Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190422plCC 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: 04/22/2019 Document dates: 04/03/2019 – 04/10/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 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: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 ca~~1 ii~it cell antenn~ The Callfomi.a Supreme Court ru.kd fe$krday tlw cibeS ha\'C • riSht to rtgt.Jbtc: the plxtmcnt or wireless ~tc­ phooe cqu.1pcncn1 on 1nib1y ~ to It· COl'l\ITIOdalc liCSdlc1:ic eooottm.. The IC\'eCl•fl'ICmbc:r C'OWt llAllli· mously uphdd a 2011 San FntlCISCO ....... tbal ttql.l.Lm tdc:phonc corripanic$ '° obcai• a pcnnit before placlna cquap. ftftl OCI uohty pole$ oo pubik strttb andJldc'1111U The San Ffaftc1.,co ord~ re· qu.am; a htjJ,Nc:ncd coosiderll:iOa of leMhctK factOrl 1n ecru.in etas. in· cludin1 resadttib.11 dlStricts. hl.Sloric d.i!>tnCU lilld atteac s;trccU. before • pcm'ltt can bt pultd. T-~•Qb.le V.°<'M Corp lilld two cth- u "'1ttlcu cornc-nK"f tJY& cbalknp Qir ~ lrpcd " viol~cd a ~c On utility poles for aesthetic reasons law tbM allows tt:lqlhone COftlplllia to CUtSUUCt hnes llld i•Mall cqu.pmelll aJoog ............. The i&Mc law A)'S lhe iiftstallatiOll fDl.lM be done io 1o1o-ays Uld 1• loC1Qcw that do tlOl Mmciommode Cor u1oc11nvc- mcnce) lhe public use or tbc roed.'" , ................ T· t.fobik utucd that lht metjUrc aUo..-.w manctiofts ooly v.he11 nctdod '° prt\'tnt u1sl1llat10Ds rrom ~mpedilll uaffic. Sue the h1&h court Wd the •·Ord ~,ll­ commodc" ·~hides ha' •Ill a nepl.l''t effect on ~ful cnJ(>)meot or public fOlds llld sadc111·alks. and that San f'ran. clSC'O therefore hid • right to consider \iSl.lll tffttt$. Jusuce Carol COl'Tipn wrote. '"The city hat. 1nherrnc kleal polaoc po111·er 10 clc4tmine the appropriate u~ or land 1111thl11 iu jtari.5d1C1:t00. Thac power in· dlKlt.5 the uborJ,ty 10 estabfi:sh act• thdic conchtlOcls (or land we ... -·-·---· San Fnncuco City AtlDOn'IC:'y Drnnu Hcrrcn Slid u:'I a swcmenc. "'Privaic comPMa don't bl\·t (~ rcin when It comes 10 USiftS • pubhc l"CSOUtt't'. San FrlQctseo docs" ·1 prolubtt this cqurpmmt from bc111g •~a.lied. wc·rc t11nply reicp.unn.g ~l('S to talc ""'iOllXlk '1cps; to nunimu:e lhc obtn,i. tn~ of their 1n,)t1Uat.ioes . ., We make property management easy! Is City Hall open t ... Ott---. ............ _,_,....,_,.,.--.. --.... .... _..,. ___ .,. ........ 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:Carla Sanchez <csanchez@project-access.org> Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 1:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Back to School Backpack/ School Supplies Donation Attachments:In-Kind_Donation Letter.pdf; In-Kind Donation Form.doc Hello, My name is Carla Sanchez, I am the Resident Services Coordinator at Light Tree Apartments from Project Access. Project Access is a not-profit organization that offers services and programming to residents that live in low‐income  communities. In our Family Resource Center we are able to connect residents to our four service initiatives which are  Health & Wellness, Education for Youth, Community Building and Economic Stability.     I will be putting a community building event for Back to School in August for the Residential youth at Light Tree  Apartments and would like to know if the City of Palo Alto would be willing to donate backpacks or School Supplies for  the upcoming school year.    Thank you.   Carla Sanchez Resident Services Coordinator Family Resource Center at Mayfield Place (Monday, Tuesday) 2500 El Camino Real | Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ph: (650) 468-2931 Family Resource Center at Light Tree Apartments (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) 1805 East Bayshore rd. | East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ph: (650) 326-9945 csanchez@project‐access.org   Project-Access.org         Project Access, Inc. 2100 W. Orangewood Ave., Suite 230 Orange, CA 92868 p: 949 253 6200 | f: 714 940 98034 www.project-access.org Project Access, Inc. is a National Nonprofit Public Benefit Charitable Corporation, and operates within the meaning of Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our tax ID number is 33-0834635. We reserve the right to use your contribution in conjunction with this event in the best manner to maximize the net proceeds to our organization. If you wish to limit receiving proposals to a specific cause or geographic area or to be removed completely, please call (949) 253-6200. CEO & President Kristin Byrnes, MS Board of Directors Jonathan B. Webb, Board Chair President Mark Skaist, Secretary Adrian Craciun Ana Marie del Rio Chris Garcia Eugene Gonzalez Guy Marsala Edward Mora Danuel Stanger Mark H. Strauss Catherine Talbot William Whalen Advisory Board Juan Carlos Araque, PhD Scott Barker Thomas M. Demchuk Bill Hirsch Brendon Kensel Greg S. Labate, Esq. Larry Leaman Herbert Y. Rosenblum April 04, 2019 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council, Project Access is a 501(C) (3) nonprofit organization, with the mission to be the leading provider of vital on-site health, education and employment services to low-income families, children and seniors. We currently work with over 60 communities in California, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida and Texas providing on-site services such as health and wellness, economic stability, education for youth and community building. Project Access takes preventative measures to help families and seniors who are on the brink of crisis and provides them with the support that they need by being a one-stop-shop community resource hub. With your help Project Access is reaching new heights and building pathways out of poverty for over 15,000 low-income families and seniors. Through each of our resource centers, these children and families have no barriers, allowing all residents to get the help that they need in order to reach self-sufficiency and maximize their full potential. We humbly request 30 Backpacks or School Supplies for our community Back to School Night Celebration from the city of Palo Alto to support our youth residents at Light Tree Apartments Resource Center Thank you for sharing your commitment, dedication, and resources to better the lives of low-income children, families and seniors. Sincerely, Carla Sanchez Resident Services Coordinator Family Resource Center at Light Tree Apartments (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) 1805 East Bayshore rd. | East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ph: (650) 326-9945 csanchez@project-access.org 1 Carnahan, David From:Rob Levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:churchill traffic study map council members:    what i was trying to show last Monday during Oral Communications was the fact that the traffic study predicts identical  numbers of re‐routed cars from a Churchill closing would flow down Waverley, Cowper, and Bryant street towards  Oregon Expressway (3% in the morning, 2% in the afternoon, see attached map).    