HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190513plCC 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: 05/13/2019
Document dates: 04/24/2019 – 05/01/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:14 PM
To:Joe Simitian; press_harris@harris.senate.gov
Subject:1 in 168 babies to ER after vaccines
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
* 1 in 168 Children Require Emergency Care After First Year of Vaccines
* 1 in 670 children after 18 months
* Unvaccinated pose no risk to others
* Vaccinations should be choice for parent, not for elected officials
*HHS has not done its duty to properly test vaccines for safety which are now
Immune from damage/death caused by vaccines
From Dr. Mercola Newsletter, April 6, 2019. (see more at end of email)
Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., wrote an open letter to legislators explaining
why children who have not received certain vaccines (specifically IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib)
pose no risk to others. She also addressed the frequency of serious adverse events,
stressing the importance of personal choice in the face of such risks:
> "It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.
Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in
Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit
for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in
730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a
scientific study, Item #5).
> When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is
demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may
understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their
children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never
be exposed to."
In the lecture above, Obukhanych, who wrote the book "Vaccine Illusion: How
Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do to Regain Our
Health," explains how vaccines damage your immune function, which can result in any
number of adverse health effects.
Health and Human Services Has Neglected Critical Vaccine Safety Obligations for
Decades
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 granted partial financial immunity to
vaccine makers for injuries and deaths caused by their vaccines and, in 2011, the U.S.
Supreme Court declared FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines to be "unavoidably
unsafe" and effectively removed all remaining liability from the multibillion-dollar vaccine
industry.
With that liability risk eliminated, so was any incentive to make sure their
products are safe. The responsibility to ensure vaccine safety instead falls on the U.S.
Health and Human Services (HHS). As reported by AIM Integrative Medicine:23
2
> "Hence, since 1986, HHS has had the primary and virtually sole responsibility to make
and assure improvements in the licensing, manufacturing, adverse reaction reporting,
research, safety and efficacy testing of vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse
vaccine reactions.
> In order to assure HHS meets its vaccine safety obligations, Congress required as part
of the 1986 Act that the Secretary of HHS submit biennial reports to Congress detailing the
improvements in vaccine safety made by HHS in the preceding two years."
August 2017, Del Bigtree, founder of Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of
Children's Health Defense, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the HHS, requesting access to its safety
reports.24 After being stonewalled for eight months, ICAN and Kennedy sued the HHS, demanding copies of the
congressional reports to be released.
As noted by ICAN,25 "provisions of the (1986 Act) … legally require the HHS to conduct science that reduces the risk
of vaccine injury. Failure to do so could result in legal action against HHS … HHS has not acted in its duties
regarding vaccine safety, forcing 78 million American children into a vaccine
program with no safety provisions."
ICAN also recently sued the FDA after the agency failed to respond to FOIA requests for copies of the clinical trials it
relied upon when licensing influenza vaccines for pregnant women.
A February 11, 2019 ICAN update26 reveals "the FDA has not licensed any influenza
vaccine as an indicated use for pregnant women, let alone conducted or required any
pharmaceutical company to conduct any clinical trial which supports the safety of injecting
pregnant women with the influenza vaccine."
----------
Unvaccinated Barred from Public Places
by Dr Joseph Mercola, April 9, 2019
Story at a Glance .
March 27, 2019 Rockland Cty, New York barred any infant, child or teen under the age
of 18 who is not vaccinated against measles from entering “public places” until the state of
emergency is lifted in 30 days or until they get an MMR shot
* April 5, 2019, a Rockland County judge lifted the state of emergency, saying the
number of measles cases did not meet the legal requirement for an emergency order
* There’s a growing push for health care providers in the U.S. and Canada to vaccinate
minor children without their parents’ consent if they feel a child is “mature” enough to
make his or her own health risk decisions
* California state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan has introduced a bill to make it even more
difficult for children attending day care or school to get a medical vaccine exemption. The
bill, SB276, would make the California Department of Public Health the final judge of the
validity of all medical exemptions, not the child’s physician who has written the exemption
* Since California eliminated the personal belief vaccine exemption in 2015, medical
exemptions have risen from 0.2 percent in 2015-16 to 0.7 percent in 2017-18. According to
Pan, this tiny rise in medical exemptions among children attending day care and school is
putting communities at serious risk for disease outbreaks.
Is This the Most Savage Witch Hunt of the 21st Century?
If you had any doubts about growing tyranny in the U.S., several recent news stories
should open your eyes to the harsh truth. The U.S. Constitution protects the civil liberties
of all Americans, including freedom of thought, speech, conscience, religious belief and the
right to dissent and petition the government, as well as the right to assembly.1,2,3
Yet these constitutional rights are being infringed upon in remarkably blatant ways these
days: Unvaccinated infants, children and teens under the age of 18 are being banned from
entering public places in Rockland County, New York; a SWAT team was sent to break
3
down the door of a home in another state where parents were caring for an unvaccinated
child with a high fever after a doctor reported the child should have been taken to a
hospital;
Legislators in several states have introduced bills to suspend the legal right of parents to
make medical risk decisions for their minor children and allow doctors instead to get
"informed consent" from the young children themselves; a pediatrician politician in
California is lobbying for a law that will give state health department officials the power to
deny a medical exemption written by a child's physician.
The times we live in are as surreal as they are terrifying, and clearly demonstrate that
unless we stand together to protect the rights of ALL, and not just select groups who agree
with the status quo, we are all in jeopardy. Even if you are not affected right now by
the forced vaccination dragnet sweeping across the nation, rest assured, in time you will be
caught in its net as well if in the future you decline even one of the dozens of government
recommended vaccinations for yourselves or your children.
For the complete lengthy articled references see
Unvaccinated Barred from Public Places
by Dr Joseph Mercola, April 9, 2019
Arlene Goetze, MA, health writer, former Dir. of Communication for Diocese of San Jose,
freelance to national publications, founder/editor of Catholic Women's Network, (now in
Archives of Santa Clara University), author of church histories, sponsor of 5 major women
conferences, Drumming for Health in Nursing Homes, etc.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ofer Bruhis <ofer.bruhis@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:26 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:Verizon Towers
All,
Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do not appoint Judith Schwartz to a
second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need UAC Commissioners who are committed to furthering
residents’ interests—not outside interests—and Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
With respect to Mr. Scharff:
He has shown himself to be not only out of step with what residents want, but uninterested in what they
want. In short, appointing him to in effect represent residents on the UAC makes no sense;
Despite spending over $120,000 of his own money on his campaign last fall to win a seat on the Board of the
Mid‐Peninsula Open Space District, Mr. Scharff was trounced by Karen Holman. (To remind you, United
Neighbors opposed Mr. Scharff and supported Ms. Holman in this race.) Residents didn’t want Mr. Scharff on
that Board, and if he had to run for a seat on the UAC, he wouldn’t win that either; and
Both as an elective office holder and as a member of various boards and commissions over the years, Mr. Scharff
has had a strikingly poor attendance record. Why appoint to the UAC this real estate attorney/commercial
property owner who apparently is too busy to actually serve responsibly in the positions he seeks?
With respect to Ms. Schwartz:
One of her clients (she is a consultant) is the Smart Cities Council, of which telecom industry giant—and Palo
Alto cell tower applicant—AT&T is a “Global Lead Partner;” and
She has aggressively used her position on the UAC to undercut plans for city‐wide Fiber‐Optics to the Premises
(FTTP), i.e., to attack a lower‐priced, privacy‐protecting wired alternative to services provided by companies
such as AT&T.
I sure hope you will do the right (and wise) decision.
best
ofer bruhis
3272 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:18 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:Planning Commission; UAC; Clerk, City
Subject:Utilities Advisory Commissioners
Dear All,
I would like to request you to not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and
also not appoint Judith Schwartz to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need
UAC Commissioners who are committed to promoting residents’ interests—not outside interests—
and Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
Thanks,
Amrutha
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 5:19 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Dear City Council Members:
As 31 year resident of the City of Palo Alto, and consistent voter, I am
concerned about who gets appointed to leadership positions.
To that end, I strongly urge you not to appoint Gregg Scharff and not to
re‐ appoint Judith Schwartz to the Utilities Advisory Commission. I feel
that both Mr. Scharff and Ms. Judith Schwartz have shown that they are
listening far too much to the tech industry and not listened to the very
real concerns of their constituents.
We need people on the Utilities Commission who are going to represent
the citizens of our City and not outside interests.
I would very much like to add my voice to the group of Palo Altans who
are concerned about the latest technology and how it is being
implemented without the consent or full input of its citizens. Please do
not appoint Mr. Scharff and Judith Schwartz.
Thank you.
Sumitra Joy
2020 Princeton St.
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:56 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Planning Commission; UAC
Subject:UAC candidates
Dear City Council,
Our various city committees are essential for helping to improve our city and for representing
residents to further the interests of the community. I am concerned about two applicants you are
considering for the Utilities Advisory Commission who do not have a track record of listening to
residents. Ms. Schwartz has opposed plans for a municipal fiber network which would provide high-
speed network access throughout the city. Mr. Scharff has a poor attendance record in his service
and has refused to talk with residents who oppose small cell towers in residential areas. Please do
not appoint them to the UAC.
Sincerely,
Tina Chow
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 6:41 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:Utilities Advisory Commission appointments
Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do not
appoint Judith Schwartz to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need
UAC Commissioners who are committed to furthering residents’ interests—not outside
interests, such as those of the telecom industry. And Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
Thanks
Unmesh & Smita
3371 Kenneth Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comission Appointments
Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do not appoint Judith Schwartz to a
second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need UAC Commissioners who are committed to furthering
residents’ interests and protecting the local community—not outside interests or commercial , such as those of the
telecom industry. Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not interested in supporting organizations that protect residents.
Instead they support commercial organizations whose actions are designed to maximize profits, not benefit local
residents and the community/
Regards, Bob Moss
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:05 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission; UAC; Clerk, City
Subject:Utilities Advisory Commission - Scharff/Schwartz
Dear Councilmembers,
I respectfully request that you appoint someone other than Greg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission. In more
than forty years of interaction with members of the council I'm without ability to name anyone who was less honest,
civil, and responsive than former councilman Scharff. In various elected and appointed positions of public trust over the
years, Scharff has compiled a record of absenteeism that betrayed that trust. Other residents' antipathy towards Scharff
was evident when even spending more than $120,000 of his own funds was too little to win a seat on the MROSD Board,
though his opponent spent a small fraction of what he did. Scharff belongs in the private sector where he can pursue
private gain until he demonstrates more convincingly his ability to promote, and interest in promoting common good.
I urge you also to replace Ms. Schwartz. One of her consulting clients is the Smart Cities Council. AT&T a telecom
industry behemoth and Palo Alto cell tower applicant, is a “Global Lead Partner” of the Smart Cities Council. While this
connection may seem only to create a possibility for conflict of interest, Schwartz has used her membership in the
Utilities Advisory Commission to impede plans for Fiber‐optics to the Premises throughout Palo Alto, thus delaying and
possibly making less likely provision of a more economical and secure alternative to wireless services provided by AT&T
and others.
You are elected by Palo Alto residents. We trust you to appoint people to our boards and commissions who will uphold
residents interests. Both Scharff and Schwartz have failed to meet this test.
Thank you for considering these views.
With appreciation,
David Schrom
************* Magic, 1979‐2019: forty years of valuescience leadership **************
Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills
nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize
it more fully.
Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent permitted by law.
THANK YOU!
www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐7333 ‐‐—‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309
**************************************************************************************
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 26, 2019 8:27 AM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission
And please do not appoint Judith Schwartz to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission.
We need UAC Commissioners who are committed to furthering residents’ interests—not outside interests—and Mr.
Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
In all the times (5 times) that I have petitioned in front of Mr Scharff regarding VzW's cell towers, he has never made eye
contact with me and is usually having side conversations with other city council members. He's never listened to what
other residences have had to say and his expression during their time to rightfully speak at city council meetings was
never compassionate. In short, he has shown himself to be out of step and uninterested with what residents
want. Appointing him to in effect represent residents on the UAC makes no sense.
Furthermore, despite spending over $120,000 of his own money on his campaign last fall to win a seat on the Board of
the Mid‐Peninsula Open Space District, Mr. Scharff was trounced by Karen Holman. (To remind you, United Neighbors
opposed Mr. Scharff and supported Ms. Holman in this race.) Residents didn’t want Mr. Scharff on that Board, and if he
had to run for a seat on the UAC, he wouldn’t win that either.
Both as an elective office holder and as a member of various boards and commissions over the years, Mr. Scharff has
had a strikingly poor attendance record. Why appoint someone to the UAC who apparently is too busy to actually serve
responsibly in the positions he seeks?
Ms. Schwartz is known to have Smart Cities Council, of which telecom industry giant, as a client. She has aggressively
used her position on the UAC to undercut plans for city‐wide Fiber‐Optics to the Premises (FTTP), i.e., to attack a lower‐
priced, privacy‐protecting wired alternative to services provided by telecom companies. With this context, and with the
current sensitivities of our residences, please do not appoint Judith Schwartz to a second term on the Utilities Advisory
Commission.
Respectively,
Jerry Fan
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 26, 2019 10:35 AM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:Jeanne Fleming; UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:Re: Opposing nomination of -- Gregg Scharff , Judith Schwartz _ meeting on April 29
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,
as a long time concerned resident I support United Neighbors in this matter and would like to ask you:
Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do not appoint
Judith Schwartz to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need UAC
Commissioners who are committed to furthering residents’ interests—not outside interests—and Mr.
Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
Sincerely,
Leo Povolotsky
Palo Alto resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Susan Sanchez <susansanchezgardner@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 26, 2019 2:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:UAC
To Whom It May Concern,
Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do not appoint Judith Schwartz
to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need UAC Commissioners who are committed to
furthering residents’ interests—not outside interests—and Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
Best,
Susan Gardner
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Friday, April 26, 2019 3:42 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Appointments to the Utilities Advisory Commission
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,
I am writing to urge you to not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission and to not
appoint Judith Schwartz to another term on that Commission.
There is, I know, considerable precedent for appointing a former Mayor to a seat on the Utilities
Advisory Commission. But I believe there is ample reason to ignore that precedent in the case of Mr.
Scharff. For one thing, while serving on City Council, for well over a year he ignored every phone call
and every email from constituents expressing reservations about the cell tower installations in
residential neighborhoods which he so strongly supports. His close-mindedness and utter
indifference to the concerns of residents should, alone, disqualify him from sitting on the Utilities
Advisory Commission, which considers cell towers and issues related to cell towers. Second, while a
fixture in public life in Palo Alto for many years, Mr. Scharff has always had an abysmal attendance
record at meetings. He is, in short, disrespectful, not only of residents, but of his colleagues and of
the process of government in which he is involved. Finally, please note that, last fall, Palo Altans
resoundingly rejected Mr. Scharff’s bid for a seat on the Board of the Mid-Peninsula Open Space
District. There is no reason—none—to believe that the people of Palo Alto want him representing
them on the Utilities Advisory Commission, or in any other capacity either.
Regarding Judith Schwartz: Ms. Schwartz is a consultant in the “Smart Cities” arena, and she has
used her tenure on the Utilities Advisory Commission to promote the interests of her clients. This
includes cheerleading for the telecom industry (take a look at her many recent comments on
NextDoor) and undermining efforts to establish a municipal fiber-optics to the home (FTTP) network.
