stalking, slowly computers and harassing people. The hackers behavior is excessive bothersome, annoying and dangerous. What can you do to stop Stalker from harassing people?   1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Cordes <john@bikesiliconvalley.org> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Invitation to San Jose Infrastructure Ride on May 19th Hello Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto Councilmembers,    SVBC and Santa Clara County Public Health are organizing a series of city-led, educational bike rides for city leaders and staff to learn how to bike up their city. We are hopefully we will be able to organize one in Palo Alto this year.     The first ride is in San Jose, Sunday May 19th and will explore two cutting edge aspects of a pro-bike city – the Better Bikeways Network and Viva Calle SJ.    We’ll meet at 10:30am to take a bike ride around the Better Bikeways Network led by Vignesh Swaminathan of Crossroad Lab. Vignesh was the brains behind the project and he’ll walk riders through Network features such as parking protected bike lanes, addressing right turn conflicts with cars, design treatments that slow down traffic, traffic diverters for bike boulevards and the thinking behind new bus boarding islands.    After the ride is finished, you will be free to go off and explore San Jose’s open streets event, Viva Calle. Eight miles of city streets will be closed to cars providing a new way to experience the city from Downtown to Eastbound.     Details  Location: St. James Park at the corner of Third and St. John  Time: 10:30am to 12pm  Length: Between 8 ‐12 miles. The ride will end back at St. James Park  Bikes: If you are in need of a bike, not to worry! Let us know and we can get you set up with a Ford GoBike  RSVP: Ridership is capped to keep everyone safe. Please rsvp to Shiloh@bikesiliconvalley.org if you plan to attend.    Sincerely,  John Cordes  E:John@BikeSiliconValley.Org  O:408.287-7259 Ext 226  C: 408.476.0041  Santa Clara County Advocate,  Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition 96 N. Third Street, Suite 375  San Jose, CA 95112  Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition  Twitter:@john_svbc  Facebook  To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 9:52 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; HRC Cc:FAC@firstamendmentcoalition.org; pbains7@projectwehope.com; Bains, Paul; Burns, Dennis Subject:Japansese Amiercians Imprisoned during WW ll Ed Shikada  Palo Alto City Manager  Mr. Shikada,  Do you know what the rationale was that enabled the Judges, the President, law enforcement officials, the  State Governors, the Mayors, the City Councils, the City Managers and all of the pillars of the community to  conspire together to imprison Japanese Americans in internment camps during WW ll?  It’s the same reason you use to justify not answering the questions that I have asked of you.   Thus if you had lived in the 1940s and been a white man you would have endorsed and aided in the  imprisoning of Japanese Americans, perhaps even members of your own family like your grandparents and  parents.  You call yourself a public servant, which means you serve the public.  If a member of the public asks a servant  of the public some questions about the servant’s job and the servant refuses to answer the questions can your  really call that person a “servant” of the public?”  By refusing to answer my questions you have revealed that you are not servant of a public.    2           President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942 calling for the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The Machida family, pictured here, were some of the 117,000 people that would be evacuated to internment cam gs scattered throughout the country by that June. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images A young Japanese-American girl standing with her doll, waiting to travel with her parents to Owens Valley, during the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans under the U.S. Army war emergency order, in Los Angeles, California, April 1942. Russell Lee/Anthony Potter Collection/Getty Images 3                 4       5   CD © ii https:/,lwww.history.com/news/japanese-internment-camp-wwii-photc Corbis/Getty Images More than 100,000 Japanese-Americans were sent to 'War Relocation Centers' between 1942 and 1946. 6     http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp  https://www.history.com/news/korematsu‐japanese‐internment‐supreme‐court  https://www.history.com/news/japanese‐internment‐camp‐wwii‐photos  https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States            ================    Ed Shikada Palo Alto City Manager On February 15, 2019 I sent you an email detailing the unlawful and Un‐ Constitutional acts committed by Palo Alto Police Officer Daniel Cuevas, could you please answer the  following questions.   1)    Yes or No, did you take the oath of office cited below, (2.08.310   Oath of office.(b)), upon your appointment to the  position of City Manager?  2.08.310   Oath of office.     (a)   Each council member of the city, all officers appointed by the council and all officers of the police department and other  designated employees as may be required, shall take and file with the city clerk or the clerk's deputy the constitutional oath of office  before entering upon the duties thereof.  7    (b)   The oath may be administered by the city clerk, and is as follows:     I, _____, do swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California,  and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of _________ according to the  best of my ability.     (c)   Such oath of office shall be subscribed by all persons making it, as herein provided.  http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/charterofthecityofpaloalto?f=templates$fn=default.h tm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca  2)     Yes or No; absent any other circumstances and or absent any other justifications to stop, detain and search a  citizen, is it a violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy for one of its officers to falsely state to a citizen that the  citizen is violating a vehicle code when the citizen is in fact not violating the vehicle code that the officer asserted to the  citizen as violating?  3)     Yes or No; absent any other circumstances and or absent any other justifications to stop, detain and search a  citizen, is it a violation of Palo Alto City Policy for one of its officers to falsely state to a citizen that the citizen is violating  a vehicle code when the citizen is in fact not violating the vehicle code that the officer asserted to the citizen as  violating?   4)     Yes or No; absent any other circumstances and or absent any other justifications to stop, detain and search a  citizen, is it a violation of the United States Constitution for a police officer to falsely state to a citizen that the citizen is  violating a vehicle code when the citizen is in fact not violating the vehicle code that the officer asserted to the citizen as  violating?  