However, we all know that Bryant street is blocked to cars at Lowell Ave, so this just cant be right.   And if the traffic  consultants have gotten this so wrong,i believe it calls into question the rest of their study.        rob levitsky  1200 Emerson        Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:g kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:46 PM To:bradd.egglestone@cityofpaloalto.org; w. kerber; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:construction hours Mr. Eggleston I am filling a complaint with your office about several issues concerning the current project underway at 250 sherman ave. Sect. 9.10.060 of the cities muni code specifies that construction hours are 8am to 6pm mon. through friday. The contractor doing the work at 250 sherman has routinely violated the construction hours regulation. The most recent occurrence was mon. april 8 when the contractors staff were on site egnaged in construction activity before 730am.. I had been disturbed by some noise, which i believe came from the construction site. I got up and saw the crew at the site at approximately 725am. I would refer you to the sentence which states "violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months in jail, $1000 fine or both. Vilolators will be prosecuted. PAMC 9.10.060{b}. This complaint is against public works dept. , the city of palo alto,any city staff who have responsibility for oversight of this project, for failing to enforce the ordinance, It is also a complaint against the contractor for willfully violating the ordinance. Mr. Raschke assured me weeks ago that the contractor was very aware of the construction hours and the ordinance but this has not prevented repeated violations of the ordinance. I consider that willful. sincerely greg kerber 1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 12:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Addressing comments made by your representatives. Please see below email sent to Kiely.    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: Administrative Services <AdminSvcs@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 9:36 AM  To: ORG ‐ Clerk's Office <ClerksOffice@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: FW: Addressing comments made by your representatives.    Please see the email below.    From: Charles David Burt <cdb03b@acu.edu>   Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 4:33 PM  To: Administrative Services <AdminSvcs@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Addressing comments made by your representatives.    You as a city really need to address comments made by Mr. Steven D. Lee. They are very troubling for someone in his  role in the Human Relations Commission. To have the opinion that a hat with a patriotic slogan that is supported and  worn by half the country is somehow racist is in and of itself a bigoted opinion. To support a woman who would verbally  berate and attack an elderly Jewish man for wearing said hat is even more disturbing and deleting all of his social media  as to hide from the public who are trying to hold him accountable for what he has said is shameful.   1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:FYI: NYTimes: These Countries Have Prices on Carbon. Are They Working? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing‐carbon‐emissions.html?smid=nytcore‐ios‐share    Best, John     (Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)  1 Carnahan, David From:Florence Keller <fkeller@trialanalysisgroup.com> Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 4:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Grade separation issues to be discussed at meeting tonight. Dear City Council Members,    I would like to add my voice to those requesting that funding for the South Palo Alto tunnel be included and approved in  the revised contract being discussed at this evening's council meeting.  The ramifications of segregating out parts of our  city with the construction of a viaduct should get precedence over the fiscal concerns of this wealthy city.    I appreciate your attention to this matter.    Florence Keller    4124 Wilkie Way, PA 94306    1 Carnahan, David From:Joan Holtzman <holtzmanjoan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Grade separation issues to be discussed at meeting tonight.   There seems to be some concern that funding for the South Palo Alto tunnel analysis may not be included and approved  in the revised contract being considered this evening.  I would like hereby to register that I strongly believe it should be  and add my voice to others who share this belief.    Thank you.    Joan  Holtzman      1 Carnahan, David From:Brian Wright <bwright8086@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 7:42 AM To:Council, City So you approve of harassing and threatening old people wearing a MAGA hat at a Starsucks store? Don’t fuck with me  you wimpy assholes    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:aswatk@pacbell.net Sent:Saturday, April 6, 2019 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Is the Mankey/MAGA incident worthy of your attention? Dear Palo Alto City Council members:    Mayor Filseth was quoted in the “Daily Post” as saying “The City Council is going to review it and decide what course of  action makes sense.”    At any moment a significant fraction of the general population is immature, emotionally fragile,  inherently rude and/or  showing signs of mental illness.  Because of this, there are public arguments all the time, everywhere.  These are neither  unexpected nor significant to anyone else except perhaps to the immediate bystanders.  Once over, unless someone was  arrested, they are of no significance to anyone.      This particular incident came to my and your attention only because one of the participants chose to document it on  Twitter.  