Instead of appointing Mr. Scharff or Ms. Schwartz to the Utilities Advisory Commission, please
appoint individuals who will listen to residents, who are not motivated to serve on this Commission by
self-interest, and who will view a seat on the Utilities Advisory Commission as a privilege requiring
hard work and the highest ethical standards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
2
650-325-5151
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, April 26, 2019 8:30 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:UAC; Clerk, City
Subject:Utilities Advisory Commission
Please do not appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do not appoint
Judith Schwartz to a
second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need UAC Commissioners who are
committed to furthering
residents’ interests—not outside interests, such as those of the telecom industry. And Mr. Scharff
and Ms. Schwartz are not.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St
94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Judith Schwartz <commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2019 7:25 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Batchelor, Dean; Danaher, Michael; Abendschein, Jonathan; Yuan, Dave; Elvert, Catherine; Suzanne
Keehn; Jeanne Fleming; Leo Povolotsky; Jerry Fan; Francesca Kautz; Magic; Unmesh Vartak;
chow.tina@yahoo.com; Sumitra; Amrutha Kattamuri; Hoel, Jeff (external)
Subject:Re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Dear City Council,
As someone whose day job includes facilitating customer and stakeholder engagement in the utility sector, I’m always
glad to see Palo Alto residents paying attention to the UAC’s existence. I appreciate the passion of the FTTP advocates.
Over the past decade, I have established a national reputation as an honest broker who puts the welfare of consumers
first and advocates for low and moderate income consumers who cannot afford the popular industry vision of the energy
prosumer (owning rooftop solar, batteries, automated home, and multiple EVs). Therefore, it is somewhat disconcerting to
be the object of an obviously orchestrated campaign that completely misrepresents my priorities and maligns my
character and integrity. I serve as a volunteer trying to help my community and not to further my professional or financial
interests.
To address specific issues raised by the letter writers opposed to my participation on the UAC:
Relationship with AT&T
I have been an independent consultant for 32 years. I’ve had many clients over that time including leading tech
companies, utilities, non-profits, utility industry associations, research companies, and government agencies. My
engagement as the program director for the first Smart Cities Week was part-time over six months in 2015. AT&T was
one of over 50 sponsors of that event. My interaction with their personnel was limited to confirming participation of one of
their executives as a speaker. The Smart Cities Council is not currently a client, nor have I had any involvement with the
organization after the conference. My current clients are the U.S. Department of Energy promoting their DataGuard
consumer privacy initiative and DEFG LLC doing research for their Solar IQ initiative and the Low Income Energy Issues
Forum. I led and was principle investigator for their Low Income Consumer Solar Working Group in 2018.
In the interest of transparency and full disclosure:
I am a customer of AT&T for residential landline, internet and mobile services, but I do not subscribe to any cable or
satellite TV services.
As disclosed on my form 700, my husband inherited some shares of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T stock when his parents
died. We did not purchase this stock. When Jeff Hoel raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest during my first
term on the UAC, I checked with the City Attorney who felt the small size of our holdings and Palo Alto’s relatively small
market share, did not rise to the level of a material conflict for any of the parties. My husband and I decided to not trade
or sell our shares of any telecom stock while I served on the UAC to avoid even the appearance of inappropriate
activity. My investment advisor did recommend the purchase of Verizon stock in 2012 in an IRA. I continue to own that
stock.
My publicly-stated positions on FTTP:
1. In my first (one-year) term, I participated on the Fiber sub-committee and conducted additional independent research
to understand the availability of commercially-available broadband wireless and fiber to everyone in town. I learned from
2
interviews with local experts and ISPs that every neighborhood in Palo Alto has access to broadband. If a business or
individual really wants fiber to their premises they can obtain it, even if it is not as inexpensive as they would like.
2. With 50% of our utility staff retiring in the next 3-5 years and our current difficulties recruiting new personnel for our
essential services, I worry it is risky for the CPAU to take on a new line of business that would be very labor intensive
even if some of the responsibilities were to be farmed out to a 3d party provider.
3. I have repeatedly asked advocates for FTTP as well as CPAU staff to explain to us what functions or applications are
not available today that would be if FTTP were available. I have been told “it’s none of my business” or "they haven't
been invented yet" by FTTP enthusiasts and no one yet has given me an answer that to me justifies a $70 million
investment. If someone makes a compelling business case or offers a universally desirable application then I am happy
to revisit this opinion.
4. I’ve proposed an “FTTP Scholarship Pilot” so start-ups and individuals who have a compelling reason to have a fiber
connection but cannot afford it, could apply to have their connection costs covered. Again, if only a small segment of City
residents really need this level of connectivity, let’s manage by exception and make the service affordable to them.
5. There are no guarantees that the cost of City-owned FTTP service to Palo Alto residents would be cheaper than what
the incumbents offer. The incumbents have deep pockets and could choose to offer lower prices temporarily and hamper
adoption of the City’s offering to levels below what would be required for break-even operation.
6. Some of the folks opposing my appointment seem to be conflating wireless cell telephony service with internet
service. Even if Palo Alto were to fully deploy FTTP, we would still need wireless telephony infrastructure to enable mobile
phone service by non-residents or local residents who have stepped away from their home networks.
7. I have actively supported adoption of the FTTN strategy which will enable smart grid applications and bring our current
fiber resources closer to more business and residential customers who might choose to invest in fiber to their own
premises.
8. I have actively encouraged members of the CAC and FTTP advocates to apply for seats on the UAC. In fact, I think it
will help us to have a subject matter expert knowledgeable about both fiber deployment and wireless technologies.
As you know, as a UAC commissioner, I have neither statutory authority nor direct influence over what contracts staff
proposes to the City Council for approval. I am also only one vote on the UAC.
I believe that Commissioners serving on the UAC have the responsibility to learn about all the different resource streams
that the CPAU delivers (electricity, gas, water, wastewater, as well as fiber). I have come to realize that it is extremely
helpful to have Commissioners with a working knowledge of the various complex issues to better advise the City Council
on alternatives and investments competing for resources and support. I hope the Council will allow me to continue to
contribute my expertise and familiarity with a broad range of utility innovations and best practices.
In my opinion, it is critically important to listen to our most vocal citizens who come before the commissions (whether it’s
having a 100% green portfolio, FTTP, protesting pad mounted transformers, or objecting to wireless transmitters) and
engage in dialog with them at community meetings and on social media where such exchanges are permitted. However,
it is important for you as the ultimate decision makers to realize that these passionate voices do not speak for everyone
and there are many in our community who have different priorities, are challenged to pay their utility bills, or can’t afford
personal investments in new technologies.
I am happy to discuss any outstanding questions at my interview on April 29. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judith Schwartz
Vice Chair, Utility Advisory Commission
3
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Phil Coulson <pcoulson.pal@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2019 12:53 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Council, City
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:UAC appointees
Please do NOT appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, also please do NOT appoint Judith Schwartz
to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. We need UAC Commissioners who are committed to furthering
residents’ interests—not outside interests—and Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz are not.
With regard to Mr. Scharff it has come to my attention that he has revealed himself to be not only out of step with what
residents want, but uninterested in what they want. Why would any resident wish to have him appointed when this is
his stance?
Similarly Ms. Schwartz has shown her telecom leaning stance in the following ways:
1) She is a consultant to the Smart Cities Council, of which AT&T is Tech Lead Partner as well as a Palo Alto cell tower
applicant.
2) She has with great determination used her voice on the UAC to undercut plans for city‐wide Fiber‐Optics to the
Premises in a strategy to attack a lower‐priced, privacy‐protecting wired alternative to services provided by companies
such as AT&T.
In this I respectfully request to NOT appoint Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission, and please do NOT
appoint Judith Schwartz to a second term on the Utilities Advisory Commission. As we residents need UAC
Commissioners who stand firm in furthering residents’ interests. In my opinion Mr. Scharff and Ms. Schwartz clearly
incapable of this.
Regards,
‐Phil Coulson
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2019 12:13 PM
To:Schwartz, Judith
Cc:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Clerk, City; Council, City; UAC; Planning Commission; Batchelor, Dean; Danaher,
Michael; Abendschein, Jonathan; Yuan, Dave; Elvert, Catherine; 'Suzanne Keehn'; 'Jeanne Fleming';
'Leo Povolotsky'; 'Jerry Fan'; 'Francesca Kautz'; 'Magic'; 'Unmesh Vartak'; chow.tina@yahoo.com;
'Sumitra'; 'Amrutha Kattamuri'; Hoel, Jeff (external)
Subject:Response to Judith Schwartz' letter re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointment
Dear Ms. Schwartz,
Thank you for your letter.
As you know, the telecommunications industry succeeded in planting one Trojan horse in Palo Alto’s
city government, that being Jonathan Reichental. Hence I trust you can understand why citizens
might be wary of the motives of another smart cities advocate with apparent ties to the
telecommunications industry.
In particular, it is your advocacy for the unconstrained deployment of cell towers in Palo Alto, your
opposition to a municipal FTTP network—a network that would compete with many of the services
telecommunications companies expect to provide—and the fact that much of your consulting practice
is within the smart cities/smart grid arena that have led many residents to be concerned about your
appointment to the Utility Advisory Commission.
To put these concerns to rest, I hope you will provide the public and City Council with the following
information (none of which is reported in your UAC application):
A list of any payments or gifts you, your consulting firm, your employees or your partners have
received since January 1, 2000, directly or indirectly, from telecommunications companies,
telecommunications industry trade associations, vendors to the telecommunications industry,
companies in businesses ancillary to the telecommunications industry, and attorneys
representing a telecommunications company, telecommunications industry trade association
or vendor to the telecommunications industry.
The names and affiliations of the boards, committees, commissions and the like on which you
and/or your employees and partners currently serve or have served, or to which you or they
are or have been an advisor, since January 1, 2000.
The conferences you and/or your employees and partners have attended since January 1,
2000—specifically: 1) where each conference was held and 2) who the sponsors of each
conferences were (i.e., who provided financial support for the conference (e.g., AT&T provided
major funding for the 2015 Smart Cities Week event in Washington, D.C. for which you were
the program director)).
2
The occasions on which you and/or your employees or partners have given speeches or
presentations since January 1, 2000, the topic of each speech or presentation, to whom each
speech or presentation was given, and at what location (i.e., Sunnyvale, Maui) each speech or
presentation was given.
I appreciate your desire to assure City Council and your fellow Palo Altans that you come to the UAC
unmotivated by anything other than the desire to serve our community. I trust you understand why
providing this information will put to rest the concerns raised by your consulting practice and your
impassioned advocacy for AT&T and Verizon on Next Door.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Judith Schwartz <commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 7:25 AM
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Dean Batchelor <dean.batchelor@cityofpaloalto.org>; Michael Danaher <mdanaher@wsgr.com>; Jonathan
Abendschein <jon.abendschein@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Yuan <dave.yuan@cityofpaloalto.org>; Catherine Elvert
<catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; Jeanne Fleming
<jfleming@metricus.net>; Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com>; Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>; Francesca
Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net>; Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>; Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@yahoo.com>;
chow.tina@yahoo.com; Sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com>; Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>; Jeff Hoel
<jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Dear City Council,
As someone whose day job includes facilitating customer and stakeholder engagement in the utility sector, I’m always
glad to see Palo Alto residents paying attention to the UAC’s existence. I appreciate the passion of the FTTP advocates.
Over the past decade, I have established a national reputation as an honest broker who puts the welfare of consumers
first and advocates for low and moderate income consumers who cannot afford the popular industry vision of the energy
prosumer (owning rooftop solar, batteries, automated home, and multiple EVs). Therefore, it is somewhat disconcerting to
be the object of an obviously orchestrated campaign that completely misrepresents my priorities and maligns my
character and integrity. I serve as a volunteer trying to help my community and not to further my professional or financial
interests.
3
To address specific issues raised by the letter writers opposed to my participation on the UAC:
Relationship with AT&T
I have been an independent consultant for 32 years. I’ve had many clients over that time including leading tech
companies, utilities, non-profits, utility industry associations, research companies, and government agencies. My
engagement as the program director for the first Smart Cities Week was part-time over six months in 2015. AT&T was
one of over 50 sponsors of that event. My interaction with their personnel was limited to confirming participation of one of
their executives as a speaker. The Smart Cities Council is not currently a client, nor have I had any involvement with the
organization after the conference. My current clients are the U.S. Department of Energy promoting their DataGuard
consumer privacy initiative and DEFG LLC doing research for their Solar IQ initiative and the Low Income Energy Issues
Forum. I led and was principle investigator for their Low Income Consumer Solar Working Group in 2018.
In the interest of transparency and full disclosure:
I am a customer of AT&T for residential landline, internet and mobile services, but I do not subscribe to any cable or
satellite TV services.
As disclosed on my form 700, my husband inherited some shares of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T stock when his parents
died. We did not purchase this stock. When Jeff Hoel raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest during my first
term on the UAC, I checked with the City Attorney who felt the small size of our holdings and Palo Alto’s relatively small
market share, did not rise to the level of a material conflict for any of the parties. My husband and I decided to not trade
or sell our shares of any telecom stock while I served on the UAC to avoid even the appearance of inappropriate
activity. My investment advisor did recommend the purchase of Verizon stock in 2012 in an IRA. I continue to own that
stock.
My publicly-stated positions on FTTP:
1. In my first (one-year) term, I participated on the Fiber sub-committee and conducted additional independent research
to understand the availability of commercially-available broadband wireless and fiber to everyone in town. I learned from
interviews with local experts and ISPs that every neighborhood in Palo Alto has access to broadband. If a business or
individual really wants fiber to their premises they can obtain it, even if it is not as inexpensive as they would like.
2. With 50% of our utility staff retiring in the next 3-5 years and our current difficulties recruiting new personnel for our
essential services, I worry it is risky for the CPAU to take on a new line of business that would be very labor intensive
even if some of the responsibilities were to be farmed out to a 3d party provider.
3. I have repeatedly asked advocates for FTTP as well as CPAU staff to explain to us what functions or applications are
not available today that would be if FTTP were available. I have been told “it’s none of my business” or "they haven't
been invented yet" by FTTP enthusiasts and no one yet has given me an answer that to me justifies a $70 million
investment. If someone makes a compelling business case or offers a universally desirable application then I am happy
to revisit this opinion.
4. I’ve proposed an “FTTP Scholarship Pilot” so start-ups and individuals who have a compelling reason to have a fiber
connection but cannot afford it, could apply to have their connection costs covered. Again, if only a small segment of City
residents really need this level of connectivity, let’s manage by exception and make the service affordable to them.
5. There are no guarantees that the cost of City-owned FTTP service to Palo Alto residents would be cheaper than what
the incumbents offer. The incumbents have deep pockets and could choose to offer lower prices temporarily and hamper
adoption of the City’s offering to levels below what would be required for break-even operation.
6. Some of the folks opposing my appointment seem to be conflating wireless cell telephony service with internet
service. Even if Palo Alto were to fully deploy FTTP, we would still need wireless telephony infrastructure to enable mobile
phone service by non-residents or local residents who have stepped away from their home networks.
4
7. I have actively supported adoption of the FTTN strategy which will enable smart grid applications and bring our current
fiber resources closer to more business and residential customers who might choose to invest in fiber to their own
premises.
8. I have actively encouraged members of the CAC and FTTP advocates to apply for seats on the UAC. In fact, I think it
will help us to have a subject matter expert knowledgeable about both fiber deployment and wireless technologies.
As you know, as a UAC commissioner, I have neither statutory authority nor direct influence over what contracts staff
proposes to the City Council for approval. I am also only one vote on the UAC.