5)      Yes or No; does CVC 21201(d)(1) state that the light must be “attached” to the bike?  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4  6)      Yes or No; does CVC 21201(d)(1) state that the bike must be “equipped” with a light?  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4  7)      Yes or No; does CVC 21201(e) state that the light can be attached to the operator of the bike?  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4  8)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas state that I was violating a vehicle code for failing to have a white bike light attached  to the front of my bike?  9)     Yes or No; did I state to Officer Cuevas that the light could be attached to the operator of the bike in order to be in  compliance with the vehicle code?  10)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas continue to assert that the bike light needed to be attached to the bike?  11)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas order me to stop because the light was not attached to the bike.  12)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas use his authority as a police officer to force me to hand over my identification to  him for not having the light attached to the bike?  13)     Yes or No; at the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over my identification to him had he stated  anything prior to and up to that moment about the bike light must be visible from 300 ft.?  14)     Yes or No; up to but not more than one minute after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  8 15)      Yes or No; up to but not more than two minutes after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about how the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  16)     Yes or No; up to but not more than three minutes after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about how the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  17)      Yes or No; up to but not more than four minutes after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about how the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  18)      How many minutes elapsed between the moment I handed over my identification to Officer Cuevas and the  moment the first time mentioned that the light must be visible from 300ft?  19)       Yes or No; did I request that Officer Cuevas verify whether or not the light could be seen from 300ft.?  20)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas refuse to verify whether or not the light could be seen from 300ft.?  21)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate Palo Alto Police Policy by detaining and searching me for violating a vehicle  code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  22)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate Palo Alto City Policy by detaining and searching me for violating a vehicle  code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  23)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate the U.S. Constitution by detaining and searching me for violating a vehicle  code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  24)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.73.010 by detaining and searching me for  violating a vehicle code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/charterofthecityofpaloalto?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca  Tony Ciampi  P.O. Box 1681   Palo Alto, CA 94302  t.ciampi@hotmail.com                    1 Brettle, Jessica From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 1:44 PM To:KFinnigan@lifemoves.org Cc:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson Subject:LifeMoves | Mr. Philip Dah - InnVision & Opportunity Center       Katherine Finnigan  Chief Development Officer  LifeMoves   (650) 685-5880 Ext. 129    Dear Ms. Finnigan:      Thank you for all the good work your group contributes to my community.     There are persistent rumors that Mr. Philip Dah is involved in a reprimand for embezzlement.     Is there any truth to this? Please respond.      Sincerely,  -Danielle Martell    dmPaloAlto@gmail.com  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005            1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anne Jarchow <ajarchow@lifemoves.org> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 3:49 PM To:dmpaloalto@gmail.com Cc:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Bruce Ives; Katherine Finnigan Subject:LifeMoves | Mr. Philip Dah - InnVision & Opportunity Center Dear Ms. Martell:    Ms. Finnigan forwarded your message to me for reply.  We are not aware of the rumors you mention below and there is  no truth to such claims.    Sincerely,    Anne Jarchow      ANNE JARCHOW V.P. HUMAN RESOURCES main 650.685.5880 ext 140 fax 650.685.5881 email ajarchow@lifemoves.org LifeMoves  Formerly InnVision Shelter Network  181 Constitution Drive | Menlo Park, CA 94025 Give or Volunteer to help local homeless families and individuals break the cycle of homelessness.    From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 1:44 PM  To: Katherine Finnigan <kfinnigan@lifemoves.org>  Cc: Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Price  <price@baydailypost.com>; Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>; Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>  Subject: LifeMoves | Mr. Philip Dah ‐ InnVision & Opportunity Center Dear Ms. Finnigan: Thank you for all the good work your group contributes to my community. There are persistent rumors that Mr. Philip Dah is involved in a reprimand for embezzlement. Is there any truth to this? Please respond. 2 Sincerely, -Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Los Angeles City Council opposes SB 50 12-0 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> To: Citycouncil <citycouncil@mountainview.gov> Cc: Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 6:37:05 PM PDT Subject: Los Angeles City Council opposes SB 50 12-0 City Council: The Los Angeles Daily News is reporting online that the Los Angeles City Council voted today 12-0 to oppose SB 50. What about this City Council and hundreds more across California? Sincerely, Gary Wesley 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lin Jiang <linzjiang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 8:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Major concerns re: redevelopment project at 565 Hamilton Ave [18PLN-00313] Dear City Council,     We live on the 600 block of Webster St.. Recently we became aware of a massive construction project proposed for 565  Hamilton that is quietly working its way through the city approval process, merging three existing buildings to make way  for a mixed‐use building.     