How does that last fact qualify it for the attention of anyone in town government, much less the entire  Council?   And now that it’s over, don’t you think placing further attention on it further exacerbates the silliness of the  entire spectacle?  I would think that your time would be better spent on other problems facing Palo Alto and its citizens.   Best Regards,  Alan Watkins  1 Brettle, Jessica From:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Sent:Wednesday, April 10, 2019 11:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team Subject:May Fete Parade - Invitation Hello, Palo Alto VIP!     It is my honor to invite you to participate in the 97th Annual May Fete Parade on Saturday, May 4, 2019!  This year’s  parade will celebrate our City’s 125th Birthday!  The parade begins at 10:00AM, but as a VIP participant please check‐in  no later than 9:30AM at the corner of University Ave. and Emerson St.  As a VIP you will have a premium position in the  parade and will also receive an event t‐shirt and some additional goodies.    Please let Stephanie Douglas (Stephanie.Douglas@CityofPaloAlto.org), Superintendent of Recreation, know by Friday,  April 19th  if you plan to participate.     You can find more parade details at: http://www.paloaltomayfeteparade.com/               Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne, PhD  Director of Library & Community Services  President, Public Library Association, 2018‐2019  270 Forest Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2403 | E: monique.ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you    What I’m Reading Now:      The Library Book by Susan Orlean      1 Carnahan, David From:Don Feerer <Donfeerer@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Greetings,    Im an outsider. But as a single father of three children, I find value in traveling America with my children and exposing  them to the many different sectors of life, regional customs, various foods and the history of our beloved country.    I am passionate about bringing up my children well educated and well balanced. I teach them to treat their fellow man  with compassion and respect.    An overly aggressive and verbally abusive member of your community not only berated an older man, but also tried to  incite further violence against him by use of the social media.     As a person is a result of her environment, conversely, that person also effects their environment. So those who  surround her and support this type of action are just as culpable of the hatred demonstrated. Not only her husband, a  teacher, who has the ears of our youth at his disposal, but by elected and appointed officials within your local  government.    This was copied and pasted from an online Facebook post...  This morning, Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioner Steven Lee said in a statement that Mankey is “beloved by many  in our community for her progressive activism, myself included.”  So, how does this reflect upon Palo Alto? Especially when the community's "Human Relations" Commissioner condones  this type of "progressive activism"?    Palo Alto has become an eyesore of America. You should be ashamed not only of this citizen and her inappropriate  behavior, (which should be cited for public indecency behavior), but also by those who support and condone such  hatred.    I am a tourist from Ohio. I spent July in California, traveling from Seattle to San Francisco. Before heading home. In my  return vacations, I will keep your community out of my itinerary and my tourist budget.    Shame on your community....which, without compassion for your fellow man, really isn't a community.   1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Sunday, April 7, 2019 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:NYT: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/upshot/the‐streets‐were‐never‐free‐congestion‐pricing‐finally‐makes‐that‐ plain.html?smid=nytcore‐ios‐share      Best, John     (Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)  1 Carnahan, David From:rob barns <barwinrb52@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 5, 2019 4:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Enforcement Good afternoon.  Can you tell me how effective is the current parking enforcement company Serco,Inc. and is this most  cost effective.  Thank you in advance for your help and opinion.  Robert           Virus-free. www.avast.com   1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 8:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: 335 Webster Land grab?    You should respect the vote you had.    Sent from my iPhone    > On Apr 8, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Geri <geri@thegrid.net> wrote:  >   > Please sell the home,and,  > Use the money to hire police, you say you can’t afford, enforce speed control south of Oregon.  They are needed here.  My street has had no safety for years.  > Also please use the best quality upgrading with quiet pavement on   > Middlefield south of Colorado to Loma Verde, which is third world.  >   > I have noticed city properties just sit useless. for years.   > And, thank you, Mr. Tanaka for thinking of people other than city   > workers who have So many Friday’s and Monday’s off, and,  extraordinary  benefits already.  > Geri McGIlvray  >   > Safety and WALKABILITY  > In Midtown  > Sent from my iPhone    1 Carnahan, David From:john@kovalfamily.com Sent:Friday, April 5, 2019 10:53 AM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:RE: Personnel Matter Ok, I wasn’t aware of their full employment status, however Mr. Lee Shares his title as Palo Alto Human Relations  Commissioner, which sounds as though it is an official City position with the full backing of the City of Palo Alto.  Volunteer or not, they are acting on the behalf of the City.    Thanks,  John Koval    From: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 9:50 AM  To: john@kovalfamily.com  Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: RE: Personnel Matter    Thank you for your message, Mr. Koval.  We appreciate your communication of your perspective.  One fact I would like  to clarify is that neither Ms. Mankey nor Mr. Lee are city employees.  Both are resident volunteers on council‐appointed  advisory boards.    