I believe that Commissioners serving on the UAC have the responsibility to learn about all the different resource streams
that the CPAU delivers (electricity, gas, water, wastewater, as well as fiber). I have come to realize that it is extremely
helpful to have Commissioners with a working knowledge of the various complex issues to better advise the City Council
on alternatives and investments competing for resources and support. I hope the Council will allow me to continue to
contribute my expertise and familiarity with a broad range of utility innovations and best practices.
In my opinion, it is critically important to listen to our most vocal citizens who come before the commissions (whether it’s
having a 100% green portfolio, FTTP, protesting pad mounted transformers, or objecting to wireless transmitters) and
engage in dialog with them at community meetings and on social media where such exchanges are permitted. However,
it is important for you as the ultimate decision makers to realize that these passionate voices do not speak for everyone
and there are many in our community who have different priorities, are challenged to pay their utility bills, or can’t afford
personal investments in new technologies.
I am happy to discuss any outstanding questions at my interview on April 29. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judith Schwartz
Vice Chair, Utility Advisory Commission
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the app
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2019 6:43 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; Schwartz, Judith; Shikada, Ed; Batchelor, Dean; Yuan, Dave; Elvert,
Catherine; Suzanne Keehn; Jeanne Fleming; Leo Povolotsky; Jerry Fan; Francesca Kautz; Magic;
Unmesh Vartak; chow.tina@yahoo.com; Sumitra; Amrutha Kattamuri
Subject:Re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Council members,
I'd like to comment (below the "######" line) on UAC Commissioner Schwartz's message of 04-27-19. (My comments
are paragraphs in red beginning with "###".)
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#####################################################################################
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Judith Schwartz <commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Dean Batchelor <dean.batchelor@cityofpaloalto.org>; Michael Danaher <mdanaher@wsgr.com>; Jonathan
Abendschein <jon.abendschein@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Yuan <dave.yuan@cityofpaloalto.org>; Catherine Elvert
<catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; Jeanne Fleming
<jfleming@metricus.net>; Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com>; Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>; Francesca
Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net>; Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>; Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@yahoo.com>;
"chow.tina@yahoo.com" <chow.tina@yahoo.com>; Sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com>; Amrutha Kattamuri
<vkattamuri@yahoo.com>; Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Dear City Council,
As someone whose day job includes facilitating customer and stakeholder engagement in the utility sector, I’m always
glad to see Palo Alto residents paying attention to the UAC’s existence. I appreciate the passion of the FTTP advocates.
Over the past decade, I have established a national reputation as an honest broker who puts the welfare of consumers
first and advocates for low and moderate income consumers who cannot afford the popular industry vision of the energy
prosumer (owning rooftop solar, batteries, automated home, and multiple EVs). Therefore, it is somewhat disconcerting to
be the object of an obviously orchestrated campaign that completely misrepresents my priorities and maligns my
character and integrity. I serve as a volunteer trying to help my community and not to further my professional or financial
interests.
To address specific issues raised by the letter writers opposed to my participation on the UAC:
Relationship with AT&T
2
I have been an independent consultant for 32 years. I’ve had many clients over that time including leading tech
companies, utilities, non-profits, utility industry associations, research companies, and government agencies. My
engagement as the program director for the first Smart Cities Week was part-time over six months in 2015. AT&T was
one of over 50 sponsors of that event. My interaction with their personnel was limited to confirming participation of one of
their executives as a speaker. The Smart Cities Council is not currently a client, nor have I had any involvement with the
organization after the conference. My current clients are the U.S. Department of Energy promoting their DataGuard
consumer privacy initiative and DEFG LLC doing research for their Solar IQ initiative and the Low Income Energy Issues
Forum. I led and was principle investigator for their Low Income Consumer Solar Working Group in 2018.
In the interest of transparency and full disclosure:
I am a customer of AT&T for residential landline, internet and mobile services, but I do not subscribe to any cable or
satellite TV services.
As disclosed on my form 700, my husband inherited some shares of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T stock when his parents
died. We did not purchase this stock. When Jeff Hoel raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest during my first
term on the UAC, I checked with the City Attorney who felt the small size of our holdings and Palo Alto’s relatively small
market share, did not rise to the level of a material conflict for any of the parties.
### On various Forms 700, from 06-03-15 to 04-01-19, Schwartz disclosed these telecommunications stocks:
https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA
* AT&T $10K-$100K
* BT Group $10K-$100K (falling to $2K-$10K by 04-03-17) (British Telecom)
* Comcast $10K-$100K
* Qualcomm $10k-$100K (acquired by 03-28-16)
* Verizon $20K-$100K
* Vodafone $2K- $10K (acquired by 03-28-16, sold by 04-01-19)
### Qualcomm says, "We are the foundation to 5G."
https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/5g?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8ISvpMrz4QIVkMBkCh0uawVMEAAYASABEgKtB_D_Bw
E&gclsrc=aw.ds
### On 10-24-05, three Council members were required to recuse themselves on a FTTP issue because they owned
stocks in telecom companies: Morton (Comcast, SBC), Mossar (AT&T, Comcast, SBC), Ojakian (AT&T, Comcast,
SBC). See page 7 here.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-meetings/documents/051024minutes.pdf
The City's online database of Form 700 information no longer has information from 2005.
https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA
But Mossar's Form 700 from 03-01-14 discloses:
* AT&T $10K-$100K
* Comcast $10K-$100K
I think I remember that Mossar said in 2005 or so that these stocks were in a trust, so she couldn't sell the stocks even if
she wanted to.
### What rules does the City Attorney follow when figuring out whether an official's holdings require a recusal? Does it
depend in part on information not disclosed in a Form 700? Have the rules, in effect, changed since 2005?
My husband and I decided to not trade or sell our shares of any telecom stock while I served on the UAC to avoid even
the appearance of inappropriate activity.
### Commissioner Johnston took a different approach to trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In his 2016
application as a UAC candidate (page 73)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51936
he disclosed that he owned some AT&T and Google stock that might be a problem. In his 04-28-16 candidate interview
(2:39:40 on this video)
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-83/
he said he'd be willing to sell them if it were a problem. And after he was appointed, he did sell them.
My investment advisor did recommend the purchase of Verizon stock in 2012 in an IRA. I continue to own that stock.
My publicly-stated positions on FTTP:
3
1. In my first (one-year) term, I participated on the Fiber sub-committee and conducted additional independent research
to understand the availability of commercially-available broadband wireless and fiber to everyone in town. I learned from
interviews with local experts and ISPs that every neighborhood in Palo Alto has access to broadband.
### The FCC currently defines "broadband" as being at least 25 Mbps for downloads and at least 3 Mbps for
uploads. FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel thinks the FCC should say it's at least 100 Mbps for downloads.
https://www.multichannel.com/blog/rosenworcel-wants-100-mbps-fcc-broadband-base
(I don't know how fast she thinks the FCC should say uploads should be.) But Palo Alto doesn't have to be limited to what
the FCC says.
### Does Schwartz mean "broadband" is available to at least one premises in every neighborhood? Surely that's not
good enough.
### This source says Comcast's coverage in Palo Alto is 99 percent (not 100 percent).
https://broadbandnow.com/California/Palo-Alto
### AT&T's wired internet service in Palo Alto is not always "broadband." For example, in my neighborhood, it's 768
kbps for downloads and even slower for uploads.
### So, in at least some parts of town, at most one service provider is offering wired "broadband" internet service.
If a business or individual really wants fiber to their premises they can obtain it, even if it is not as inexpensive as they
would like.
### Sure, a home or business could get a dark fiber connection from the City. Some homes have paid more than
$20,000 to be connected. After that, service might cost $1,585 or $2,600 per month.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1508
In Longmont, CO, residences that signed up for service as soon as it was available in their neighborhood pay only $49.95
per month for 1-Gbps symmetric internet service.
2. With 50% of our utility staff retiring in the next 3-5 years and our current difficulties recruiting new personnel for our
essential services, I worry it is risky for the CPAU to take on a new line of business that would be very labor intensive
even if some of the responsibilities were to be farmed out to a 3d party provider.
### At the next "annual" joint meeting of UAC and Council (which is overdue), Council should let UAC know whether
UAC should be worrying about personnel issues.
### On 02-06-19, when UAC was discussing how to be creative about hiring,
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-262019/
Schwartz suggested (1:16:42) hiring people from PG&E who might be looking for something "a little more stable." But
then (1:18:29) "We've got to look at this in a way that is not normal; and if we can't do something like that, then we have
to, I think, do a go / no-go -- at what point can we really not operate a utility?" And (1:20:26) "... think outside the box a
little bit; because if we can't, we really need to understand -- before five years shows up and everybody's out the
door. You know, we need to be planning this in advance. If we have to sell off part of our utilities, or do something
else." To me, this is not an effective way to convince potential recruits that the City's utilities are "stable."
### Perhaps it would be easier than usual to hire people to work on sexy, state-of-the-art projects like FTTP.
3. I have repeatedly asked advocates for FTTP as well as CPAU staff to explain to us what functions or applications are
not available today that would be if FTTP were available. I have been told “it’s none of my business” or "they haven't
been invented yet" by FTTP enthusiasts
### What I've said is that if enough people subscribe to internet services from the City to make municipal FTTP viable
financially, then the City shouldn't have to care what they use the service for.
and no one yet has given me an answer that to me justifies a $70 million investment.
### If the $70 million (or whatever) investment creates a citywide municipal FTTP network capable of paying back the
investment, why isn't that an investment worth making?
4
If someone makes a compelling business case or offers a universally desirable application then I am happy to revisit this
opinion.
### It's unreasonable to demand that the network make possible a "universally desirable application" that is not now
possible.
### This article lists some of the things 1-Gbps internet service could be good for.
https://www.atlantech.net/blog/gigabit-internet-5-surprising-business-benefits
4. I’ve proposed an “FTTP Scholarship Pilot” so start-ups and individuals who have a compelling reason to have a fiber
connection but cannot afford it, could apply to have their connection costs covered. Again, if only a small segment of City
residents really need this level of connectivity, let’s manage by exception and make the service affordable to them.
### I think it a bad idea because it requires the City to pass judgment on what reasons are compelling and what
applicants can afford.
5. There are no guarantees that the cost of City-owned FTTP service to Palo Alto residents would be cheaper than
what the incumbents offer. The incumbents have deep pockets and could choose to offer lower prices temporarily and
hamper adoption of the City’s offering to levels below what would be required for break-even operation.
### That's a theoretical possibility. But what actually happens in other communities is that the incumbents do lower their
prices, to compete with the municipal FTTP network, but the municipal network continues to thrive anyway, because it
offers superior products and superior customer service.
### On 09-28-15, Council Member Burt did a back-of-the-envelope calculation (page 39 here):
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49648
If having a municipal FTTP network can make the incumbents lower the cost of gigabit internet service by $40 per month
(as CTC consultant Tom Asp said), and 20,000 households benefit from that, then that's about $10 million per year. ($40 x
20,000 x 12 = $9.6 million.)
6. Some of the folks opposing my appointment seem to be conflating wireless cell telephony service with internet
service. Even if Palo Alto were to fully deploy FTTP, we would still need wireless telephony infrastructure to enable mobile
phone service by non-residents or local residents who have stepped away from their home networks.
### I haven't seen what folks are saying. Perhaps what they're saying (or should be saying) is that FTTP is a great
alternative to the FIXED 5G services the wireless incumbents may be planning to offer.
7. I have actively supported adoption of the FTTN strategy which will enable smart grid applications
### The staff report about smart meters (AMI) for UAC's 05-02-18 meeting
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64784
said that fiber isn't even necessary for smart meters. "Utiliworks (the consultant) recommends the CPAU explore all
backhaul options that will be available prior to 2020 deployment and update the AMI Implementation Plan accordingly"
(page 35).
### But by 01-09-19, staff was saying
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314
that it ought to abandon its FTTN efforts to date, and ask Council's permission to start over, this time assuming that AMI
ought to guide FTTN development.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314
Possibly on 06-03-19.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43740.38&BlobID=70929
and bring our current fiber resources closer to more business and residential customers who might choose to invest in
fiber to their own premises.
### Just bringing "our current fiber resources closer" with FTTN is a bad idea, compared to the idea of actually passing
premises with FTTP.
5
8. I have actively encouraged members of the CAC and FTTP advocates to apply for seats on the UAC. In fact, I think
it will help us to have a subject matter expert knowledgeable about both fiber deployment and wireless technologies.
### Palo Alto's municipal code, Section 2.23.050 (Utilities Advisory Commission, Purposes and Duties), says that one of
UAC's duties is to advise Council on a number of utilities, including a fiber optics utility.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v
id=amlegal:paloalto_ca
It doesn't say anything about wireless.
As you know, as a UAC commissioner, I have neither statutory authority nor direct influence over what contracts staff
proposes to the City Council for approval. I am also only one vote on the UAC.
I believe that Commissioners serving on the UAC have the responsibility to learn about all the different resource streams
that the CPAU delivers (electricity, gas, water, wastewater, as well as fiber). I have come to realize that it is extremely
helpful to have Commissioners with a working knowledge of the various complex issues to better advise the City Council
on alternatives and investments competing for resources and support. I hope the Council will allow me to continue to
contribute my expertise and familiarity with a broad range of utility innovations and best practices.
In my opinion, it is critically important to listen to our most vocal citizens who come before the commissions (whether it’s
having a 100% green portfolio, FTTP, protesting pad mounted transformers, or objecting to wireless transmitters) and
engage in dialog with them at community meetings and on social media where such exchanges are permitted. However,
it is important for you as the ultimate decision makers to realize that these passionate voices do not speak for everyone
and there are many in our community who have different priorities, are challenged to pay their utility bills, or can’t afford
personal investments in new technologies. I am happy to discuss any outstanding questions at my interview on April 29.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judith Schwartz
Vice Chair, Utility Advisory
Commission
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2019 9:57 AM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Alison Cormack; Cormack, Alison; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Greg Tanaka; Council, City; DuBois, Tom
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:Utilities Advisory Commission Positions
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine and Council Members Cormack, Dubois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka:
I am writing today to ask you to NOT appoint former mayor Gregg Scharff to the Utilities Advisory Commission and to
NOT appoint Judith Schwartz to a second term on the UAC. The reason is simple and straightforward: Neither Gregg
Scharff nor Judith Schwartz are concerned with resident's interests. Rather, both have demonstrated a commitment to
serve outside interests rather than hearing the voices of the residents.
As you know, I have been very concerned about ugly, heavy, noisy, unattractive, radiation‐emitting so‐called small cell
towers next to residents' homes (including my own). When he was mayor, Mr. Scharff showed a lack of interest, and
even a lack of understanding, about what residents' concerns were on this issue. He did not respond to even hear the
residents. So, why appoint him to an important commission, one that considers cell towers and related issues, when he
never responded to residents?
As you must well recall, Mr. Scharff also sought a seat on the Board of the Mid‐Peninsula Open Space District. Despite
self‐funding his campaign with $120,000, Karen Holman won that campaign handily. So, you see, residents did not want
him on that board either. One must surmise that were he to run for a seat on the UAC, he would not have the support to
win that either.
As for Ms. Schwartz, she appears to have a conflict of interest in representing residents. As a consultant, one of her
clients is the Smart Cities Council. AT&T, a Palo Alto cell tower applicant, is a "Global Lead Partner" on the Smart Cities
Council. Furthermore, she has aggressively used her position on the UAC to oppose plans for city‐wide Fiber‐Optics‐to
the Premises (FTTP). FTTP is a lower‐priced, privacy‐protecting wired alternative to the services offered and provided by
AT&T and others.