Upon closer inspection of the project proposal and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, we have major concerns about this  redevelopment and how it will negatively impact the quality of life for residents on Hamilton and Webster St.:  1. Shortage of parking  Per architectural plan sheet A01., the development will require 67 parking spaces per zoning code. However the design showed 55 spaces with the 13.4% ‘shared parking reduction’ (deduct 9 spaces from the project) and ‘TDM parking reduction’ (deduct 3 spaces from the project). There is insufficient parking for a building of this scale.  For the 55 spaces, 50 of them will be mechanized car park places (sheet A2.0). Yet from the section (architectural plan sheet A5.6), the below grade garage level’s headroom is 15feet less the floor slab, it is not clearly shown in the section of plan how the mechanized car parking is going to work;  From a user’s point of view, the mechanized car park is not as convenient as conventional parking, which will likely result in many occupant taking up street parking in the neighborhood. This will create more demand for street parking which is already increasingly diffiult. The residents nearby will not be able to find street parking during the day. 2. Privacy   The design proposed full-height windows (window wall) in the corner units at the intersection or Webster and Hamilton (sheet A5.3B). This will create a direct line of sight to the single family homes at the other corner of the intersection. Per zoning code 18.23, windows, balconies or similar openings above the first story should be offset so as not to have a direct line of sight into the interior living areas of adjacent units within the project or into units on abutting residential property.   3. Street elevation not compatible with the neighborhood in terms of scale, proportion and characteristic    The facades still present flat and long, continues horizontal lines (e.g. eaves, reveals at floor slab, window heads and sills), some of them is more than 100 feet, which is not compatible with the rhythmic pattern established in the neighborhood, where buildings either have a smaller width or having the facades and masses break down into smaller portions to minimize the visual impact of the massing;   The 130 feet long overhanging eave lines are not compatible with the neighborhood roof type where the roof are generally slope up or stepping back;   4. Traffic – during and after construction  5. Noise during and after construction  6. Construction pollute from a project of such scale     We STRONGLY oppose this redevelopment project at 565 Hamilton Ave.     Residents,  Lin Jiang, Chan Kam Chu   1 Brettle, Jessica From:abby boyd <abby650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 4:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Memo against loss of local zoning Thank you for this memo, I am against SB 50, and the state taking control of local zoning.    Abby  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:44 PM To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City Cc:ExecutiveDirector@calbar.ca.gov; CFO@calbar.ca.gov; StateBarCourt@calbar.ca.gov; GC@calbar.ca.gov; CTC@calbar.ca.gov; CAO@calbar.ca.gov; feedback@calbar.ca.gov; ProHac@calbar.ca.gov; pra@calbar.ca.gov; barcomm@calbar.ca.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; ProHac@calbar.ca.gov; PTLS@calbar.ca.gov; admissions@calbar.ca.gov; aschlosser@aclunc.org; asoltani@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org; Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO; Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Action; hollywoodbureau@naacpnet.org; info@lccr.com; katie@civilrightscorps.org; mrisher@aclunc.org Subject:Michael Gennaco California Attorney Michael Gennaco,  https://www.oirgroup.com/  Palo Alto IPA,  Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada has refused to answer the following questions are you willing to answer these  questions?      The ruling docs, however present a challenge to PAPD officers facing  similar calls for service in the future. Accordingly, we recommend that, in order to avoid  the risk of an ambiguous legal interpretation in the future, officers avoid using ruses in  this type of situation until they have investigated the matter sufficiently to determine  whether there is a basis for concluding that a crime has occurred. We recommend that  PAPD brief its officers on this approach to avoid similar unfavorable court rulings.”  Micahel Gennaco   Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor  Final Report for 2008          Ed Shikada Palo Alto City Manager On February 15, 2019 I sent you an email detailing the unlawful and Un‐ Constitutional acts committed by Palo Alto Police Officer Daniel Cuevas, could you please answer the  following questions.   2 1)    Yes or No, did you take the oath of office cited below, (2.08.310   Oath of office.(b)), upon your appointment to the  position of City Manager?  2.08.310   Oath of office.     (a)   Each council member of the city, all officers appointed by the council and all officers of the police department and other  designated employees as may be required, shall take and file with the city clerk or the clerk's deputy the constitutional oath of office  before entering upon the duties thereof.     (b)   The oath may be administered by the city clerk, and is as follows:     I, _____, do swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of California,  and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of _________ according to the  best of my ability.     (c)   Such oath of office shall be subscribed by all persons making it, as herein provided.  http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/charterofthecityofpaloalto?f=templates$fn=default.h tm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca  2)     Yes or No; absent any other circumstances and or absent any other justifications to stop, detain and search a  citizen, is it a violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy for one of its officers to falsely state to a citizen that the  citizen is violating a vehicle code when the citizen is in fact not violating the vehicle code that the officer asserted to the  citizen as violating?  3)     Yes or No; absent any other circumstances and or absent any other justifications to stop, detain and search a  citizen, is it a violation of Palo Alto City Policy for one of its officers to falsely state to a citizen that the citizen is violating  a vehicle code when the citizen is in fact not violating the vehicle code that the officer asserted to the citizen as  violating?   4)     Yes or No; absent any other circumstances and or absent any other justifications to stop, detain and search a  citizen, is it a violation of the United States Constitution for a police officer to falsely state to a citizen that the citizen is  violating a vehicle code when the citizen is in fact not violating the vehicle code that the officer asserted to the citizen as  violating?  5)      Yes or No; does CVC 21201(d)(1) state that the light must be “attached” to the bike?  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4  6)      Yes or No; does CVC 21201(d)(1) state that the bike must be “equipped” with a light?  