Respectfully,  ‐‐Ed    Ed Shikada City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329-2280 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org   From: john@kovalfamily.com <john@kovalfamily.com>   Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 9:38 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Personnel Matter    I wanted to provide some feedback on the recent issue with two city employees, Rebecca Parker Mankey and Steven  Lee. We are a city of tolerance and should not have employees who are performing intolerant acts and city employees  supporting it. Their recent behavior in relation to another city resident wearing a MAGA hat is inexcusable and not a  position Palo Alto should stand silently behind. I might not like her hair style, but that does not give me the right to  publicly abuse and attack her.    The recent events in which Rebecca Mankey verbally and physically abused a resident of Palo Alto are unacceptable. She  should be removed from the Board Positions that she holds for the City. She clearly does not practice what she preaches  2 and shows very poor judgement with her racist and bigoted response to something she does not like, which is not  acceptable. She is clearly unfit to represent our City and make decisions on our behalf and should be removed  immediately.    The other employee is Steven Lee, who seems to think it is ok for City employees to act this way and supports the racist  and bigoted positions of Mankey. We live in a democratic country and our residents share many different viewpoints,  which keeps us diverse and interesting. Our employees should express this in their public interactions and statements. It  is especially important for someone who is hired to be the voice of the City. Mr. Lee should at a minimum, be censured  with a written warning, with termination if he cannot properly carry out his duties.    Sincerely,    John Koval  492 Tennyson Ave.  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 11:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Removal of Member of the Ventura Planning Group Elected City Council Members: No doubt by now you have heard about the incident at a local Starbucks on California Avenue where a person who is on the Ventura Planning group, selected by the City, has verbally attacked a man sitting in the coffee shop because of his wearing a red hat bearing a political slogan from the 2016 national election: Confrontation at Starbucks over 'MAGA' hat erupts - Palo Alto Daily Post     Confrontation at Starbucks over 'MAGA' hat erupts - Palo Alto Daily Post BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer A south Palo Alto activist has been fired from her accounting job at...    I for one, do not believe that this person is representative of most Palo Altans. Based on this incredibly uncivil behavior-- should no longer be an invited member of any City of Palo Alto City government functions. I hope the Council will take note of this incident and invoke whatever actions are necessary to deal with the situation in an appropriate manner. Hopefully, this will not become a issue for the next Council elections because nothing was done to remove this toxic influence from our civic discussions. Wayne Martin Palo Alto   1 Carnahan, David From:Nicole Williams <Nicole.Williams@rmhcbayarea.org> Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 10:26 AM To:Council, City Cc:Bri Seoane Subject:Request for Proclamation of "Ronald McDonald House Day" Attachments:Proposed Proclamation Language - City of Palo Alto - Ronald McDonald House Day.docx Greetings Mayor Filseth and Councilmembers,     Ronald McDonald House Charities Bay Area is celebrating two important milestones on Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4pm— 40 years of providing housing, meals, and support services to families with critically ill children at Ronald McDonald  House at Stanford, and 30 years of care for families at Ronald McDonald House of San Francisco.     Each year at our Palo Alto location alone, we house more than 6,000 parents, patients and siblings whose lives has been  turned upside down by a child’s illness. More than 3,400 Palo Alto residents and businesses have supported RMHC Bay  Area over the years, helping us expand our House and programming multiple times to keep pace with the evolving  needs of our local children’s health care providers, including our partner Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford,  which offers some of the most advanced subspecialty pediatric care in the world. Today, our 123‐bedroom Stanford  House is the largest Ronald McDonald House in the world and reflects the innovations of Stanford’s physician‐scientists,  who are improving survival rates for childhood illnesses that were untreatable only a decade ago.     We would be honored if Mayor Filseth or a City Councilmember would attend our anniversary celebration and sign a  proclamation to name May 17th—the day of our founding on May 17, 1979—“Ronald McDonald House Day” to  recognize the important role our distinctive family‐centered services play in advancing lifesaving medical care for  critically ill children and the value the City of Palo Alto places on keeping families close and cared for during children’s  medical crises. Additionally, naming May 17th “Ronald McDonald House Day” pays tribute to the thousands of Palo Alto  residents, organizations, and medical providers who have supported our cause, volunteered their time, and partnered  with us to serve critically ill children for 40 years—many of whom will be present at the RMHC Birthday Bash event on  Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4‐7pm.     I have attached proposed proclamation language to this email. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to  hearing from you. (See also the event invitation below.)    Best wishes,    Nicole Frances Williams, MSW  Foundation Relations Manager  Nicole.Williams@rmhcbayarea.org  O: 650‐470‐6006 | C: 925‐339‐8440  Support RMHC families today!    3 {* .......................... ") ~ * * * ~ ~ ao••··-a;ren .. 84 ••••• ~ IT IS A MILESTONE YEAR IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE! Help Ronald McDonald House Charities Bay Area celebrate decades of family care at our BIRTHDAY BASH HONORING 40 YEARS AT RONALD M CDONALD HOUSE AT STANFORD ANO 30 YEARS AT RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE OF SAN FRANCISCO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4   520 Sand Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-2001 | Tel: 650.470.6000 Ronald McDonald House Charities Bay Area © 2019 All rights reserved.  