Please remember the residents of Palo Alto!
Thank you, as always, for your consideration. I understand that your positions require a great deal of service and
sacrifice and I thank you for your time and ongoing commitment to serve our city.
Yours truly,
Annette Evans Fazzino
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2019 3:37 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg
Cc:UAC; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Council, City; Hoel, Jeff (external)
Subject:Judith Schwartz's investments and conflict of interest
Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka,
The revelations in Dr. Jeff Hoel’s April 28, 2019, letter to you regarding Judith Schwartz’s investments
are dismaying. Specifically:
In her letter to you dated April 27, 2019, Ms. Schwartz wrote “In the interest of transparency and full
disclosure ... my husband inherited some shares of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T stock when his
parents died. We did not purchase this stock. … [and] the City Attorney… felt [our holdings] …did not
rise to the level of a material conflict … .”
However, when Dr. Hoel reviewed Ms. Schwartz’s Form 700s/Statements of Economic Interest he
found that, during her tenure on the Utilities Advisory Commission, she has owned shares in Verizon,
Comcast, AT&T, BT Group (British Telecom), Qualcom and Vodaphone. Given the broadness of the
reporting categories on the form, these holdings could easily be worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
As Dr. Hoel noted, former Council Member Dena Mosser was required to recuse herself from the
consideration of a municipal FTTP network because she owned telecom stock—far less telecom
stock that Ms. Schwartz owns.
More generally, Ms. Schwartz’s portfolio indicates that, far more than the average investor—or Palo
Alto resident—she is strongly vested in the fortunes of the telecommunications industry.
Hence I ask you, please do not reappoint Ms. Schwartz to the Utilities Advisory Commission. This
Commission considers cell towers, municipal FTTP and many other projects related to the
telecommunications industry. How can she not have a conflict of interest when many of her clients
come from the telecommunications and telecommunications-related industry, when she invests in that
industry, and when, of course, she has misrepresented to you the degree to which she invests in that
industry?
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
2
From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 6:43 PM
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>; UAC <uac@cityofpaloalto.org>; Judith Schwartz
<commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dean Batchelor
<dean.batchelor@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Yuan <dave.yuan@cityofpaloalto.org>; Catherine Elvert
<catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; Jeanne Fleming
<jfleming@metricus.net>; Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com>; Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>; Francesca
Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net>; Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>; Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@yahoo.com>;
chow.tina@yahoo.com; Sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com>; Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Council members,
I'd like to comment (below the "######" line) on UAC Commissioner Schwartz's message of 04-27-19. (My comments
are paragraphs in red beginning with "###".)
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#####################################################################################
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Judith Schwartz <commissioner.schwartz@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Dean Batchelor <dean.batchelor@cityofpaloalto.org>; Michael Danaher <mdanaher@wsgr.com>; Jonathan
Abendschein <jon.abendschein@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dave Yuan <dave.yuan@cityofpaloalto.org>; Catherine Elvert
<catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org>; Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>; Jeanne Fleming
<jfleming@metricus.net>; Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com>; Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>; Francesca
Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net>; Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>; Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@yahoo.com>;
"chow.tina@yahoo.com" <chow.tina@yahoo.com>; Sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com>; Amrutha Kattamuri
<vkattamuri@yahoo.com>; Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Utility Advisory Commission Appointments
Dear City Council,
As someone whose day job includes facilitating customer and stakeholder engagement in the utility sector, I’m always
glad to see Palo Alto residents paying attention to the UAC’s existence. I appreciate the passion of the FTTP advocates.
Over the past decade, I have established a national reputation as an honest broker who puts the welfare of consumers
first and advocates for low and moderate income consumers who cannot afford the popular industry vision of the energy
prosumer (owning rooftop solar, batteries, automated home, and multiple EVs). Therefore, it is somewhat disconcerting to
be the object of an obviously orchestrated campaign that completely misrepresents my priorities and maligns my
character and integrity. I serve as a volunteer trying to help my community and not to further my professional or financial
interests.
3
To address specific issues raised by the letter writers opposed to my participation on the UAC:
Relationship with AT&T
I have been an independent consultant for 32 years. I’ve had many clients over that time including leading tech
companies, utilities, non-profits, utility industry associations, research companies, and government agencies. My
engagement as the program director for the first Smart Cities Week was part-time over six months in 2015. AT&T was
one of over 50 sponsors of that event. My interaction with their personnel was limited to confirming participation of one of
their executives as a speaker. The Smart Cities Council is not currently a client, nor have I had any involvement with the
organization after the conference. My current clients are the U.S. Department of Energy promoting their DataGuard
consumer privacy initiative and DEFG LLC doing research for their Solar IQ initiative and the Low Income Energy Issues
Forum. I led and was principle investigator for their Low Income Consumer Solar Working Group in 2018.
In the interest of transparency and full disclosure:
I am a customer of AT&T for residential landline, internet and mobile services, but I do not subscribe to any cable or
satellite TV services.
As disclosed on my form 700, my husband inherited some shares of Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T stock when his parents
died. We did not purchase this stock. When Jeff Hoel raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest during my first
term on the UAC, I checked with the City Attorney who felt the small size of our holdings and Palo Alto’s relatively small
market share, did not rise to the level of a material conflict for any of the parties.
### On various Forms 700, from 06-03-15 to 04-01-19, Schwartz disclosed these telecommunications stocks:
https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA
* AT&T $10K-$100K
* BT Group $10K-$100K (falling to $2K-$10K by 04-03-17) (British Telecom)
* Comcast $10K-$100K
* Qualcomm $10k-$100K (acquired by 03-28-16)
* Verizon $20K-$100K
* Vodafone $2K- $10K (acquired by 03-28-16, sold by 04-01-19)
### Qualcomm says, "We are the foundation to 5G."
https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/5g?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8ISvpMrz4QIVkMBkCh0uawVMEAAYASABEgKtB_D_Bw
E&gclsrc=aw.ds
### On 10-24-05, three Council members were required to recuse themselves on a FTTP issue because they owned
stocks in telecom companies: Morton (Comcast, SBC), Mossar (AT&T, Comcast, SBC), Ojakian (AT&T, Comcast,
SBC). See page 7 here.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-meetings/documents/051024minutes.pdf
The City's online database of Form 700 information no longer has information from 2005.
https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA
But Mossar's Form 700 from 03-01-14 discloses:
* AT&T $10K-$100K
* Comcast $10K-$100K
I think I remember that Mossar said in 2005 or so that these stocks were in a trust, so she couldn't sell the stocks even if
she wanted to.
### What rules does the City Attorney follow when figuring out whether an official's holdings require a recusal? Does it
depend in part on information not disclosed in a Form 700? Have the rules, in effect, changed since 2005?
My husband and I decided to not trade or sell our shares of any telecom stock while I served on the UAC to avoid even
the appearance of inappropriate activity.
### Commissioner Johnston took a different approach to trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In his 2016
application as a UAC candidate (page 73)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51936
he disclosed that he owned some AT&T and Google stock that might be a problem. In his 04-28-16 candidate interview
(2:39:40 on this video)
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-83/
he said he'd be willing to sell them if it were a problem. And after he was appointed, he did sell them.
4
My investment advisor did recommend the purchase of Verizon stock in 2012 in an IRA. I continue to own that stock.
My publicly-stated positions on FTTP:
1. In my first (one-year) term, I participated on the Fiber sub-committee and conducted additional independent research
to understand the availability of commercially-available broadband wireless and fiber to everyone in town. I learned from
interviews with local experts and ISPs that every neighborhood in Palo Alto has access to broadband.
### The FCC currently defines "broadband" as being at least 25 Mbps for downloads and at least 3 Mbps for
uploads. FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel thinks the FCC should say it's at least 100 Mbps for downloads.
https://www.multichannel.com/blog/rosenworcel-wants-100-mbps-fcc-broadband-base
(I don't know how fast she thinks the FCC should say uploads should be.) But Palo Alto doesn't have to be limited to what
the FCC says.
### Does Schwartz mean "broadband" is available to at least one premises in every neighborhood? Surely that's not
good enough.
### This source says Comcast's coverage in Palo Alto is 99 percent (not 100 percent).
https://broadbandnow.com/California/Palo-Alto
### AT&T's wired internet service in Palo Alto is not always "broadband." For example, in my neighborhood, it's 768
kbps for downloads and even slower for uploads.
### So, in at least some parts of town, at most one service provider is offering wired "broadband" internet service.
If a business or individual really wants fiber to their premises they can obtain it, even if it is not as inexpensive as they
would like.
### Sure, a home or business could get a dark fiber connection from the City. Some homes have paid more than
$20,000 to be connected. After that, service might cost $1,585 or $2,600 per month.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1508
In Longmont, CO, residences that signed up for service as soon as it was available in their neighborhood pay only $49.95
per month for 1-Gbps symmetric internet service.
2. With 50% of our utility staff retiring in the next 3-5 years and our current difficulties recruiting new personnel for our
essential services, I worry it is risky for the CPAU to take on a new line of business that would be very labor intensive
even if some of the responsibilities were to be farmed out to a 3d party provider.
### At the next "annual" joint meeting of UAC and Council (which is overdue), Council should let UAC know whether
UAC should be worrying about personnel issues.
### On 02-06-19, when UAC was discussing how to be creative about hiring,
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-262019/
Schwartz suggested (1:16:42) hiring people from PG&E who might be looking for something "a little more stable." But
then (1:18:29) "We've got to look at this in a way that is not normal; and if we can't do something like that, then we have
to, I think, do a go / no-go -- at what point can we really not operate a utility?" And (1:20:26) "... think outside the box a
little bit; because if we can't, we really need to understand -- before five years shows up and everybody's out the
door. You know, we need to be planning this in advance. If we have to sell off part of our utilities, or do something
else." To me, this is not an effective way to convince potential recruits that the City's utilities are "stable."
### Perhaps it would be easier than usual to hire people to work on sexy, state-of-the-art projects like FTTP.
3. I have repeatedly asked advocates for FTTP as well as CPAU staff to explain to us what functions or applications are
not available today that would be if FTTP were available. I have been told “it’s none of my business” or "they haven't
been invented yet" by FTTP enthusiasts
### What I've said is that if enough people subscribe to internet services from the City to make municipal FTTP viable
financially, then the City shouldn't have to care what they use the service for.
5
and no one yet has given me an answer that to me justifies a $70 million investment.
### If the $70 million (or whatever) investment creates a citywide municipal FTTP network capable of paying back the
investment, why isn't that an investment worth making?
If someone makes a compelling business case or offers a universally desirable application then I am happy to revisit this
opinion.
### It's unreasonable to demand that the network make possible a "universally desirable application" that is not now
possible.
### This article lists some of the things 1-Gbps internet service could be good for.
https://www.atlantech.net/blog/gigabit-internet-5-surprising-business-benefits
4. I’ve proposed an “FTTP Scholarship Pilot” so start-ups and individuals who have a compelling reason to have a fiber
connection but cannot afford it, could apply to have their connection costs covered. Again, if only a small segment of City
residents really need this level of connectivity, let’s manage by exception and make the service affordable to them.
### I think it a bad idea because it requires the City to pass judgment on what reasons are compelling and what
applicants can afford.
5. There are no guarantees that the cost of City-owned FTTP service to Palo Alto residents would be cheaper than
what the incumbents offer. The incumbents have deep pockets and could choose to offer lower prices temporarily and
hamper adoption of the City’s offering to levels below what would be required for break-even operation.
### That's a theoretical possibility. But what actually happens in other communities is that the incumbents do lower their
prices, to compete with the municipal FTTP network, but the municipal network continues to thrive anyway, because it
offers superior products and superior customer service.
### On 09-28-15, Council Member Burt did a back-of-the-envelope calculation (page 39 here):
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49648
If having a municipal FTTP network can make the incumbents lower the cost of gigabit internet service by $40 per month
(as CTC consultant Tom Asp said), and 20,000 households benefit from that, then that's about $10 million per year. ($40 x
20,000 x 12 = $9.6 million.)
6. Some of the folks opposing my appointment seem to be conflating wireless cell telephony service with internet
service. Even if Palo Alto were to fully deploy FTTP, we would still need wireless telephony infrastructure to enable mobile
phone service by non-residents or local residents who have stepped away from their home networks.
### I haven't seen what folks are saying. Perhaps what they're saying (or should be saying) is that FTTP is a great
alternative to the FIXED 5G services the wireless incumbents may be planning to offer.
7. I have actively supported adoption of the FTTN strategy which will enable smart grid applications
### The staff report about smart meters (AMI) for UAC's 05-02-18 meeting
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64784
said that fiber isn't even necessary for smart meters. "Utiliworks (the consultant) recommends the CPAU explore all
backhaul options that will be available prior to 2020 deployment and update the AMI Implementation Plan accordingly"
(page 35).
### But by 01-09-19, staff was saying
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314
that it ought to abandon its FTTN efforts to date, and ask Council's permission to start over, this time assuming that AMI
ought to guide FTTN development.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314
Possibly on 06-03-19.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43740.38&BlobID=70929
and bring our current fiber resources closer to more business and residential customers who might choose to invest in
fiber to their own premises.
6
### Just bringing "our current fiber resources closer" with FTTN is a bad idea, compared to the idea of actually passing
premises with FTTP.
8. I have actively encouraged members of the CAC and FTTP advocates to apply for seats on the UAC. In fact, I think
it will help us to have a subject matter expert knowledgeable about both fiber deployment and wireless technologies.
### Palo Alto's municipal code, Section 2.23.050 (Utilities Advisory Commission, Purposes and Duties), says that one of
UAC's duties is to advise Council on a number of utilities, including a fiber optics utility.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v
id=amlegal:paloalto_ca
It doesn't say anything about wireless.
As you know, as a UAC commissioner, I have neither statutory authority nor direct influence over what contracts staff
proposes to the City Council for approval. I am also only one vote on the UAC.
I believe that Commissioners serving on the UAC have the responsibility to learn about all the different resource streams
that the CPAU delivers (electricity, gas, water, wastewater, as well as fiber). I have come to realize that it is extremely
helpful to have Commissioners with a working knowledge of the various complex issues to better advise the City Council
on alternatives and investments competing for resources and support. I hope the Council will allow me to continue to
contribute my expertise and familiarity with a broad range of utility innovations and best practices.
In my opinion, it is critically important to listen to our most vocal citizens who come before the commissions (whether it’s
having a 100% green portfolio, FTTP, protesting pad mounted transformers, or objecting to wireless transmitters) and
engage in dialog with them at community meetings and on social media where such exchanges are permitted. However,
it is important for you as the ultimate decision makers to realize that these passionate voices do not speak for everyone
and there are many in our community who have different priorities, are challenged to pay their utility bills, or can’t afford
personal investments in new technologies. I am happy to discuss any outstanding questions at my interview on April 29.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judith Schwartz
Vice Chair, Utility Advisory
Commission
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:32 PM
To:Council, City; ross road
Subject:Another accident at meadow and ross today
I believe there was a bike involved as well, I saw paramedics.
The stats look like this, best as I can tell: before the new "improvements", there were 1 accidents involving bike/cars in
the previous 10 years on Ross Road. Now, in 18 months we have 4 accidents involving bike/cars.