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4  7)      Yes or No; does CVC 21201(e) state that the light can be attached to the operator of the bike?  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4  8)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas state that I was violating a vehicle code for failing to have a white bike light attached  to the front of my bike?  9)     Yes or No; did I state to Officer Cuevas that the light could be attached to the operator of the bike in order to be in  compliance with the vehicle code?  10)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas continue to assert that the bike light needed to be attached to the bike?  11)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas order me to stop because the light was not attached to the bike.  12)     Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas use his authority as a police officer to force me to hand over my identification to  him for not having the light attached to the bike?  3 13)     Yes or No; at the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over my identification to him had he stated  anything prior to and up to that moment about the bike light must be visible from 300 ft.?  14)     Yes or No; up to but not more than one minute after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  15)      Yes or No; up to but not more than two minutes after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about how the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  16)     Yes or No; up to but not more than three minutes after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about how the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  17)      Yes or No; up to but not more than four minutes after the moment that Officer Cuevas ordered me to hand over  my identification to him did Officer Cuevas state anything about how the bike light must be visible from 300ft.?  18)      How many minutes elapsed between the moment I handed over my identification to Officer Cuevas and the  moment the first time mentioned that the light must be visible from 300ft?  19)       Yes or No; did I request that Officer Cuevas verify whether or not the light could be seen from 300ft.?  20)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas refuse to verify whether or not the light could be seen from 300ft.?  21)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate Palo Alto Police Policy by detaining and searching me for violating a vehicle  code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  22)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate Palo Alto City Policy by detaining and searching me for violating a vehicle  code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  23)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate the U.S. Constitution by detaining and searching me for violating a vehicle  code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  24)       Yes or No; did Officer Cuevas violate Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.73.010 by detaining and searching me for  violating a vehicle code even though I was not in violation of the vehicle code?  http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/charterofthecityofpaloalto?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca  Tony Ciampi  P.O. Box 1681   Palo Alto, CA 94302  t.ciampi@hotmail.com        4               Tony Ciampi  Fri 2/15/2019 9:57 PM  Ed Shikada  Palo Alto City Manager    It is now two, (2) times in the last 6 months that 2 of your officers have unlawfully detained me and searched  me by stating that I was violating a vehicle code when I was not.  That is an established pattern and practice of  violating the Constitutional Rights of Citizens.    It's no wonder why you refuse to release the police records:  https://padailypost.com/2019/02/15/palo‐alto‐police‐wont‐release‐misconduct‐files‐despite‐new‐law/  Last night, 2/14/2019 at approximately 11:30 pm Palo Alto Police Officer Daniel Cuevas pulled along side of me  and stated that I was violating a vehicle code for not having the front bike light attached to the bike.  I informed him of  the previous encounter I had with Ofc. Conde and that he was wrong.   I informed Ofc. Cuevas that the vehicle code  allows for the front bike light to be attached to the person.   He refused to acknowledge the information but continued  to assert that the bike light needed to be attached to the bike.  He demanded my identification.  I began to turn on the  camera to my cell phone to document the illegal detainment and Ofc. Cuevas attempted to grab my cell phone from me  but I pulled it away.    Given the fact that the detainment at this point and time was illegal the use of force and fear to take my personal  property from me constitutes a violation of Calif. PC  664/211,  attempted robbery.    Later, Ofc. Cuevas would later accuse me of violating CVC 21201 (d)(1) for; "not having a light that emits 300 ft."  This is  irrelevant regarding the illegal stop; the illegal search and the attempted robbery because Ofc. Cuevas did not mention  this violation as reason for the stop and did not mention this violation until few minutes had transpired afterward; a few  minutes in which I requested several times that Ofc. Cuevas cite the vehicle code that I was violating.  After several  requests Ofc. Cuevas continued to refuse to cite the code and then it was only at this time Ofc. Cuevas changed the  reason for the stop from not having a front bike light attached to the bike to violating CVC 21201 (d)(1) for not having a  light that  emitted 300ft because he knew that he was wrong for stating that I was violating the law for not having a  front bike light attached to the bike.    5       https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1. &article=4      I requested that Ofc. Cuevas confirm that the light could not be seen from 300ft but he refused to do so.  He was going to write me a ticket but I informed Ofc. Cuevas that I would challenge the ticket in court.  At that point he changed the ticket to a warning.    I would later verify that the light I had on at the time of stop, in the "two bulb LED mode", as noted by Officer Green, can  be seen from not only 300ft but at least 400ft.     6   So not only was the detainment, search and attempted robbery illegal because of the initial reason but also for the  belated back‐up reason.    You may make light of these Constitutional violations but it is precisely these types of illegal stops over non existent  violations that quickly escalate into the deaths of innocent and unarmed citizens at a the hands of police.    Your officers should not be asserting to citizens that citizens are violating a law when the officers do not know the law  the citizens are violating.  If your officers continue to perpetrate these violations and someone like Chinedu Okobi gets  hurt or killed the City will be held liable given that you have been overly abundantly informed of the ongoing UN‐ Constitutional acts committed by your officers.    