Donate | Forward to a friend | Visit our website | Unsubscribe         DRAFT – Proclamation of Ronald McDonald House Day On May 17, 2019 WHEREAS addressing the complex health needs of critically ill children and families accessing world class pediatric medical innovations and treatments in Palo Alto is fundamental to the success and leadership of the City of Palo Alto and the Bay Area; and WHEREAS the need for comprehensive support services that care for families during a child’s medical crisis places upon our community a critical responsibility; and WHEREAS it is appropriate that a day should be set apart each year to direct our thoughts toward our children and families who are coping with critical illnesses; and WHEREAS Ronald McDonald House Charities Bay Area, through its distinctive approach to serving thousands of parents and children each year through specialized housing, meal, and family-centered support services, is increasing access to lifesaving pediatric medical care that can be found only in our community; NOW, THEREFORE, I, MAYOR ERIC FILSETH, do hereby proclaim May 17, 2019 and every March 17th thereafter to be Ronald McDonald House Day in the CITY OF PALO ALTO and urge our citizens and all agencies and organizations interested in meeting the complex needs of critically ill children and their families to unite on that day in the observance of such care as will acquaint the people of Palo Alto with the fundamental necessity of family-centered programs for children with critical illnesses. 1 Carnahan, David From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:scott mellberg dear city council,     Dear City Council members,    Scott Mellberg has been the Palo Alto Utilities Home Efficiency Genie advisor over the past few years. I just learned he’ll be leaving his position sometime soon. I want you to know how helpful he was in helping our family ‘de- carbonize' our home. I hope you can give him a proper appreciative send-off, and thank you for having the foresight to hire people to do that type of work.    I’m hopeful the city can double?triple the publicity regarding his successor. One home with no emissions is merely tiny progress; one such home that acts as a role model for many others may be invaluable.    Thank you again, David Page  3115 Avalon court     PS - if you have yet to do this with your own house, car, etc., why not start immediately?  1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Seniors deserve better!     Palo Alto City Council    Dear Council:    Downtown Avenidas senior center building expansion is a huge disappointment.   It is a toxic environment constructed  with tacky workmanship and cheap materials.  Avenidas designs plans, given to the public through extensive newspaper  coverage, deviated from the designs implemented.      Where are the full‐length windows on the upper floors that look out through the beautiful redwood tree‐tops and onto  our park?  The upstairs feels claustrophobic with small windows and milky‐white windows blocking outside viewing.      None of their windows appear to open for airing out old‐people and homeless‐persons body odors and airborne  diseases.     The entire place stinks badly from toxic glue holding down carpeting.  There's a large permanent sign in the middle of  the front entrance door which warns that inside chemicals are cancerous.      Comparing carpets with soft linoleum, carpets are bad for asthma and other respiratory ailments, and rugs quickly  become filthy with wheelchair and walker traffic.     Senior deserve better!    ‐Danielle Martell  North Palo Alto      1 Carnahan, David From:Paul C <lonestarpaul2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Steven Lee To the Mayor and the entire city Council of Palo Alto, CA    I demand that you reprimand Steven Lee for supporting the vicious woman who attacked an elderly man at a Starbucks  simply because he was wearing a MAGA hat! The vitriolic outburst was disgraceful, degrading and full of bigotry.     How dare Mr Lee support this kind of behavior? There needs to be a public apology to the elderly man IMMEDIATELY! If  you as a group do not make this happen, then you too are accomplices to what amounts to a hate crime.     I’m embarrassed for our town. The narrow minded bigots are not the Trump supporters (I did not vote for Trump) it  people like the nasty woman who thought she had the right to verbally beat an old white man and then be supported by  Steven Lee, of all things, a HUMAN RELATIONS commissioner. Human Relations? This man needs to loose his job. He’s a  disgrace to his “profession” and an embarrassment to our so‐called “open minded” city.     Fix this now!     Paul Colley  1 Carnahan, David From:annette cangro <annette.cangro@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Steven Lee I never want an individual to be fired for speaking their mind. Everyone has a right to express their opinion freely and without fear of reprisal or intimation. That includes the gentleman in the MAGA hat quietly sipping coffee in a Palo Alto Starbucks. The deranged harpie who accosted him should be ashamed of herself. More disturbing is Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioner Steven Lee not merely condoning but championing the assault. Despite Californias progressive culture this is unacceptable behavior from a civil servant. 1 Carnahan, David From:Brettle, Jessica Sent:Friday, April 5, 2019 2:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Minor, Beth Subject:VTA New Transit Service Plan Mayor and City Council,    Please see below from Vice Mayor Fine. Thank you.    Sincerely,  Jessica       Jessica Brettle   Assistant City Clerk  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Phone: (650) 329‐2630    Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org            From: Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com>  Date: April 5, 2019 at 12:41:05 PM PDT  To: "Minor, Beth" <Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Can you share the VTA new transit service plan?  HI Beth,    Today VTA released their final recommendation on transit services. Can you share with the council  please?    