Are we there yet with bike ridership and progress? Just checking. Can we please admit that this was a bad idea and undo
the damage, or does someone need to actually die?
‐‐Ganesh
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:51 PM
To:Kou, Lydia; Council, City
Subject:Re: Another accident at meadow and ross today
Yes. Right at the roundabout.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:36 PM Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Dear Ganesh,
I am very sorry.
Is this at the roundabout?
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Lydia Kou ‐ Council Member
Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS
From: Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:31 PM
To: Council, City; ross road
Subject: Another accident at meadow and ross today
I believe there was a bike involved as well, I saw paramedics.
The stats look like this, best as I can tell: before the new "improvements", there were 1 accidents involving bike/cars in
the previous 10 years on Ross Road. Now, in 18 months we have 4 accidents involving bike/cars.
Are we there yet with bike ridership and progress? Just checking. Can we please admit that this was a bad idea and
undo the damage, or does someone need to actually die?
‐‐Ganesh
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:05 PM
To:Eben Kermit
Cc:Council, City; ross road
Subject:Re: Another accident at meadow and ross today
Don't forget Amarillo ave too. The sidewalk there is probably 10+ feet wide, with zero room for cars to turn because of
the posts at the intersection of Louis & Amarillo. Which means cars invariably turn into oncoming traffic, whether bike
or other vehicles.
I have lived (and biked) in 5 cities in the US. Palo Alto certainly takes the cake for the worst biking environment. A
handful of opinionated city council members and residents have wasted millions of dollars and create a *provably*
accident‐prone environment ‐ stats support this claim.
It's ok to admit a mistake and fix it. I hope the day comes before someone dies.
‐‐Ganesh
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:58 PM Eben Kermit <ebenkermit7@gmail.com> wrote:
I continue to be dismayed by the apathy demonstrated by the city
council to rectify the errors in the implementation of this bicycle
boulevard.
My suggestion:
Remove the mid‐block bulges (concrete) that force bicycles into the
traffic lane.
Decrease the inner concrete center of the "round‐abouts" and put up
reflectorized markers so cars don't drive into the "street furniture".
Keep the speed humps for the cars, but have a smooth pavement path at
the curb for bicycles and a plastic barrier or other device to keep vehicles
from using the curb lane (See Louis Rd.)
Get rid of or improve the drain grates that abruptly end. These are a
hazard to bikes and should never have been implemented in the first
place.
The Louis Rd. upgrade that has a section where bikes ride on a widened
stretch of the sidewalk is unnecessary and mixes cyclists with
pedestrians...not a good idea.
2
I refuse to ride on Ross Rd. It is too dangerous!
Eben Kermit
Louis Rd.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 PM Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe there was a bike involved as well, I saw paramedics.
The stats look like this, best as I can tell: before the new "improvements", there were 1 accidents involving bike/cars in
the previous 10 years on Ross Road. Now, in 18 months we have 4 accidents involving bike/cars.
Are we there yet with bike ridership and progress? Just checking. Can we please admit that this was a bad idea and
undo the damage, or does someone need to actually die?
‐‐Ganesh
‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross‐
road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ross‐road@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross‐
road/CAKCEE4OND5Zo25QbofQUroJ3gHHAiUqkab_h3qL9OvaJMx%3DE9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Max_Greenberg <max_greenberg@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:09 PM
To:Ganesh Venkitachalam
Cc:William Xuan; Council, City; Eben Kermit; ross road
Subject:Re: Another accident at meadow and ross today
I think that’s a reasonable request of Mr Tanaka. And seems like 30 minutes is not very much time to allot for an
important issue.
On Apr 25, 2019, at 8:30 PM, Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been to many of these last year. So far, all that has happened is "outreach" and "education",
despite dire statistics in comparison to how safe this road was. I'm sorry to be a cynic, but it feels like all
this was *just* for optics and nothing else. Perhaps I'm misjudging our esteemed council but allow me
to ask:
I'd like to know councilman Tanaka's stance on what his position is, and whether he will support
concrete action. I am happy to come to meeting, but before I do, I'd like to know what the expected
outcome is.
Can councilman Tanaka please go on record stating his stance on taking action to fix the intersection of
Ross & Meadow, based on accident stats on Ross road so far?
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:46 PM William Xuan <william.xuan@gregtanaka.org> wrote:
Dear Mr.Venkitachalam and neighbors of Ross Road,
My name is William and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you very much
for reaching out to the council. Councilman Tanaka always appreciates to hear from
constituents like you.
We at the offices of Councilmember Tanaka have started to look creating policies on how to
make a better biking experience in Palo Alto. However, we can’t forget the stakeholders in this
issues, the residents. For that reason, Councilman Tanaka has decided to host a meeting with
multiple constituents on the issue at his office hours. Will you (and anyone who would be
interested for that matter,) be able to make it on Sunday, 4/28 from 2:05pm to 2:35pm? The
meeting will be held at Councilman Tanaka’s office, located at 4000 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto,
CA.
Please let me know if you are available.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know.
Best,
William
2
On Apr 25, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget Amarillo ave too. The sidewalk there is probably 10+ feet wide, with zero room for
cars to turn because of the posts at the intersection of Louis & Amarillo. Which means cars
invariably turn into oncoming traffic, whether bike or other vehicles.
I have lived (and biked) in 5 cities in the US. Palo Alto certainly takes the cake for the worst biking
environment. A handful of opinionated city council members and residents have wasted millions of
dollars and create a *provably* accident-prone environment - stats support this claim.
It's ok to admit a mistake and fix it. I hope the day comes before someone dies.
--Ganesh
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:58 PM Eben Kermit <ebenkermit7@gmail.com> wrote:
I continue to be dismayed by the apathy
demonstrated by the city council to rectify the
errors in the implementation of this bicycle
boulevard.
My suggestion:
Remove the mid-block bulges (concrete) that
force bicycles into the traffic lane.
Decrease the inner concrete center of the
"round-abouts" and put up reflectorized markers
so cars don't drive into the "street furniture".
Keep the speed humps for the cars, but have a
smooth pavement path at the curb for bicycles
and a plastic barrier or other device to keep
vehicles from using the curb lane (See Louis
Rd.)
Get rid of or improve the drain grates that
abruptly end. These are a hazard to bikes and
should never have been implemented in the first
place.
The Louis Rd. upgrade that has a section where
bikes ride on a widened stretch of the sidewalk
is unnecessary and mixes cyclists with
pedestrians...not a good idea.
3
I refuse to ride on Ross Rd. It is too dangerous!
Eben Kermit
Louis Rd.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 PM Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe there was a bike involved as well, I saw paramedics.
The stats look like this, best as I can tell: before the new "improvements", there were 1
accidents involving bike/cars in the previous 10 years on Ross Road. Now, in 18 months we
have 4 accidents involving bike/cars.
Are we there yet with bike ridership and progress? Just checking. Can we please admit that this
was a bad idea and undo the damage, or does someone need to actually die?
--Ganesh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross-
road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ross-road@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross-
road/CAKCEE4OND5Zo25QbofQUroJ3gHHAiUqkab_h3qL9OvaJMx%3DE9Q%40mail.gmail.c
om.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross-
road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ross-road@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross-
road/CAKCEE4MUXUWS2dZ_Ka3PDj4Thd%2BRWVucGzN1zmTL3uGTeYmwzQ%40mail.gmail.
com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross‐
road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ross‐road@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross‐
road/CAKCEE4MMcifecY2iMiB1_bVxRgsGSQOHaJ8M_BWi5nKsNRob‐Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:30 PM
To:William Xuan; Council, City
Cc:Eben Kermit; ross road
Subject:Re: Another accident at meadow and ross today
Whoa. My understanding of how local government works is weak, I'll admit it: is the city council responsible for
overseeing the administration, or is it not?
If the city council did not like the plans, why vote on it? Who calls the shots on how money is spent, city staff or council?
Please educate me.
Max, as I said, I'm more than happy to meet, but I'd like some expectation on outcome. I ask because I've been to
multiple meetings and townhalls and whatnot on this issue. It was an utter waste of time and it was clear that this was
all done for optics in the past.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:48 PM William Xuan <william.xuan@gregtanaka.org> wrote:
Tanaka thinks that the intent was good, we should move forward with making Palo Alto a bike friendly city.
But in practice, the way Ross Road was designed and implemented meant that it was a loss for everyone except for the
contractors who developed the project. Ross Road is an unfortunate example of hastened policy that council members
really had not much say in.
The power is situated mostly in the hands of city staff, who draw up these proposals. Council only votes on what they
give to them. They can try to influence the process in ways that can help constituents, but this can only happen if the
constituents actually meet with them.
I hope this clears a few things up.
‐
William
On Apr 25, 2019, at 8:30 PM, Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been to many of these last year. So far, all that has happened is "outreach" and "education",
despite dire statistics in comparison to how safe this road was. I'm sorry to be a cynic, but it feels like
all this was *just* for optics and nothing else. Perhaps I'm misjudging our esteemed council but allow
me to ask:
I'd like to know councilman Tanaka's stance on what his position is, and whether he will support
concrete action. I am happy to come to meeting, but before I do, I'd like to know what the expected
outcome is.
Can councilman Tanaka please go on record stating his stance on taking action to fix the intersection of
Ross & Meadow, based on accident stats on Ross road so far?
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:46 PM William Xuan <william.xuan@gregtanaka.org> wrote:
Dear Mr.Venkitachalam and neighbors of Ross Road,
2
My name is William and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you very much
for reaching out to the council. Councilman Tanaka always appreciates to hear from
constituents like you.
We at the offices of Councilmember Tanaka have started to look creating policies on how to
make a better biking experience in Palo Alto. However, we can’t forget the stakeholders in this
issues, the residents. For that reason, Councilman Tanaka has decided to host a meeting with
multiple constituents on the issue at his office hours. Will you (and anyone who would be
interested for that matter,) be able to make it on Sunday, 4/28 from 2:05pm to 2:35pm? The
meeting will be held at Councilman Tanaka’s office, located at 4000 Middlefield Rd, Palo
Alto, CA.
Please let me know if you are available.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know.
Best,
William
On Apr 25, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget Amarillo ave too. The sidewalk there is probably 10+ feet wide, with zero room for
cars to turn because of the posts at the intersection of Louis & Amarillo. Which means cars
invariably turn into oncoming traffic, whether bike or other vehicles.
I have lived (and biked) in 5 cities in the US. Palo Alto certainly takes the cake for the worst
biking environment. A handful of opinionated city council members and residents have wasted
millions of dollars and create a *provably* accident-prone environment - stats support this claim.
It's ok to admit a mistake and fix it. I hope the day comes before someone dies.
--Ganesh
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:58 PM Eben Kermit <ebenkermit7@gmail.com> wrote:
I continue to be dismayed by the apathy
demonstrated by the city council to rectify the
errors in the implementation of this bicycle
boulevard.
My suggestion:
Remove the mid-block bulges (concrete) that
force bicycles into the traffic lane.
Decrease the inner concrete center of the
"round-abouts" and put up reflectorized
3
markers so cars don't drive into the "street
furniture".
Keep the speed humps for the cars, but have a
smooth pavement path at the curb for bicycles
and a plastic barrier or other device to keep
vehicles from using the curb lane (See Louis
Rd.)
Get rid of or improve the drain grates that
abruptly end. These are a hazard to bikes and
should never have been implemented in the
first place.
The Louis Rd. upgrade that has a section
where bikes ride on a widened stretch of the
sidewalk is unnecessary and mixes cyclists with
pedestrians...not a good idea.
I refuse to ride on Ross Rd. It is too
dangerous!
Eben Kermit
Louis Rd.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 PM Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe there was a bike involved as well, I saw paramedics.
The stats look like this, best as I can tell: before the new "improvements", there were 1
accidents involving bike/cars in the previous 10 years on Ross Road. Now, in 18 months we
have 4 accidents involving bike/cars.
Are we there yet with bike ridership and progress? Just checking. Can we please admit that
this was a bad idea and undo the damage, or does someone need to actually die?
--Ganesh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross-
road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ross-road@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross-
road/CAKCEE4OND5Zo25QbofQUroJ3gHHAiUqkab_h3qL9OvaJMx%3DE9Q%40mail.gmail.c
om.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
4
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross-
road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ross-road@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross-
road/CAKCEE4MUXUWS2dZ_Ka3PDj4Thd%2BRWVucGzN1zmTL3uGTeYmwzQ%40mail.gmai
l.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2019 3:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kleinberg, Judy; Kou, Lydia; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Alex Kobayashi; Carol@silverlaw.biz;
Drekmeier, Peter; mtb324@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert;
Binder, Andrew; Becchetti, Benjamin; Sullivan, David; Brettle, Jessica; Minor, Beth; Mark Weiss; Chris
Payne; AlfredMan@aol.com; Daniel Kottke; Joseph Kongtong; Tim Woods; Adams Holland; Aram
James; RA@alexanderlaw.com; SylviaPGleason@aol.com
Subject:April 16 will FOREVER be Palo Alto's true Birthday !!!
Since our town's inception, a 125 years ago, April 16 has been acknowledged, honored, and celebrated as Palo Alto's
Birthday.
The April 16th founding date is blatantly evidenced by engravings on the multitude of antique bronze plaques placed, over
the ages, throughout our beautiful city and which commemorate historical landmarks such as our first Hospital, first
Elementary School, and first Fire Department.
It is arrogant and disgusting to rewrite our history (as with Chinese, Russian, and Egyptian barbarians) on the whims of a
rotating City Council who has little understanding or respect for how Palo Alto has historically represented
ourselves. And for what purpose (?), to coordinate celebration with Earth Day!
Shame on City Council for spending their limited time twisting our history instead of focusing on important city
issues. When again I run for Council, my campaign platform will be sure to include restoring our true Palo Alto Birthday
as April 16.
April 16 is the month and day that our founders chose for our historical annals as Palo Alto's Birthday. Because our April
16th birth date was a purposeful decision reflecting our town folks' thinking and mindset at the time, the very decision
itself, to make April 16 our Palo Alto's birthday, is historical.
Palo Alto history deserves respect, and it is folly to tamper with any historical dates and events regardless of whom is in
power.
-Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Diane Gleason <gleasondiane@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2019 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Arastradero Rd changes
Greetings,
I work at Gunn High School, and I ride my bicycle to work twice a week. I am concerned about the
new changes for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Arastradero. Currently I see that the
sidewalk is being expanded. I am surprised and disappointed that separated bicycle lanes were not
included in the plans along all that new sidewalk. All that money spent and still not separating
bicycles from cars? I understand that bicyclists will be allowed to ride on that new wide sidewalk, but
there are many obstacles which make it undesirable.
We seem to realize that mixing pedestrians with cars is a bad idea, hence the creation of sidewalks,
not just a painted line. But put that person on a bike, and now it is acceptable to put them out with the
cars. A car hitting a bicyclist has the same ramifications as a car hitting a pedestrian: emergency
hospital, severe damage, maybe death. Once while driving west on Arastradero I watched a car drive
along in the bike lane, tailing two young bicyclists, over two blocks (including thru an intersection!!),
and who finally made a right turn. In general I see more and more cars use bike lanes for passing
lanes. A painted line doesn't cut it.
I am left with the conclusion that the designers of this project believe that a painted line separating
cars and bikes seems perfectly acceptable and safe. With the wider sidewalks, the car lanes are now
narrower which puts bicyclists closer to cars. Slower cars but closer to bikes, vs faster cars and
further from bikes. Not seeing any improvement. A texting driver now has less distance to go to hit a
bike.