Please do not have any of your officers contact me over this incident as I will not be filing a complaint at this time.  I'm  going to wait and see if a third violation occurs within a year.       Tony Ciampi    ====================        James Keene   City Manager   Palo Alto        Mr. Keene,        1)          At approximately 11:40 pm on 8/9/2018  I crossed Lytton Ave on Kipling St while riding my  bicycle.  Palo Alto Police Officer Christopher Conde was traveling west on Lytton Ave. and viewed me and  made a left turn onto Kipling heading south toward University Ave. in order to follow me.   Ofc. Conde turned  on his lights and stopped me.  Ofc. Conde exited his vehicle and demanded identification from me.  I asked  Ofc. Conde why, what law was I violating and he stated that I did not have a rear light on my bike.    (Lie number 1.)     I stated the law does not require a rear light but only a reflector to which he became adamant that the law  does in fact state that a bike needs a rear light and that that a red reflector is not sufficient to meet the  demands of the law.       I informed Ofc. Conde that I never heard of such a law and requested that he cite the actual  ordinance/vehicle code.  Ofc. Conde continued to demand that I hand over my identification to which I  7 responded I will once he provides me with the ordinance/vehicle code that states that I need to have a rear  light.     Ofc. Conde went back to his vehicle and returned a minute or so later with his ticket book and mumbled off a  vehicle code.  (Lie number 2)     I then handed over my identification to Ofc. Conde under the threat of arrest for not providing Ofc. Conde my  identification.  Ofc. Conde went back to his vehicle and returned a minute or so later and stated that I was free to go.  I informed Ofc. Conde that there was no vehicle code for the rear light to which he acknowledged by stating  that he “miss‐spoke.”    In fact CVC 21201 (d)(1) states, “A red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built‐in reflector on the  rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of  headlamps on a motor vehicle.”     My bicycle has a red reflector that meets the requirements of this law.  I requested that Ofc. Conde write down the VC which states that a bike needs a red light.  He gave me a piece  of paper that he wrote “CVC 21201 (d)(1)” on it.    Ofc. Conde stated that this is the code for bikes needing lights at night.    CVC 21201 (d)(1) states   “A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the  highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and  from the sides of the bicycle.”  This CVC does not require a rear light.  (Ofc. Conde’s 3rd lie.)  Additionally I had a head lamp that meets the requirements of this law.     2)     During this encounter when Ofc. Conde realized that he had no justification to stop me for not having a  rear light he attempted to justify the stop by adamantly asserting that the front head light needed to be  mounted on the bike.  That’s not true, CVC 21201 (e)  CVC 21201 (e) states that: “ A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and  visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp  required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4.     This is Ofc. Conde’s 4th lie.   Ofc. Conde had ample opportunity to look up the CVC and actually cited the CVC and therefore would have  known that a head light does not need to be mounted on bike.     3)  Again realizing that his stop was not justified Ofc. Conde came up with another excuse as to why he  stopped me by stating that I fit the description of person whom he knows to have been involved in burglaries  in the area.  Once again this explanation has no legal justification as once he came upon me he would know I was not the  person he was looking for.  ...................    Ofc. Conde confirmed and validated the illegal detention by not issuing a citation or a warning for any  violation of the vehicle code.     8 I informed Ofc. Conde that he violated the United States Constitution by falsely stating that I was violating a  vehicle code when in fact I was not so that he could search me and my identification.    Ofc. Conde stated that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution yet he had just violated the Constitution in  a most egregious manner.  Ofc. Conde falsely imprisoned me by violating PC 236 and  PC 237 (a) by using fraud, deceit and the coercive  threat of authority, “color of law.”          Calif. PC 236.  False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.  (Enacted 1872.)     Calif. PC  237.   (a) False imprisonment is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in  the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the false imprisonment be effected by violence,  menace, fraud, or deceit, it shall be punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.      When Ofc. Conde stated that I was detained for violating a non‐existent vehicle code he falsely detained me  and committed false imprisonment. I provided Ofc. Conde with my indentification under the threat of arrest  due to the false, fraudulent, detainment.  This constitutes a second violation of false imprisonment.  Simply  put if I did not provide Ofc. Conde with my identification he could have arrested me for obstruction of  justice.  That is the coercive threat he used.  It is only because of this threat of false arrest did I turn over my  property, my identification, to Ofc. Conde.    Ofc. Conde violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s “Due Process Clause” and the “Equal  Protection Clause.”  Ofc. Conde violated the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by unreasonably  searching me.   Ofc. Conde violated California Constitution Sec. 1 and Sec. 7. (a).    .......................        9     10           Tony Ciampi    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:35 PM To:Dave Price Subject:Replace 14 units of affordable housing 565 Hamilton Dear Editor:    Once again we are faced with the silent demolition of existing affordable housing, in spite of the fact that the  Comprehensive Plan states that we should retain this housing. And several council members claim to support affordable  housing. Why does this Council betray us? Why doesn't it ACT on its interests to save, provide affordable housing for our  workers? The members of the Council could mandate replacement before demolition. Be BOLD, KEEP RENTS in check  w/ inflation! We are losing vulnerable tenants all around the city. Take a stand, instead of being portrayed (In SF  Chronicle editorial 4/6/19 ) as the Beverley Hills of the bay area.  