http://www.vta.org/News‐and‐Media/Connect‐with‐VTA/VTA‐Releases‐Final‐Recommendations‐for‐ 2019‐New‐Transit‐Service‐Plan#.XKeuCetKgUF    In short, they are no longer looking to cut the 22 overnight, they will keep 522 frequency at current  levels (no longer increasing), and they are deferring changes on the express (102 and 103) routes. The  VTA board will vote on these changes in May.    Thanks and have a great weekend,  Adrian    ‐‐   Adrian Fine  adrianfine@gmail.com | 650‐468‐6331  https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/  Herb Borock CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P. O. Box 632 I 9 APR -9 AM \I: 53 Palo Alto, CA 94302 April 1, 2019 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 APRIL 1, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENA ITEM #8 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.18.120 .AMENDMENT Dear City Council: I urge you to reject the staff proposal, because the proposed ordinance violates the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Brown Act Violation The primary purposes of this proposed ordinance are to enable the conversion of the property at 488 University Avenue from its former use as rental apartments to either a hotel or condominiums. Also, the ordinance would permit the conversion of existing nonresidential uses to other nonresidential uses which is contrary to the adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan that calls for the conversion of nonresidential uses Downtown to residential uses. Prior staff reports have indicated that one purpose of the amendment is to evade Palo Alto's ~xisting condominium conversion ordinance. The failure to include those facts in the agenda description is a violation of the Brown Act. I 1 I CEQA Violation There is no substantial evidence presented that "staff was unaware of the language restricting change in use at the time the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared." There is no substantial evidence presented to support the conclusory statement that the existing language of Section 18.18.120 prohibits the site of the former Cheesecake Factory or the former North Face site from converting to another permitted or conditional use. In ·fact, either site can convert to housing to implement the Comprehensive Plan's goal of changing Downtown nonresidential uses to residential uses. ~ Further, there isfevidence presented, such approvals for those two sites to show that of Section 18.18.120 even applies to those as the entitlement the current language sites. The proposed amendment to the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance cannot be adopted at this time, because the amendment creates a Potentially Significant Impact that requires an Environmental Impact Report in the absence of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that can be adopted only after public notice and public hearings on the MND held by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council as required by CEQA. Changing the Zoning Ordinance to allow one Downtown nonresidential use to convert to another nonresidential use is a Potentially Significant Impact, because it would be changing the adopted Zoning Ordinance in a manner that is contrary to the Policies and Goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed new Section 18.18.120(b) (2) (F) would allow the City Council to usurp the powers of the courts that have the role of deciding whether a municipal ordin~nce is pre-empted by state or federal law. Although the courts have shown great deference to municipalities in interpreting their own zoning codes, the courts have never allowed the legislative branch to act in areas that are the • courts' prerogatives, such as interpreting whether a municipal ordinance violates state or federal law. I I I I Previous staff reports on this subject have suggested that the purpose of giving the Council the ability to negate municipal law without adopting an ordinance that is subject to referendum is to permit an applicant to violate Chapter 21.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding the conversion of rental housing to condominiums. Whenever the condominium conversion ordinance allows an application for conversion to be filed, the ordinance protects existing tenants by (1) requiring tenants of at least two-thirds of the rental units to consent to convert the units to ownership housing; (2) prohibiting vacant units to be counted as one of those two-thirds of consenting rental units; and (3) permitting tenants to remain as renters after conversion under extended leases. The proposed Section 18.18.120(b) (2) (F) would give the Council the power without adopting an ordinance subject to referendum to opine that the condominium conversion ordinance violates state or federal law, which is another Potentially Significant Impact that changes an adopted land use regulation. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ~-- Herb Borock ,f ETING (k) Exceptions (1) The decision-making authority may grant exceptions to objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or any provision of this Section 18.42.110, upon finding, without limitation, that: a. The proposed WCF complies with the requirements ofthis Section 18.42.110 and any other requirements adopted by the City Council to the greatest extent feasible; and either b. As applied to a proposed WCF, the provision(s) from which exception is sought would deprive the applicant of rights guaranteed by federal law, state law, or both; or c. Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both. d. The applicant has provided the reviewing authority with a reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed wireless facility; and e. The applicant has provided the reviewing authority with a written statement that contains a detailed and fact-specific explanation as to why the proposed wireless facility cannot be deployed in compliance with the applicable provisions in , the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the General Plan and/or any specific plan; and e. The applicant has provided the reviewing authority with a meaningful comparative analysis with the factual reasons why all alternative locations and/or designs identified in the administrative record (whether suggested by the applicant, the Town, public comments or any other source) are not technically feasible or potentially available to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed wireless facility; and f. The applicant has demonstrated to the reviewing authority that the proposed location and design is the least