I was in my car following a bus heading from Gunn HS to El Camino, and the width of the bus exactly
matched the width of the car lane (now that the car lane is narrower because of the expanded
sidewalk). Which means a bicyclist is now within one or 2 feet of the side of the bus. Which does not
make me feel safer. I think overall the changes will benefit pedestrians a lot, but because of the
sidewalk obstructions it is not a very good commuter bike route, and probably most hardcore
bicyclists will still use the street. But the hardcore riders don't need changes, it is the middle riders like
me who are making decisions about how often to bicycle and where to bicycle based on separation
from cars. And the Arastradero changes have not improved the route for me, now that it is a choice of
being on the street but now closer to cars, or sidewalk with obstacles. In fact, I feel less safe as a
bicyclist along this reconfigured section of Arastradero Rd.
I am still waiting for cities to really get serious about getting people out of their cars, and there are
many people like me who would bike more if it was actually safe from cars.
Sincerely,
Diane Gleason
Gunn HS teacher
previous Palo Alto resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:anne meyer <annefmeyer@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:51 AM
To:jjpassmann@menlopark.org
Cc:Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org
Subject:Fwd: Bootup Ventures: New Request 68 Willow road September 15, 2018 noise MESSAGE #5
RE: Use Permit Revision/Marco ten Vaanholt ( BootUP Ventures/68 Willow road)
Hi John,
Please note emails below regarding a very noisy afternoon on Saturday September 15, 2018.
I shall send others so that they can be placed in the planning folder for the above mentioned permit revision.
Thank you,
Anne Meyer
Palo Alto
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anne Meyer <rmeyer3@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Bootup Ventures: New Request
Date: September 18, 2018 at 1:38:26 PM PDT
To: Laleh Masnavi <laleh@bootupventures.com>
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, city.council@menlopark.org
Hi
I am happy you are supporting a good cause, but it is still undemocratic and impolite to blast noise over
a residential neighborhood without warning ALL AFTERNOON.
The use of microphones is not necessary to support a fundraiser.
Please, City council members, let me know why this commercial property can get approval to blast noise
over a residential neighborhood all afternoon?
Thank you,
Anne Meyer
On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:02 PM, Laleh Masnavi <laleh@bootupventures.com> wrote:
Dear neighbor,
2
Let me explain what the Sep 15th event was held for; it was the 12th annual fundraiser
organized by Ivy and Pearls, a charitable organization providing college scholarships and
public service projects in the City of Palo Alto and neighboring City of East Palo Alto.
This year, they approached us and BootUP was thrilled to be able to provide them with
the space and play a role in their charitable efforts.
They had all the required permits and licensing from the city. The police and fire
departments were notified too.
Apologies for any inconveniences this might have caused, but we hope you agree
with us that it was for a great cause!!
Warm regards,
Laleh Masnavi
VP, Operations
BootUP Ventures
68 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025
M: 650‐996‐7651
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:11 PM, <rmeyer3@comcast.net> wrote:
Title: homeowner in Palo Alto
First Name: anne
Last Name: meyer
Email: rmeyer3@comcast.net
Phone: 6503236767
Organization: Palo Alto neighborhood
Message: On 9/15/18 your facility blasted noise all afternoon and it was not pleasant
to reading or enjoy my backyard. I feel this is very impolite to blast noise to a
neighboring residential area. Could you please refrain from using any microphones in
your future events. Thank you
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 11:19 AM
Subject:Buena Vista update - May 3rd video
Dear Friends of Buena Vista ‐ Happy May Day!
Several people have asked me lately ‐ Whatʹs happening with Buena Vista? Clearly I am overdue in writing to you
all.
One thing happening is coming up this Friday ‐
May 3rd, at 5:08PM, Midpen Media Center will air a video showing of the Raices de Mexico dancers at last
Decembers BV Posada.
You may view the video two ways:
TV ‐ If you have Comcast, itʹs on channel 28.
I assume the same channel for AT&T ‐ 28, but I may be wrong.
If you have DirecTV you can stream it by going to the ʺWatch Nowʺ address below and click on Channel 28.
https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/
As to other BV news, eyes are on the future as planning continues by Caritas (day to day manager) and the Housing
Authority of Santa Clara County (owner) for infrastructure and housing improvements. BV students are eyeing the joys of
summer vacation as the school year winds down this month. Some will stay with their studies over the summer to ensure
skills donʹt slip, and vacation reading will be encouraged.
Buena Vista is regularly mentioned in City meetings as an example of when Palo Alto did the right thing when it helped
to save the affordable housing site along with the residents, rather than allow their mass displacement. It is recognized as
a significant affordable housing achievement. Thank you all for helping to make that happen.
I hope you have some time to enjoy this lovely May Day.
Winter Dellenbach
Friends of Buena Vista
fobv.org
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 6:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bull Bars on police vehicles
Attachments:streetsblog.pdf; bullbar.pdf
Honorable Councilmembers,
I'm writing to you on the subject of safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users who aren't protected
by the large structure of a motor vehicle.
I have noticed that many of the city's police vehicles have "bull bars" on the front of them. Available evidence (see
attached news article and literature review) suggests that these increase severity of injuries and risk of death to
pedestrians involved in collisions with vehicles.
I hope that the city considers this evidence in future purchases of police vehicles, and perhaps also considers whether
the existing bull bars should remain on police vehicles.
Sincerely,
L. David Baron
Attachments:
1. Angie Schmitt. "Outlawed Abroad, Killer “Bull Bars” Are the Hot Fashion Accessory for Police Departments."
Streetsblog USA. August 2, 2018.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/08/02/outlawed‐abroad‐killer‐bull‐bars‐are‐the‐hot‐fashion‐accessory‐for‐police‐
departments/
2. Ediriweera Desapriya, John M. Kerr, D. Sesath Hewapathirane, Dinithi Peiris, Bikaramjit Mann, Nayomi Gomes,
Kavindya Peiris, Giulia Scime & Jennifer Jones (2012): Bull Bars and Vulnerable Road Users, Traffic Injury Prevention,
13:1, 86‐92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.624143
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221742080_Bull_Bars_and_Vulnerable_Road_Users
Traffic Injury Prevention, 13:86–92, 2012
Copyright C2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1538-9588 print / 1538-957X online
DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2011.624143
Bull Bars and Vulnerable Road Users
EDIRIWEERA DESAPRIYA,
1,2 JOHN M. KERR,
1,2 D. SESATH
HEWAPATHIRANE,1,2,3 DINITHI PEIRIS,
1,2 BIKARAMJIT MANN,
4 NAYOMI
GOMES,1,2 KAVINDYA PEIRIS,
1,2 GIULIA SCIME,
1,2 and JENNIFER JONES
1,2
1Developmental Neurosciences and Child Health, Centre for Community Child Health Research, Child and Family Research
Institute, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2British Columbia Injury Research and Prevention Unit, Vancouver, BC, Canada
3Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
4Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Objectives:Pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of the global death and injury burden, accounting for 65 percent of the
1.2millionannualroaddeaths.Thepurposeofthisbriefliteraturereviewistoexaminewhetherbullbars,arigidaftermarket
accessory fitted to the front end of passenger vehicles, increase the risk of severe and fatal injuries to vulnerable road users
in the event of a collision.
Methods:Applicable peer-reviewed research, review papers, and grey literature were identified from a search of MED-
LINE;theTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)databasecomposedofTransportationResearchInformationServices(TRIS)
andInternationalTransportResearchDocumentation(TRID)databases;theCochraneDatabaseofSystematicReviews;and
GoogleScholar.Thefollowingsearchtermswereused:“bullbars”OR“nudgebars”OR“saharabars”AND“pedestrians”
OR “vulnerable road users” for 1948 to March 1, 2011. A secondary set of search terms was also included “bull bars” OR
“nudge bars” OR “sahara bars” OR “vehicle frontal protective systems” AND “pedestrians” OR “vulnerable road users”
for 1948 to March 1, 2011.
Results:NeithertheMEDLINEsearchnortheCochraneReviewsearchreturnedanyrelevantliterature.TheTRIDsearch
returned 19 research articles, 9 of which were included. Searches using Google Scholar returned 110 items, of which 21
were included in the present review after excluding patents and citations. Seven of the articles from TRID were also found
in the Google Scholar search, resulting in 23 unique articles being included in this review. The studies used included 12
real-world studies, 3 computer modeling studies, and 8 laboratory testing studies. Very few studies examined the road safety
of pedal-cyclists and motorcyclists; therefore, we focused solely on studies examining pedestrian safety.
Conclusions:The literature reviewed in this study indicates that vehicles fitted with bull bars, particularly those without
deformable padding, concentrate crash forces over a smaller area of vulnerable road users during collisions compared to
vehicles not fitted with a bull bar. Rigid bull bars, such as those made from steel or aluminum, stiffen the front end of vehicles
and interfere with the vital shock absorption systems designed in vehicle fronts. These devices therefore significantly alter
the collision dynamics of vehicles, resulting in an increased risk of pedestrian injury and mortality in crashes. This literature
review shows that bull bars do indeed increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable road users in the event of a collision and
highlights the need for current traffic safety policies to reflect the safety concerns surrounding the use of bull bars.
Keywords Vehicle design; Pedestrian injury; Vehicle fronts; Rigid bull bars
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of global death and
injury burden, accounting for 65 percent of the 1.2 million an-
nual road deaths (Peden et al. 2004). Efforts have been made to
reduce the incidence of traffic fatalities caused by motor vehicle
collisions. Improvements to vehicle design, for example, have
Received 31 May 2011; accepted 13 September 2011.
Address correspondence to Dr. Ediriweera Desapriya, L-408, 4480 Oak
Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 3V4, Canada. E-mail: edesap@cw.bc.ca
been shown to reduce the severity of injuries to pedestrians and
cyclists in the event of a collision (Peden et al. 2004). Although
roadsafetyresearchershavehadabasicunderstandingofthere-
lationship between vehicle design and pedestrian injuries since
the 1960s (Kratzke 1995), the safety of vulnerable road users,
defined by the World Health Organization (Peden et al. 2004)
as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, did not become a
serious concern in the field of vehicle design safety research
until the early 1990s. This delay may have been partially due
to the belief that little could be done to protect pedestrians
in the event of a vehicle crash (Kahane 2004; Kratzke 1995).
86
Do
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
H
I
N
A
R
I
]
a
t
2
3
:
5
2
1
2
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
BULL BARS AND VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 87
Furthermore, manufacturers may have been reluctant to de-
velop and invest in an area not considered to provide sufficient
added value to the vehicle from a market share perspective.
Therefore, safety research for vulnerable road users has been
relatively slow and poorly funded, in comparison to safety
considerations for vehicle occupants. Moreover, scientific
consensus on the requirements of vehicle design for pedestrian
protection has still not been fully achieved (Crandall et al.
2002).
Studies have been conducted examining how the shape, stiff-
ness, and speed of motor vehicles can influence injury type
and severity to pedestrians and cyclists. Early work by Ash-
ton and McKay (1979) related specific vehicle impact speeds
to risk of death. In the 1990s, the term aggressivity was in-
troduced to describe the vehicle properties of geometry, mass,
and stiffness, defined by Fildes et al. (1993) as the extent to
which a vehicle transfers collision energy to the struck ob-
ject in comparison to the amount of collision energy that
it absorbs itself. The design of vehicles, particularly frontal
structures, determines aggressivity and contributes largely to
the severity of injuries sustained in pedestrian–vehicle and
cyclist–vehicle crashes. Semi-trailer trucks and large 4-wheel-
drivevehicles,vans,andsportsutilityvehicles(SUVs)havepar-
ticularly harmful effects on vulnerable road users (Oxley et al.
2004).
The subject of this review, bull bars, are predominantly rigid
metal bars fixed to the front end of an SUV, originally designed
to prevent damage to the vehicle upon contact with animals in
rural areas (Higgins 1994). Fitting of rigid, aggressive bull bars
for protection against wildlife or simply for aesthetic reasons
has been publicized as a cause for concern in many countries
(Higgins 1994; Peden et al. 2004). It has been argued that bull
bars are essential safety features that protect occupants in the
event of such a collision; however, there has been much debate
about their use in densely populated urban areas where pedes-
trians are often the only casualties they come into contact with
(Attewell and Glase 2004). Figure 1 (top) presents a photograph
of a pickup truck fixed with a metal bull bar. Figure 1 (bottom)
presentsaphotographofapickuptruck fixedwithametalnudge
bar.
Determining the impact of bull bars on vulnerable road users
is necessary for informed traffic safety and car manufacturer
policy making, especially to support the Global Technical
Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian protection (United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe [UNECE] 2009). The
purpose of this brief review, therefore, is to examine whether
bull bars increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable road
users in the event of a collision and to shed light on the reasons
motorists choose to fit these devices to their vehicles. Though
the goal of this study was to research the influence of bull
bars on collision outcomes with all vulnerable road users,
very few studies identified in this review elaborated on the
impact of these devices on the road safety of pedal-cyclists and
motorcyclists. Thus, our study focused solely on pedestrian
safety.
Figure 1 Pickup trucks fitted with a metal bull bar (top) and a nudge bar
(bottom) (color figure available online).
METHODS
Sources
Applicable peer-reviewed research, review papers, and grey
literaturewereidentifiedfromasearchofMEDLINE;theTrans-
portation Research Board (TRB) database composed of Trans-
portationResearchInformationServices(TRIS)andtheInterna-
tionalTransportResearchDocumentation(TRID)databases;the
CochraneDatabaseofSystematicReviews;andGoogleScholar.
Study Selection
The following search terms were used: “bull bars” OR “nudge
bars” OR “sahara bars” AND “pedestrians” OR “vulnerable
roadusers”for1948toMarch1,2011.Asecondarysetofsearch
terms was also used: “bull bars” OR “nudge bars” OR “sahara
bars” OR “vehicle frontal protective systems” AND “pedestri-
ans” OR “vulnerable road users” for 1948 to March 1, 2011.
Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms were not available for
anyofthesearchterms.Abstractswereevaluatedagainstcriteria
as follows.
Inclusion criteria.
•English language;
Real-world studies or computer modeling or laboratory
testing results from:
•Research on bull bars and impact on safety of vulnerable road
users published as independent studies; or
•Research from traffic safety conference proceedings; or
•Research within traffic safety reports; or
•Research supporting reviews of current regulations.
Exclusion criteria.
•Textbooks
•Non-research papers
Do
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
H
I
N
A
R
I
]
a
t
2
3
:
5
2
1
2
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
88 DESAPRIYA ET AL.
•Patents
•Citations
Fullarticleswereretrievedforincludedabstracts,andarticles
were examined to confirm satisfaction of inclusion standards.
All literature searches were supplemented with manual screen-
ing of bibliographies in publications accepted for inclusion into
the evidence base. The selection and results flowchart is pre-
sented in the Appendix.
RESULTS
As seen in the Appendix, neither the MEDLINE nor
Cochrane database of systematic review search returned any
entries on bull bars and pedestrian crashes.
The TRID search returned 19 research articles, 9 of which
were included. Google Scholar provided 110 articles, which,
after excluding patents and citations, yielded 21 articles. Seven
ofthearticlesfromTRIDwerealsofoundintheGoogleScholar
search, resulting in 23 unique articles being included in this
review.
Studiesonbullbarswerecategorizedintoreal-worldstudies,
computer modeling studies, and laboratory testing, as described
in the following subsections.