Roberta Ahlquist  1 Carnahan, David From:Megan McQuillan <MMcQuillan@siliconvalleycf.org> Sent:Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:REQUEST: Census Funding Opportunity Dear Palo Alto City Council, Greetings from Silicon Valley Community Foundation. I am emailing because SVCF is collaborating with several other organizations in the Bay Area to release a Request for Proposals to support Census 2020 education and outreach efforts of hard-to-count communities in the nine-county Bay Area. More detail is outlined below. We thought the Palo Alto City Council might be able to share the below announcement with any networks or newsletters you manage? We are aware that your communications reach Bay Area organizations that serve hard-to-count populations and hope that more may learn about it with your support. Thank you in advance for your partnership. Please let me know if you have any questions. _______________________ Request for Proposals Census 2020: Everyone Counts! Accepting proposals April 15 – May 31, 2019, RFP coming soon A fair and accurate census count is essential to numerous aspects of civic life, from allocation of billions of dollars in federal funds in California alone, to political representation at all levels of government. When census information is not accurate, it threatens to muffle the voices of historically undercounted groups, including people of color, immigrants, low-income communities, and children. What’s more, California faces several unprecedented challenges to a complete and accurate Census 2020 count, including significant underfunding of the U.S. Census Bureau, the proposed citizenship question, and a new online census questionnaire. To minimize the undercount in our region, The Bay Area Census Funders Collaborative – including Silicon Valley Community Foundation, East Bay Community Foundation, Northern California Grantmakers and other funders in the region – will soon be accepting proposals to support Census education and outreach efforts to hard-to-count communities in the nine-county Bay Area. Everyone counts! Proposals will be accepted April 15 through May 31, 2019 through online portal Apply SVCF and information sessions will be held throughout the Bay Area. Stay tuned for the RFP release. Learn more & sign up for information session here. Questions? Contact census2020@siliconvalleycf.org Megan McQuillan  Community Impact Senior Associate Silicon Valley Community Foundation Main: 650.450.5400 | Direct: 650.930.9885 | mmcquillan@siliconvalleycf.org  siliconvalleycf.org | twitter | facebook 2   Pronouns: she/her/hers   IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify me immediately. Thank you. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chaykowski, Kathleen <KChaykowski@forbes.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 11:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Requet From Forbes Magazine Hi, I’m Kathleen Chaykowski, a staff writer at Forbes based in San Francisco.    I am researching Marissa Mayer’s application to Palo Alto City Council to create a membership club on her Middleton  Road property.    Would you be able to confirm the status of her application and the month she filed her application?    Thanks so much,  Kathleen  1 Brettle, Jessica From:ianwkaye@yahoo.com Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 2:35 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Cc:Council, City; mayormarchand@cityoflivermore.net; RDMueller@menlopark.org; david.haubert@dublin.ca.gov; jthorne@cityofpleasantonca.gov Subject:Resident's Only Park in Palo Alto, CA ??? Foothills Park Attachments:foothiils park.pdf To the Honorable Mayor of Palo Alto, Mr. Eric Filseth,    I am sending you this e‐mail regarding the Residents Only park in Palo Alto, and I have copied the Mayors of several  towns which have a completely different view regarding the use of public lands.    This Sunday I was returning to Livermore from a weekend of camping with my daughter at Portola Redwoods State Park,  and on the way home I drove through Palo Alto to get a meal.  By chance, I happened to drive by Foothills Park which  has a very large sign emblazoned with the words "Palo Alto Residents Only."    I made a mental note to followup on this because in all my years of living in the United States (since 1992) I have never  seen such a park before.  Growing up in Southern Africa, I used to see many "Resident's Only" parks and signs.  These  signs were put in place under Apartheid in order to keep non‐residents out of certain public spots, and it was the legal  method of segregating whites and blacks.  Blacks were only allowed to legally reside in special areas and hence "non‐ residents" meant "non‐whites."    For what my opinion is worth, I believe is extremely shameful for city like Palo Alto have to such public space open to  residents only.  Palo Alto is small city of enormous wealth where many of the world's richest people reside.  The wealth  was generated on the backs of people who do not live in Palo Alto.  The City is also a preserved wonder of nature.  The  Environmentally friendly laws which protect such beautiful land were created by people who don't live in Palo Alto.  The  notion that the people who benefited the city do not deserve to partake of its public space is one of the most  hypocritical, closed‐minded and elitist policies I have seen in the USA.    In fact: I have lived in Africa, Europe and Israel and the only such public parks I have seen in my life were in Apartheid  South Africa and Palo Alto, CA.    I am familiar with all the lovely public spaces in Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and indeed all of the Bay Area and the  Sierras.  Other than in Palo Alto, everyone is welcome everywhere.    Perhaps its time to realize that Palo Alto is a global citizen and that we all rely on each other?  We can never undo the  past, but can affect the future.      Sincerely    Ian Kaye  Livermore CA  ianwkaye@yahoo.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Silicon Valley: dream or nightmare ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> To: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019, 9:23:01 AM PDT Subject: Silicon Valley: dream or nightmare https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/17/opinion-is-living-in-silicon-valley-a-dream-or-nightmare/ Opinion: Is living in Silicon Valley a dream or nightmare? Residents need to wake up to the challenges posed by technology companies’ success By Richard Haas | PUBLISHED: April 17, 2019 at 6:10 am | UPDATED: April 17, 2019 at 6:17 am I have lived and worked in Silicon Valley for almost 50 years.  I have watched it grow and change from a “little sister”  suburb of San Francisco to what has become the technology innovation center of the world.  When I first moved to the  South Bay in 1970, the name Silicon Valley had not yet been coined.  But it didn’t take long as the semiconductor  companies and chip makers made their homes in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara.  With silicon the major  component of the new technologies, the new moniker was a natural. The rapid innovation enabled by the new silicon technologies, combined with the concentration of top universities and  venture capital firms created the explosion of new firms in computer hardware (Apple), social media (Google,  Facebook), and many other technology‐related companies. The list of tech companies headquartered in Silicon Valley  and the wider Bay Area is unlike anywhere else in the world, and literally thousands of multi‐millionaires have been  created over the past 20‐plus years as employees of early‐stage companies cashed in stock options making them richer  than they could have imagined when their employers went public — the American Dream.  