non-compliant configuration that will reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed wireless facility, which includes without limitation a meaningful comparative analysis into multiple smaller or less intrusive wireless facilities dispersed throughout the intended service area; and g. The applicant has demonstrated that its proposed wireless facility will be in compliance with all applicable health, safety, and environmental regulations, which include without limitation the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Endangered Species Act, and all FCC rules and regulations for human exposure to RF emissions. (2) An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall be considered a new application. (3) If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible. (4) 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. ill The City shall have the right to hire independent consultants, at the applicant's expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable. (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a conditional use permit shall be required for a facility when an exception is requested. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, nothing in this Chapter is intended to limit the approval authority's ability to conditionally approve or deny without prejudice any application for a use permit as may be necessary or appropriate to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to advance the goals or policies in the Palo Alto Municipal Code or the General Plan. (7) Appeals. Any interested person or entity may appeal any decision by the approval authority in accordance with the standards and procedures ... , except as modified in this Section. On the next available meeting date after the appeal period lapses. or as soon as reasonably feasible thereafter. the appellate body shall hold a public hearing to consider and act on the application in accordance with the applicable provisions in the General Plan, any applicable specific plan and all applicable provisions in the Municipal Code. Appeals from an approval will not be permitted to the extent that the appeal is based on environmental effects from RF emissions that comply with all applicable FCC regulations. Finance Committee Agenda Planning 2019 February 26, 2019 Special Polley lk Services Committee @ 6pm VTA presentation on the 2019 Transit Service Plan March 12, 2019 Policy lk Services Committee @ 6pm Meetin cancelled April 9, 2019 Policy &: Services Committee @ 6pm I Review of Draft 2018 Workplan for Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Council Priority May 14, 2019 Policy lk Services Committee @ 6pm I Review of Draft 2018 Wo Ian for Traffic & Trans rtation Council Priori June 11, 2019 Policy &: Services Committee @ 6pm June 25 to Aug 4 SUMMER BREAK August 13, 2019 Policy &: Services Committee @ 6pm September 10, 2019 Policy &: Services Committee @ 6pm October B, 2019 Policy lk Services Committee @ 6pm November 12, 2019 Policy &: Services Committee @ 6pm December 10, 2019 Policy &: Services Committee @ 6pm I Dec 17 to Jan 5 WINTER CLOSURE To Be Scheduled !City Council Policies and Protocols I jHousing work plan --economic analysis of inclusionary program I convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) !colleague's Memo on Renter's Protection Audit Follow Ups Originally targeted for March: •PCE/ASD/PWD/CLK -Parking Funds audit (Yuki Matsuura) •CSD/ASD -Community Services: Fee Schedule (Houman Boussina) •CMO/PWD/ASD -Green Purchasing Practices (Lisa Wehara) •LJn-Cross Bore Inspection Contract (Houman Boussina) •un/ ASD -Accuracy of Water Meter Billing (Mimi Nguyen) •ASD -Continuous Monitoring: Overtime (Yuki Matsuura) •IT-Information Technology and Data Governance (Houman Boussina) Originally targeted for April: •ASD -Citywide Cash Handling and Travel Expense (Mimi Nguyen) •ASD/un/PWD/IT -Inventory Management (Mimi Nguyen) •CMO/ASD/ATTY/IT-Cable Franchise and Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Fees (Houman Boussina) •HR-Disability Rates and Workers' Compensation (Yuki Matsuura) •ASD-Continuous Monitorino: Pavments fHouman Boussina) ASO Agenda Plon!V>g Prepated by JPollanl 413/201Q P.ge t Phases L MEETING eceived Before Meeting Received at Meetln Construction & Deconstruction Materials Management (Deconstruction Ordinance -Chapter 5.24) Deconstruction Phases Summary .~!~.zero :·.~::WASTE ••• &iALO ALTO Achieving '.erotaste together Number of Estimated Projects Phase 1 -effective July 2020 Salvage survey, reuse & source separation on all projects valued at $500,000 or more 111 Pfilase 2 -effective July 2021 Salvage survey, reuse & source separation on all projects valued at $100,0QO or more 223 Phase 3 -effective Jul¥ 2022 Lower threshold to $50,000 or more 138 1) SALVAGE SURVEY & REUSE Currently -Only residential whole house demolition permits are required to complete a salvage survey. Permittees are not required to salvage materials on the survey. NEW: Salvage surveys will be required on all projects within each phase; Survey and certification on materials and items accepted to be conducted by City approved reuse organizations. 2) DECONSTRUCTION AND SOURCE SEPARATION Currently-Demolition is allowed and construction related waste can be mixed. All projects that are $25,000 or more in value are required to submit a debris management plan to the City and contractors must input weights into Green Halo to track the project tonnage with a goal of achieving 80% diversion. NEW: Projects where structures are being partially or fully removed and where waste is generated will be deconstructed (not demolished). Materials must be source separated and delivered to City approved materials recovery facilities. 