Real-World Studies
Real-worldstudiesrepresentedthelargestcategoryofliterature.
These 12 papers were mainly from Australia (10 papers). There
was also one paper from Ireland and one from The Netherlands.
Computer Modeling
Three studies using computer modeling were included in this
review, all from Australia.
Laboratory Testing
Eight of the included studies utilized laboratory testing to study
the effects of bull bars and vulnerable road users. Four papers
were from work done in Australia, 2 from Britain, 1 from Bel-
gium, and 1 from Japan.
DISCUSSION
Real-World Studies
In 2006, 11.5 percent of pedestrians struck by large SUVs in the
UnitedStateswerekilled,comparedto4.5percentofpedestrians
struck by passenger cars. Simms and Wood (2006) attributed
the high bumpers and bonnets (hoods) present on these vehicles
as the cause of the observed increase in pedestrian mortality
during collisions, using real-world data and simulation models.
Bull bars are an additional hazard contributing to an already
high injury rate because they reduce the average impact speed
for fatal collisions and thus severe injuries and death rates are
higher (Bowd 1995).
The Federal Office of Road Safety in Australia (1996)
estimated that 12 percent of pedestrian deaths in Australia in
1992 involved vehicles fitted with bull bars. Subsequent work
has suggested that this value may in fact be an underestimate,
due to a large proportion of missing data, raising the possibility
that vehicles fitted with bull bars may have been involved in up
to 20 percent of collisions resulting in road deaths (Bowd 1997;
Federal Office of Road Safety1996). Due to the incompleteness
of bull bar status of vehicles in the Australian national fatality
database, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the effect
of bull bars on pedestrian fatalities in this jurisdiction (Ander-
son et al. 2008). Upon examination of the South Australian
Coroner’s records of pedestrian fatalities between 1991 and
1997, researchers found that bull bars were fitted to 8.8 percent
ofvehiclesinvolvedinfatalpedestriancollisions(Kloedenetal.
2000).
The prevalence of bull bar use in urban areas is significantly
high. A recent survey of vehicles in areas where pedestrian
crashes have occurred showed that 8.6 percent of vehicles in
the region of Adelaide, Australia, were equipped with bull bars.
However, ahigherproportionofvehicles intheoutermetropoli-
tan region were equipped with bull bars compared to those in
the central business district and the inner metropolitan region
(Anderson et al. 2008). A follow-up study determined propor-
tions of vehicle types equipped with bull bars by using video
footage of survey sites. It showed that 45.4 percent of 4-wheel-
drive vehicles (4WDs)/SUVs, 49.8 percent of work utility ve-
hicles, 15.6 percent of vans, 1.5 percent of passenger cars and
derivatives, 28 percent of trucks, and 23.3 percent of buses were
equipped with a bull bar, with alloy bull bars being the most
common (Doecke et al. 2008).
The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL 1996) in Britain
examined crashes involving vehicles equipped with bull bars
and found that there were 2 to 3 additional fatalities and ap-
proximately 40 additional serious injury casualties as a result of
vehicles being fitted with bull bars.
An analysis of Dutch national road statistics showed that
SUVs are significantly more aggressive toward vulnerable road
users compared to other vehicles (Margaritis et al. 2005). One
factorfoundtohaveaninfluenceonaccidentseveritywasfrontal
stiffness, which is increased by bull bars. The large difference
between the stiffness of the bull bar and impact partner in-
creases the deformation of the partner. The authors noted that
bull bars are of no use in road traffic and recommended more re-
stricted regulations on the use of bull bars (Hoogvelt et al. 2004;
Margaritis et al. 2005). If used, bull bars should conform to the
geometry of the vehicle, and sharp edges from additions such
as a fishing rod carrier must be removed because they are also
hazards to pedestrians and are noncompliant with bylaws in
some areas (Staysafe Committee 2006).
Older road users are especially vulnerable to the effects of
bull bars, accounting for up to 45 percent of pedestrian fatalities
andupto70percentofcyclistfatalities.Increasedfrailtyinolder
pedestrians and cyclists often results in increased severity of
injurieswhencomparedtoyoungerroadusers,eveninmoderate
crashes (Oxley et al. 2004). The trend toward aggressive and
large vehicles with rigid bull bars is thus of large consequence
to this population in particular.
Do
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
H
I
N
A
R
I
]
a
t
2
3
:
5
2
1
2
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
BULL BARS AND VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 89
Though a majority of motorists chose to fit these devices
to protect their vehicle and passengers from damage during a
collision, some chose to use bull bars for purposes other than
protection. A survey by Page et al. (1984) indicated that the
3 major reasons given for fitting bull bars to sedans were to
protect against parking collisions, to make the vehicle more
visually attractive, and to allow for more aggressive driving
in peak hours. Bull bars provide motorists with a convenient
location to mount additional accessories to their vehicles, such
asspotlightsandrecoverywinches.Further,thoughdrivershave
the option of fitting “pedestrian-friendly” bull bars in place of
metal varieties for this purpose, a study by Anderson et al.
(2008) demonstrated that the majority of motorists still prefer
steel or alloy models over plastic, even in densely populated
urban areas. The prevalence of these devices in urban areas, in
conjunction with the increased risk of severe injury and death
theyposetovulnerablemotorists,raisesthequestionofwhybull
bars, particularly those made of rigid metal materials, continue
to remain permitted in urban zones where they serve no safety
benefit.
Computer Modeling Studies
Recent computer simulation tests conducted by the University
of Adelaide found that in a test simulating a pedestrian’s head
striking the front of an SUV with a steel bull bar, the head
decelerationsproducedweretypically5timesgreaterthanthose
from a vehicle with no bull bars (Anderson et al. 2009).
Modeling studies have also indicated that bull bars might
have other effects in pedestrian crashes because they alter the
front geometry of the vehicle and therefore alter the kinematics
of the struck pedestrian, either onto the upper surface of the
vehicle or onto the road. The simulation results further showed
that the addition of a bull bar to the front of a vehicle increases
the speed of the head impact with the bonnet (Anderson et al.
2009). The MADYMO simulation showed that a bull bar alters
thetrajectoryoftheheadofstruckpedestriansandconsequently
increasesthedangeroffatalheadinjuries(Andersonetal.2009).
Laboratory Testing Studies
From laboratory testing conducted as early as the 1970s, it was
recognizedthatbullbarsalteredtheprofileofavehiclefrontend,
makingitpotentiallymoreaggressiveinpedestriancollisions.A
number of crash simulation studies have been conducted using
pedestrian dummies and vehicles equipped with and without
bull bars in order to investigate the altered injury mechanisms
and kinematics involved.
Chiam and Tomas (1980) examined the effect of bull
bars on vehicle–pedestrian collision dynamics. The experi-
ments reproduced collisions between an adult male dummy
and cars with and without bull bars and at impact speeds
of 20 km/h. The results showed that impacts with bull bars
result in a higher incidence of knee or ankle fractures and
higher severity head injury in both adults and children. It
was concluded that this is due to higher and more concen-
trated impact points in the case of bull bars (Chiam and Tomas
1980).
Zellmer and Otte (1995) reported on crash tests conducted
in Germany at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt).
They concluded that bull bars strongly increase the risk of in-
jury and injury severity in vehicle crash with pedestrians or
cyclists (Zellmer and Otte 1995). The study further stated that
injury risk for a child in an impact with a vehicle fitted with
a bull bar at 20 km/h is similar to an impact with an off-road
vehicle traveling at 30 km/h and a regular passenger car travel-
ing at 40 km/h. It was also concluded that hip and lower limb
fracture risk for an adult impacting a bull bar at 25 km/h is
similar to impacting a car bonnet at 40 km/h (Zellmer and Otte
1995).
Mizuno et al. (2001) conducted child pedestrian headform
impact tests and found that the head injury criteria are higher
when struck by an SUV fitted with steel bull bars. The study
went on to state that the geometrical incompatibility (e.g., the
steel bull bars, the higher bonnet height) of SUVs is the major
cause of a higher mortality rate (Mizuno et al. 2001).
Testing using impact test procedures developed to assess the
safety of cars in impacts with pedestrians has shown that, in
general, vehicles equipped with bull bars are more likely to
cause injuries to pedestrians, especially child pedestrians, than
vehicles not fitted with bull bars (Shield 1999; Zellmer and Otte
1995).Full-scalecrashtestinghasproventhatimpactkinematics
are significantly changed by the addition of a bull bar (Reilly-
Jones and Griffiths 1996).
Andersonetal.(2006a)examinedtheperformanceofvarious
bull bars in pedestrian impact tests and found that steel and
aluminum bull bars can produce extremely high impact loads
which, in the case of pedestrian contact, can cause high levels
of morbidity and mortality. Their research on the impact of bull
bar material showed that steel poses the most significant risks
to pedestrians in the event of a collision. Bull bars constructed
of lighter metals (e.g., aluminum or alloy) performed better but
were still a dangerous addition to the vehicle. Polymer bull bars
weresuggestedtobeanacceptablewaytoprotectthefrontofthe
vehicle without causing increased risk of injury to pedestrians
(Anderson et al. 2006b). In a later observational study of bull
bars atpedestrian crash sites,itwas found that metallic bullbars
were the most common of all bull bar types (Anderson et al.
2008).Itwassuggestedthatmorerigoroustestingprotocolsand
a bull bar rating system should be implemented for regulators
(Anderson et al. 2006b; McLean 2005).
Current Regulations and Recommendations
European, Japanese, and Korean carmakers committed in 2001
to stop installing “rigid” bull bars on new cars beginning in
2002 (European Union Committee 2007). The vehicle safety
regulations introduced in Europe and Japan in 2005 required all
new vehicle models to comply with pedestrian safety standards
(McLean 2005). These regulations are expected to lead to safer
bull bars that are designed with more pedestrian-friendly mate-
rials.Morerecently,theWorkingGrouponPassiveSafetyunder
Do
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
H
I
N
A
R
I
]
a
t
2
3
:
5
2
1
2
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
90 DESAPRIYA ET AL.
the UNECE drafted a Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on
pedestrian protection (UNECE 2009).
ARegulationImpactStatement(RIS)forpedestriansafetyin
Australia reviewed the evidence for an intervention to improve
the pedestrian safety performance of new Australian vehicles.
It was recommended that a mandatory standard, known as an
Australian Design Rule (ADR), be adopted based on the GTR
on pedestrian protection (Vehicle Safety Standards Branch, De-
partment of Infrastructure and Transport 2011). Currently there
are no ADRs in Australia related to the protection of vulnerable
road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. It was
acknowledged that the fitting of extra equipment, including bull
barsand/orvehiclefrontalprotectionsystems(VFPS),isalmost
exclusively an aftermarket activity. It was also acknowledged
that VFPS manufacturers could be affected by the adoption of
an ADR relating to pedestrian safety, so VFPS were considered
as part of the RIS analysis. ADR 42/04 specifies design and
construction requirements such that “any additional objects or
fittings must be technically essential” (Vehicle Safety Standards
Branch, Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2011, p. 3).
Whether VFPS are technically essential depends primarily on
where the vehicle is being used. However, the ADR can only
mandate requirements to apply to all vehicles in Australia. To
address this issue, it was proposed that the fitting of a VFPS
could be considered in terms of the primary use of the base
vehicle. For instance, adjustments for VFPS could be limited
to vehicles designed for off-road use (Vehicle Safety Standards
Branch, Department of Infrastructure and Transport 2011). De-
spite the RIS recommendations, a recent statement released by
the Australian government indicates that a ban on bull bars is
not a consideration (Noller 2011).
Study Limitations
The most obvious limitation of this review is the lack of sci-
entifically sound peer-reviewed literature on the impact of bull
bars on vulnerable road users, fatal injuries, injury patterns, and
injury mechanisms. This greatly limits the understanding of ac-
tual traffic safety problems and solutions concerning bull bars,
both among the traffic safety research community and policy
makers. In general, clinical understanding of bull bar impact
injuries is poor due to lack of scientifically sound real-world
studies. Similarly, there are no scientifically sound real-world
studiesexaminingthebenefitofbullbarsforpreventinganimal-
relatedcrashes.Further,thereisalackofresearchexaminingthe
impactofbullbarsonpedal-cyclistandmotorcyclistroadsafety.
Though there is little doubt that bull bars represent a hazard to
cyclist and motorcyclist safety, the underrepresentation of these
vulnerable road users in the literature makes it difficult to assess
the influence these devices have on collision outcomes. This
population of road users represents an important component of
manytrafficsystems,andthedangersthatbullbarsposetothese
vulnerable road users is a topic that needs to be addressed in
future studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the evidence base is limited to a relatively small
numberofstudies,thedataconclusivelypointtothecontribution
ofbullbarstounnecessarylevelsofhumantraumaandfatalities.
Presently, there is active discouragement toward the manu-
facture of rigid and aggressive bull bars. Recently, the European
Council Working Group and European Parliamentary Commit-
tee reached consensus on a proposal that will effectively outlaw
aggressive metal bull bars while permitting the use of compliant
(non-rigid) systems that offer broadly equivalent levels of pro-
tection to the vehicle to which they are fitted (European Union
Committee 2007). As noted above (Anderson et al. 2006b), re-
designing bull bars with softer materials such as plastic would
make them more pedestrian friendly.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Working Party on the Protection of Pedestrians recommended
that the use of bull bars on roads be banned, notably by encour-
aging both car manufacturers and component manufacturers to
stop selling them as vehicle accessories (UNECE 2002). GTR
No. 9 introduced performance criteria to improve the construc-
tion of certain parts of the front of vehicles and thereby reduce
the levels of injury sustained by pedestrians involved in frontal
impacts with motor vehicles. The GTR outlines requirements
such as the height and lateral limits of the frontal structures of
a vehicle, including any attachments to the structure (UNECE
2008). Furthermore, the European Commission recently intro-
ducedaconsolidatedregulationontheconstructionandfunction
of motor vehicles and frontal protection systems in an effort to
reducepedestrianinjuries(EuropeanParliamentCouncil2009).
This review shows that rigid bull bars, particularly those
made of metal, increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable
road users. Our findings highlight the urgent need for current
traffic safety policies to reflect the safety concerns surrounding
the use of such bull bars.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank our research team member Jennifer Campbell of
theFacultyofMedicineUniversityofTorontoforherassistance
with earlier version of this manuscript. We also acknowledge
the financial support of the AUTO21 Networks of Centers of
Excellence of Canada.
REFERENCES
Anderson RWG, Doecke S, Van Den Berg AL, Searson DJ, Ponte G.
The Effect of Bull Bars on Head Impact Kinematics in Pedestrian
Crashes. Adelaide, South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety
Research; 2009. Report CASR059.
Anderson RWG, Ponte G, Doecke S.A Survey of Bull Bar Prevalence
at Pedestrian Crash Sites in Adelaide, South Australia. Adelaide,
South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2008.
Anderson RWG, Van Den Berg AL, Ponte G, Streeter LD.Testing
the Pedestrian Safety of Bull Bars: Methods and Results. Adelaide,
South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2006a.
Do
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
H
I
N
A
R
I
]
a
t
2
3
:
5
2
1
2
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
BULL BARS AND VULNERABLE ROAD USERS 91
Anderson RWG, van den Berg AL, Ponte G, Streeter LD, McLean
AJ.Performance of Bull Bars in Pedestrian Impact Tests. Ade-
laide, South Australia: Centre for Automotive Safety Research;
2006b.