Now, with the pending initial  public offerings of Uber and Lyft, thousands of new multi‐millionaires will be minted, realizing their dreams. But, after the new multi‐millionaires look to take their winnings and try to turn some of their after‐tax wealth into their  dream homes, they may awaken to the nightmares faced by many Bay Area residents — unaffordable homes,  overcrowded schools, and hours‐long commutes.  There are not that many “dream homes” on the market, and those  that are list for $6‐30 million. Beyond that, it is questionable whether there are enough desirable single‐family homes  that may not be “dream homes” available on the market within reasonable commute distance.  And this is just today. The recently approved Related Santa Clara project will eventually build out more than 5 million square of new office  space (enough for 20,000 employees) near Levi Stadium, with only 1,680 apartments (enough for about 3,500  people).  Apple recently purchased a total of 85 acres in the same area, which could enable more than 20,000 more  employees to work there. San Jose is pushing forward with the Google Diridon project with 5 million square feet of  2 office space — another 20,000 employees — but only sought 2,600 housing units, 25 percent of which would have to  be “affordable.” This nightmare will continue over the next 20 years as commercial development and high‐tech, high‐income jobs  outpace housing at all levels.  Commute traffic will get much worse, and schools, already with 25‐30 students per class,  will deteriorate, as there is little space to build new schools. Already people in all sectors of the service industries are  moving to the Central Valley, resulting in fast food restaurants, and retail stores advertising $17/hour plus benefits to  try, unsuccessfully so far, to attract new hires — and they still can’t fill all openings.  People are unwilling to commute  four hours round trip to take a low‐wage job. This is a nightmare created by high‐tech corporate success, and we need to wake up and demand our local  representatives address the externalities these businesses are creating. There is no simple solution to ending the  nightmare. Perhaps some form of per‐employee charge that can help fund affordable housing, or a sizable development  fee to be used for housing. Otherwise the nightmares will get worse. Richard Haas is the editorial committee chair for Orchard City Indivisible in Campbell. Orchard City Indivisable focuses on  social and economic justice, including homelessness and affordable housing in the South Bay.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop the demolition of affordable housing! Dear Council Members:    You say you want local control over state mandated housing. So, you are against SB 50. Well, if you really are committed  to local control,  show some action towards that end. Once again we are faced with the silent demolition of 14 units of existing affordable  housing, in spite of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan states that we should retain this housing. Several council  members claim to support affordable housing. Why does this Council betray us? Why doesn't it ACT on its interests to  save, provide affordable housing for our workers? The members of the Council could mandate replacement before  demolition. Be BOLD, KEEP RENTS in check w/ inflation! We are losing vulnerable tenants all around the city. Take a  stand, instead of being portrayed (In SF Chronicle editorial 4/6/19 ) as the 'Beverly Hills' of the bay area. Why is the 565  Hamilton/Webster project moving forward!? And why does it have 7,500 sq ft of OFFICE? WHY NOT MANDATE THAT  THE OFFICE BE TURNED INTO AFFORDABLE STUDIOS, and include affordable rentals of the 19 elite condos!. We are  waiting for you to ACT on your promises.  Roberta Ahlquist for the WILPF Low‐Income Housing Committee  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Suggestions - safety and quality of life Hello, I am a resident of Palo Alto, having lived here for 6 years with my husband and young children. We really love it here! I am writing with a few comments and suggestions to help improve safety and quality of life -- First, we *love* the Safe Routes to School program. The staff (especially Sylvia Star-Lack) have been hugely helpful to us in providing bike safety tips & classes, suggestions on safe routes, and answering questions. With their help, our children have been biking to school since kindergarten! I hope the program will continue! We also really appreciate the new crossing guard at the Friends entrance to Ohlone, which makes us feel much better about our kids making it to school safely. Previously, that interaction was completely unprotected, and we had a number of scary close calls. We very much hope that crossing guard will continue next year - she has been doing a wonderful job in protecting all the walkers, bikers, & scooter'ers coming through the Ohlone back entrance! I also have a couple of suggestions to help improve quality of life: Palo Alto has had a law against gas-powered leaf blowers in residential areas for more than a decade now, but the law is completely flouted. Gas-powered leaf blowers are *everywhere*. They are hard to miss - you can hear them from more than a block away. It really disrupts the peace, quiet, and air quality of the neighborhoods. When I go running/biking, my otherwise peaceful route is constantly disrupted by these noisy machines. We can do better than this. It would be a huge benefit to quality of life -- and presumably not very costly since it would be offset by fines -- if we could enforce the leaf blower ordinance proactively. It would bring back peace & quiet to our neighborhoods! I very much hope that we can consider this in our upcoming budget cycle. It would mean so much to the residents of the community. Also, it would be great to have better education and enforcement of parking laws. Specifically, because of the rolling curbs in the city, many cars park on the sidewalk and end up blocking it. When I go running with my double stroller, there are many places where I am forced to run into the street because cars are blocking half or more of the sidewalk. If we could give out some warnings or fines to cars that park on the sidewalk, and therefore reclaim the sidewalks for pedestrians, it would improve pedestrian safety. Thank you so much for considering these suggestions! Sincerely, Helene Grossman 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, 2019 2:10 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject: The Review Board at Verizon should not replace the ARB! Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka,    Warm greetings!    