3) GREENWASTE AS THE APPROVED COLLECTOR Currently -Contractors are allowed to use any waste hauler for collection of source separated material in debris boxes. NEW: Contractors will utilize Green Waste to haul all materials if using containers (bins or debris boxes) at project sites. Contractors can continue to self-haul material by using trucks but must still source separate materials in accordance with City requirements and deliver materials to City approved processing facilities. he goal of the Foodware Items Redu ction Plan is to reduce the amount of single-use, disposable foodware items generated in Palo Alto, encourage reusable foodware items, and to ensure t hat single-use disposable items that are effectively recovered are either recycled or composted. The plan has a phased approach beginning with straws and other small single-use disposable plastics. • Plastic straws. • Plastic utensils. • Plastic drinkistirrers. • Plastic drink plup . • Plasticfood ana drink picks. • Plasttc drink accoutrements • Use of fluorinated compounds in compostable foodware packaging (PFAS or PFCs). • Plastic drink lids (compostable plastic PLAs ok). • Use of disposable for dine-in. • All single use plastic foodware items. BAN • Single-use disposable foodware items for take-out. I • • Compostables must meet ASTiM lntemational Standards 06400 and 06868 AND be acceptable in the City~s cdllection progams. • Foodware items only offered upon request or via self erve station disposable foodware items. • Businesses t<> provide receipts.only upon request . • Produce and meat' bap must be reusable or compostable. • Compostable items must be Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) certified or acceptable in the City's collectin program. • Charge for non-reusable cups and containers. • Reusable foodware for dir:ie-in. • All new construction and tenant improvements to food service establishments required to install a dishwasher. PHASE 111 -2025 .. REQUIRE • Any existing food service establishment who currently do not have a dishwasher are required to have a dishwasher, sign-up for a dishwasher service, or sign-up for a reusable foodware service program. - F.or more information contact Z.ro Wasbl Palo Alto a.t: t&SO} 49&.-5910 or zerowastedPcityofpaloaltb~r& '' DISPOSABLE FOODWARE REDUCTION ·l?.LAN ~~~;~··:,·: ~· Plastic Beverage Plugs Foodware Items Must Be Reusable Or Compostable PHASE I -2019 BANNED FOODWARE PACKAGING Plastic Stirrers OTHER REQUIREMENTS Must Be Accepted In City's Collection Program A •, ... Other Plastic Accoutrements Disposable Foodware & Receipts Only Upon Request 2019 -2020 Sustainability Workplan Last Updated 3/14/19 2019 2020 Jan/Feb Mar/Apr May/June July/Aug Sep/Oct Nov/Dec Jan/Feb Mar/Apr May/June July/Aug Sep/Oct Nov/Dec Launch new energy efficiency programs, residential electrification Adopt local energy reach code and Explore a Zero Emissions Building Roadmap, promote all-electric new construction projects, complete Multifamily assessment, and induction cooktop campaign; expand heat pump water Energy heater (HPWH} marketing campaign; eliminate gas incineration of the green building ordinance to support Gas Furnace Heat Pump pilot, collaborate with other local governments and CCAs to drive market transformation of community's sewage sludge (June) low emissions building design HPWH z Mobility Initiate FTA-funded Mobility on Complete Phase 1 and 2 of the Charleston-Arastradero Conth;iue to fund the Palo Alto TMA, complete Phase 3 of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, potentially 0 Demand Pilot {March} Corridor Project begin final design for railroad grade separations i= Plan for EV cha rging on the distributioA system in residential neighborhoods, add elect ric vehicles to City fleet, .: Continue to explore ways to diversify the charging liletw.-erk, explore pilot programs for EVs and battery storage, z Electric Vehicles expand rebate program, add additional EV chargers to City garages, diversify the EV charging network, conduct explore EV Pilots in City fleet, expand E" procurement ilil City fleet to light trucks, develop educational events I.LI expanded educational events :E I.LI Complete the Northwest County _, D. :E Water Complete Greelil Stormwater Recycled Water Strategic Plan (July 1), Complete the Water Integrated Resourc::es Plan tWIRP.>),, explore potential ordinances and programs to expand onsite -D. II Infrastructure Plan {May) CEQA for Salinity Removal Facility water ret:.1se systems, implement the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan <( u (Sept) ....... Ill I Bring SLR "ti c Public Review of Complete SLR Conduct SLR Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan to IV Sea Level Rise Develop !:>raft SLR Adaptation Plan (pending budget approval') D. SLR Policy (Feb) Policy (Mar) explore development of a SLR Task Force Council for V) 0 approval N 0 Natural Update Urban Forest Master Plan Develop a Carbon Sequestration Tree Planting Project for N Implement the 2019 Urban Forest Master Plan I Environment (Feb) South Palo Alto co .... Expand Complete Construction I Begin to enforice Phase 1 of 0 Begin to ef.lforce Single-Use Food N Green Waste Decmnstructien Ordinance and Food Construction I Deconstruction Centract to Ware Ol"dinance (May) Warre and Reducrtion Ordinance Ordinance (July 1) Zero Waste include new zero G~rbage Processing Solicitation for waste programs services after 2021 ~to improve (Feb) diver~ion) Review Existing Key Actions + USON Review Ideas, Generate New 01:1es New Draft List of Ideas I Final List of Action Items 2020 S/CAP UPDATE GMG Reduction High Impact Practices (Sustainability and + CNCA Game Changers+ 2030 Comp Advisory Committee, Sustainability Leadership Team Public Input, Sustainability Board I ELT Review Advisory Committee, SLT, SIP Teams, and ELT Review Climate Action Plan) Plan {SLT), and SIP Teams Review PREPARATION Consultant Prep CMR CMR to Council Prepare RFP Select Vendor Contract Consultant Work: 1. GHG Emissions and Sustainability Benefits, Selection: 2. Transportation Data, 3. CEQA Review I I I I Council Meetings: Mar 18 -SLR Policy, Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Ii Recommendations; Apr 15 -SIP Update; May 6 -Watershed Protection Ordinance on PCB Pollutants; May 13 -Recycled Water Agreement and Council Mtgs: Public Meeting for Strategic Plan, Green Stormwater Infrastructure; May 20 -Watershed Council Mtg: SIP 2020 S/CAP Input; MEETINGS AND SLR Policy {Feb 27) Protection Ordinance updates, Construction Site Deconstwction & Salvage Update {Apr) Adopt SLR Plan Ordinance, Food Ware & Plastics Ordinance (both by Dec) MILESTONES Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: Mar 26 -SLR Presentation :I .: Poliey and Services Committee: Apr 3 -Sustainability :1 Jan CleanTech May International Conference on Sep UN Climate Summit, NYC CA -Reduce : GHGs to 1990 Levels, carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 10%, urban water COP 26- Forum, SF Climate Action, Heidelberg, Germany demand by 20%, landfill use by 75%; RPS 33%; all new residential construction will be zero net Submit climate Nov COP 25, Chile energy pledges