The ARB should remain a voice (going forward) at public hearings and remain a needed part in the democratic process.  The RBV (poetic for "Review Board at Verizon") should not replace the ARB!    Sincerely,    Ardan Michael Blum  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 3:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter in support of more affordable housing Attachments:To PA City Council 15Apr2019.pdf Dear Mayor & Council Members, Please read the attached letter from the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, in reference to your meeting this evening.   ‐‐     jeralyn.moran@gmail.com    ..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now.  Mayor Eric Filseth and Council Member Tom DuBois Re: Support expansion of housing supply Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Member DuBois, Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto Green Sanctuary Committee SOS East Charleston Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 15, 2019 We are writing to express our support for an expansion ofthe housing supply in Palo Alto. A restricted housing supply contributes to climate change, social inequity, and wealthy inequality. With insufficient housing availability, people who work in Palo Alto are forced to live farther away and suffer long commutes. This results in increased fossil fuel consumption which, as you know, contributes to climate change. Increasing the supply of housing near alternative transportation corridors will help improve this situation. We are concerned that the April 15, 2019 "Colleagues Memo Regarding the Santa Clara County Cities' Association Position on Housing in Relation to State Legislative Initiatives" could serve to further restrict the potential addition of badly needed housing units in the city. The position paper states that "Cities in Santa Clara County are actively addressing the housing shortage." While other cities in Santa Clara County are adding thousands of units of housing, in 2018 Palo Alto approved a number of housing units that was in the double digits. The position paper also states that "We fully endorse local and regional efforts to minimize the impact for current residents in rapidly changing neighborhoods." We are concerned that this gives a small minority of people seeking to block expansion of housing supply more power to restrict supply. Please look for ways to adjust zoning, parking requirements, and permitting requirements within one mile of train stations in order to expand the quantity of housing available for lower-and middle-income people. Doing so will help address climate change, social equity and wealth inequality in a small but meaningful way. Yours in sustainable community, ~~ Justine Burt, Co-Chair fJJ~o!~ Jeralyn Moran, Co-Chair Green Sanctuary Committee Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Palo Alto SOS E. Charleston Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 San Jose, March 31 sr, 2019 To: The Honorable Eric Filseth, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto And Members of the Palo Alto City Council CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 19 APR I I AH g: 4 9 Re: Invalidation of the claim of Mr. Truong H. Vu and Mr. Son H. Pham as the Representatives of the Vietnamese-American Communities & Coalitions of Northern California from now on. The Vietnamese-American Communities & Coalitions of Northern California (V AC&C-NorCal) has been active for many years based on the principles of Democracy, Freedom, and Transparency. In the meeting of March 31 51 , 2019 at the Vietnamese-American Cultural Center with many representatives of the Vietnamese- American Community Organizations and Clubs, and the community members presented. We, the Vietnamese- Americans undersigned declare: Whereas, The last elected Representative Committee (the RepCom) term was expired on June 2017. In the meeting of 03/18/2018 at Tully Public Library, the community extended the term for six more months (ended on 09/18/2018) with the provision of preparation for the election of the new RepCom. Since nothing had been done, the V AC&C-NorCal has effectively been without the RepCom. Mr. Son H. Pham illegally transferred the title of the President of the RepCom of the VAC&C-NorCal to Mr. Truong H. Vu without an open election as the tradition and the bylaws required. Mr. Truong H. Vu and Mr. Son H. Pham violated our bylaws, abused the vested power of the Representative Committee, and have been opaque in many businesses of the Committee. That, we, the members of the VAC&C-NorCal, Invalidate the claim of Mr. Truong H. Vu and Mr. Son H. Pham as the Representatives of the VAC&C- NorCal from now on. Request the local government offices of Santa Clara County not to meet with Mr. Truong H. Vu and/or Mr. Son H. Pham as the representative(s) of the VAC&C-NorCal. Delegate to the Provisional Committee represented by Mrs. Anh Thuy Le as the legitimate Representative of our VAC&C-NorCal until we have the new elected RepCom for our community. Support the Provisional Committee in the process of preparation and holding a fair, open and transparent election for the new RepCom of the VAC&C-NorCal. Sincerely yours, Acting on behalf of the Provisional Committee of the VAC&C-NorCal Anh Thuy Le and 43 out of 51 members attending the March 31 5\ 2019 meeting (list attached) ChUng toi al>ng kV ten dtt6'i day a~ ung ho cho Ban Tuyen Cao Buoi HQp COng Dl>ng ngay 31thang3 nam 2019 We the undersigned all agreed and supported the Declaration after the meeting on 03/31/2019 HQ Ten/ Full name Ch& Ky/Signature NO'I CLt Ng\I Residence so dl'n tho\11 hay email Phone or email Chung toi dang JcY tAn d1tai d;!ly di! ung h(i cho Ban Tuyl!n Cao Budi Hop Cqng £>ang ngay 31thang3 nam 2019 We the undersigned all agreed and supported the Declaration after the meeting on 03/31/2019 HQ Ten/ Full name ChU' Ky/Signature NalCLtNgv Residence s6 dif n tho,1 hay email Phone or email Chung toi dllng k'( ten d11ai a4'y a~ ting h¢ cho Ban Tuyen Cao Bul!i HQp C¢ng £>ang ngay 31thang3 nim 2019 ~1->lllC\ We the undersigned all agreed and supported the Declaration after the meeting on 03/31/2019 S 4 HQ Ten/ Full name ChCi' Ky/Signature N<ri CU' Ngt,1 Residence i~,,.:,_ \ c-~ ~,;,..,~ So dl'n tho,1 hay email Phone or email ven.on OotE'· 111.orch 2010 Photograph showing the entire pole with a view of the face of the equipment. 1350_1_ Polo Allo, CA 84301 verizon-1 ¢CDPYf'ahl '2018 Pr&viwolis!s lne. • www.phOTosrn.cOO'l •Any modricollon is slricl~ prOhihlted. Prinlinglellef size or IOrget is per'1VUible. Th:s photosirnvk:ltOO. k oowd upon lnformohoo otovided by trte prefect oppiconl I zj.>/;9 [ ] Placed Before Meeting ,. ( ~d at Meeting Version Oote· Mach 2018 Zoomed in photograph of the detail of the solar shields. 1350--l'lllo Alto, CA 84301 verizolt" ~ Cop'frighl 2018 Pre~ts lnc. • www.pholoslm.com •Any modification 11 st1lclly pr~led. Prinliog leller slze or ltwgW is p{!fTY'l'UlbkJ Thts photoWnuto'ion is txned upon 1n1ormotion PfO'Aded by lhe project oppficont