Ashton SJ, MacKay GM. Some characteristics of the population who
suffer trauma as pedestrians when hit by cars and some resulting
implications. In:Proceedings of the 4th IRCOBI Conference. Goth-
ernburg. 1979.
Attewell R, Glase K.Bull Bars and Road Trauma. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Transport Safety Bureau; 2004. Report CR200.
Bowd D. Impact of bull-bars on pedestrians. In:Proceedings from
the Inaugural International Conference on Accident Investiga-
tion, Reconstruction, Interpretation and the Law. October 16–19,
1995:389–400. IRRD 868526.
Bowd D. Trends in fatalities associated with bull-bars,1990–1992. Pa-
perpresentedat:InternationalConferenceonAccidentInvestigation,
Reconstruction, Interpretation and the Law; September 22, 1997;
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
ChiamHK,TomasJA.InvestigationoftheEffectofBullBarsonVehicle
Pedestrian Collision Dynamics. Canberra: Department of Transport
Australia, Office of Road Safety; 1980. Report CR13.
Crandall JR, Bhalla KS, Madeley NJ. Designing road vehicles for
pedestrian protection.BMJ.2002;324:1145–1148.
Doecke SD, Anderson RWG, Ponte G. Bull bar prevalence among
types of vehicles in metropolitan Adelaide. In:Proceedings 2008
Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Confer-
ence. Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions; 2008:43–51.
European Parliament Council. Regulation (EC) No. 78/2009 of the Eu-
ropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof14January2009onthetype-
approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestri-
ansandothervulnerableroadusers,amendingDirective2007/46/EC
and repealing Directives 2003/102/E and 2005/66/EC. 2009.
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CELEX:32009R0078:en:NOT. Accessed December 27, 2010.
European Union Committee. Correspondence with Ministers—March
2005 to January 2006 (forty-fifth report of session 2005–06),
HL 243; 2007 Jan 23, section 90. 2007. Available at: http://
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/
243/24394.htm. Accessed December 27, 2010.
Federal Office of Road Safety.Pedestrian Fatalities in Aus-
tralia. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety;
1996. Monograph 7. Available at: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/
roads/safety/publications/1996/pdf/Ped Crash 2.pdf. Accessed De-
cember 27, 2010.
Fildes BN, Lee SJ, Lane JC.Vehicle Mass, Size and Safety. Melbourne,
Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 1993. Re-
port No: CR133.
Higgins T. Why do motorists fit bull bars? In: Griffiths MJ, Jones
CJ, eds.Proceedings of Bull Bar Safety Workshop. Sydney, Aus-
tralia: Road Safety Bureau, Roads and Traffic Authority NSW;
1994;68–72.
HoogveltRBH,deVriesYWR,MargaritesD,etal.Impactofsportutil-
ityvehiclesontrafficsafetyandtheenvironmentinTheNetherlands.
The report of TNO Automotive, report Delft, Netherlands.
Kahane CJ. Lives saved by the federal motor vehicle safety stan-
dards and other vehicle safety technologies,1960–2002: passenger
cars and light trucks: with a review of 19 FMVSS and their ef-
fectiveness in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes. 2004. DOT
HS 809 833, 88. Available at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/
regrev/evaluate/pdf/809833Part1.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2011.
Kloeden CK, White K, McLean AJ.Characteristics of Fatal and Se-
vere Pedestrian Accidents in South Australia. Adelaide, Australia:
Transport SA; 2000.
Kratzke S.Regulatory History of Automatic Crash Protection in
FMVSS 208. Warrendale, Pa; 1995. SAE Paper No. 950865.
Margaritis D, Hoogvelt B, de Vries Y, Klootwijk C, Mooi H.An
Analysis of Sport Utility Vehicles Involved in Road Accidents. 2005.
TNO Automotive report, Delft, Netherlands. Paper No. 05-0370.
McLean AJ.Vehicle Design for Pedestrian Protection. Adelaide, Aus-
tralia: University of Adelaide, Centre for Automotive Safety Re-
search; 2005. CASR037.
Mizuno K, Yonezawa H, Kajzer J.Pedestrian Headform Impact Tests
for Various Vehicle Locations. Hokoku, Japan: Traffic Safety and
Nuisance Research Institute; 2001.
NollerM.Governmentsaysitwillnotbanbullbars.ToowoombaNews.
February 28, 2011. Available at: http://www.australianews.com.au/
australia/queensland/darlingdowns/toowoomba/story?cityid=9901
bdf5-f527-4b68-852d-149172949fd4&storyid=9d7c4a96-cbff-
43e1-a3e4-15d7b335158f. Accessed March 27, 2011.
Oxley J, Corben B, Fildes B, O’Hare M, Rothengatter T.Older Vul-
nerable Road Users—Measures to Reduce Crash and Injury Risk.
Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Cen-
tre; 2004. Report No. 218.
Page G, Hird T, Tomas J.Safety of Vehicle Structures. Adelaide, Aus-
tralia: The SAE Australasia; 1984.
PedenM,ScurfieldR,SleetD,etal.WorldReportonRoadTrafficInjury
Prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
Reilly-JonesC,GriffithsM.Theeffectsofbullbarsonpedestrianinjury
mechanisms and kinematics. International Technical Conference on
the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. NHTSA. Report DOTHS 808 465.
1996:1782–1787.
Shield J. Bull bars.Inj Prev.1999;5:80–81.
Simms CK, Wood DP. Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility
vehicles—a comparative analytical study.Proc Inst Mech Eng D
Auto Eng.2006;220–229.
StaysafeCommittee.InquiryIntoRoadSafetyAdministrationandMid-
TermReviewoftheNewSouthWalesRoadSafety2010Strategy.New
South Wales, Australia; 2006. Report No. 22/53.
Transport Research Laboratory.A Study of Accidents Involving Bull
Bar Equipped Vehicles. Berks, UK; 1996. Report No. 243.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Global Techni-
cal Regulation No. 9, Addendum. 2008. Available at: http://live.
unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/
wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a9e.pdf. Accessed January 21,
2011.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Paper presented
at: UNECE-Inland Transport Committee. Working Party on Road
Traffic Safety, Thirty-eighth session; March 19–22, 2002; Brussels,
Belgium.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Regulation
on Pedestrian Safety. Copenhagen, Denmark; 2009. Document
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/10.
Vehicle Safety Standards Branch, Department of Infrastructure and
Transport.Regulation Impact Statement for Pedestrian Safety. Brus-
sels,Belgium:AustralianGovernment,DepartmentofInfrastructure
and Transport; 2011. Report No. DIT VSS 01/2011.
Zellmer H, Otte D. Injury risk of vulnerable road users in case of acci-
dents with crash bar equipped off-road vehicles. Paper presented at:
International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact;
1995; Canberra, Australia.
Do
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
H
I
N
A
R
I
]
a
t
2
3
:
5
2
1
2
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
USA NYC LA CHI SF DEN CAL TEX DONATEHOMESTREETFILMS
Podcast /Transit /Bike/Ped /Smart Growth
T
Outlawed Abroad, Killer “Bull Bars” Are the Hot
Fashion Accessory for Police Departments
By Angie Schmitt Aug 2, 2018 26
General Motors pitches its product to police departments with aftermarket "bull bars," a feature thatmakes them look more intimidating and militaristic -- and kills pedestrians. Photo: GeneralMotors/Twitter
his May, a police of�cer struck and killed James P. Kelley in St. Charles County, Missouri.
In photos of the crash scene, you can see a broken “bull bar” falling from the deformed
front end of the cruiser.
These accessories �xed to the front of cars, trucks, and SUVs are trendy with law
enforcement. PoliceOne, which markets to cops and �rst responders, says bull bars are designed
to “reduce the damage to patrol vehicles in the case of minor collisions.” A video produced
by Go Industries, which sells equipment to police departments, demonstrates how bull bars can
push other vehicles off the road, either in a high-speed chase or to clear an immobilized car.
Some rural police agencies use them to reduce the damage from animals they strike.
But bull bars, or “push bars,” as they’re sometimes called, can be deadly in a collision with a
pedestrian or cyclist.
A review of studies on the safety effect of bull bars published in the journal Traf�c Injury
Prevention concluded that they “signi�cantly alter the collision dynamics of vehicles, resulting
in an increased risk of pedestrian injury and mortality in crashes.”
A 1998 study in Australia — where bull bars are much more common and seen as a way to reduce
risk in collisions with kangaroos — found they exerted 10 to 15 times more force on a child’s
head than an unmodi�ed front end.
They can also put drivers and passengers in danger. Front ends are designed with “crumple
zones” that absorb the impact of crashes to protect people inside the vehicle. Stiff metal bull
bars inhibit that effect and concentrate force in a smaller area, with potentially deadly
consequences.
Bull bars continue to be unregulated in the U.S., where, as Keith Bradsher documented in his
book High and Mighty, they are mainly a fashion accessory to convey a sense of aggression. But
other countries have taken action.
In 2010, the British government banned the sale of most models, citing safety concerns. An
earlier study from the British Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) estimated that bull bars cost
dozens of people their lives each year in the UK.
Meanwhile, American auto makers are marketing vehicles replete with bull bars to taxpayer-
funded agencies whose ostensible mission is to keep people safe.
Researchers have yet to produce comprehensive studies of crashes involving police vehicles with
bull bars. But police of�cers are frequently involved in crashes. And if police vehicles are
out�tted with bull bars, they are more likely to in�ict severe injuries or kill people.
A quick Google News search turned up seven pedestrian fatalities involving police cruisers in
General Motors Fleet
@GMFleet
Our diverse lineup of police vehicles can help you meet the
demands of your police fleet's tasks confidently.
cards.twitter.com/cards/18ce54h7…
2,079 9:29 AM - Dec 15, 2017
530 people are talking about this
GM Fleet - Police Vehicles That Serve With Distinction
www.gmfleet.com
May, June, and July. While it’s seldom clear from the coverage whether the vehicles had bull
bars, photographs from the scene often show police cruisers out�tted with them. The vehicle
identi�ed as the cruiser that struck James Kelley clearly had a bull bar.
The front of this police cruiser involved in the killing of James Kelley was out�tted with a bull bar. Photo: KMOV
In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the local police department recently had to defend its use of bull
bars after a resident complained about safety and police militarization. The Argus Leader
reported that the department had spent $22,000 to put them on 45 police cars.
Barry Wellar, a retired University of Ottawa professor and expert witness on traf�c collisions,
told the paper they are dangerous. “They’re head high for a kid. They can take the bull bar right
in the head,” he said. “And they’re absolutely killer for cyclists or pedestrians. It’s serious
trouble.”
But Police Captain Rich Miller told the City Council that the bars allow more sirens and lights to
be mounted on the front of the car. He presented no evidence to suggest that the extra �ash
outweighs the public safety risk created by bull bars, and that was that — the department didn’t
change a thing.
Filed Under: Pedestrian safety, Promoted
Subscribe to our
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST
Enter Email SIGN UP
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:13 AM
To:HRC; Jonsen, Robert
Cc:James Aram; Council, City
Subject:Citizens Police Data Project
https://data.cpdp.co/data/b0ayyP/citizens‐police‐data‐project
The immediate take away on this project was the strong resistance by the Chicago police department and it union
representatives in disclosing the data to the general public... a fierce legal battles ensured.... but the public prevailed!
This is a subject even to this day, the Palo Alto Police Department continues to avoid or engage in any meaningful
discussions. Never, has the Palo Alto Police Department published i.e. FaceBook account detailing the Independent
police auditors report.
It remains obscure, difficult to access, and with no real meaningful avenue to provide feedback or to ask questions. We
believe the lack of transparency in this regard, continues to be a deliberate act similar to the resistance of the Chicago
Police Department.
Mark Petersen‐Perez
Sent from my iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2019 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal
Subject:clarifying some points from last week's Council meeting concerning the Citywide Tunnel option
Attachments:20190313-PaloAlto_CAP_mtg_Tunnel Alternative.pdf
As a CAP member, I have had the opportunity to participate in all of Aecom’s presentations of different grade crossing
options. I have not observed any bias on their part either towards or against any one alternative. Attached to this email
is a portion of the consultants’ presentation to the March 13 CAP meeting about the Citywide Tunnel alternative. The
full presentation can be found at https://pagradesep.com/wp‐content/uploads/2019/03/20190313‐
PaloAlto_CAP_mtg_v4_Optimized.pdf
While I am not entirely happy with their presentations at the various community meetings of the different alternatives, I
believe that the videos provide the best way for non‐technical people to understand the essence of each alternative,
and therefore to bring out the benefits and issues. (I believe that the videos should have been shown before, not after
the plan and elevation drawings, which are really meaningful only to engineers and those with the technical skills to
properly understand these drawings.)
The reason that the Citywide Tunnel requires property takings along Alma Street and the closure of Alma Street during
construction is that the tunnel design cannot fit within the Caltrain right of way. This design includes the diameter of
each tunnel bore plus a required spacing between bores. Attached are two slides from the March 13 CAP meeting
presentation that illustrate this point quite clearly. Thus, there is no way to somehow redesign the tunnel alternative to
avoid building part of the structure under Alma Street. This design is not an attempt by the engineers to present a
design that has such negatives that this design alternative is rejected out of hand.
The tunnel design requires construction of facilities along the length of the tunnel for ventilation shafts (for fire safety),
for pumping stations, and probably for staircases for emergency evacuation in case of fire. Those structures must be
built east of the tunnel, and may require property takings.
Alma Street must be closed during construction due to the alignment of the shoofly tracks.
The only alternative to building part of the structure under Alma Street is to move the centerline of the entire structure
significantly to the west. In this case, the tunnel structure would include construction under the back yards and possibly
the houses of all the properties adjacent to the west side of the right of way.
Phil Burton
(650) 766 9970
Citywide Tunnel
49
To San Francisco To San Jose
Tunnel Example Section – Twin Bore Tunnel
Tunnel Example Section – North Portal Launch Pit (looking North)
Tunnel Example Section – South Portal Launch Pit (Looking North)
Tunnel Example Section – South Portal Subway Box (Looking North)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:59 AM
To:John Guislin
Cc:Council, City; editor@paweekly.com; Gennady Sheyner
Subject:Re: Day of reckoning for traffic problem deniers and avoiders
John‐
You apparently have a short attention span. In front of your house on Middlefield is the only existing North PA road diet
and one that I personally drove from the council standpoint. In fact you, John, at a CC meeting personally thanked and
praised me for accomplishing that, which took two years. Two years of observation, planning and a trail period before it
was made permanent. Reports now indicate the road is far safer as well.
As to current traffic issues, you know that we have not had a stable transportation staff for sometime. Also, many of our
traffic issues result from problems that exist in other jurisdictions.
For example, construction nearby on Rt 101 added to the congestion and is now nearly completed.
Let’s arrange an in person
meeting to discuss this. I don’t recall hearing from
you by phone or text in several months.
Perhaps we should meet w Atherton staff to ascertain their plans to reduce congestion. We can assuredly learn from
each other.
Best wishes,
Liz
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2019, at 12:45 PM, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> wrote:
Study: Atherton traffic at 'saturation level'
How is it that Atherton can reach a conclusion that their roads have reached their capacity to handle
traffic and is looking for solutions while Palo Alto leadership pays lip service to addressing traffic issues
but keeps supporting continued development? Even with our state‐leading jobs/housing ratio, we have
no plans to address our traffic woes. Atherton is at least looking at the problems head‐on.
"We are at saturation level in the town of Atherton," she said. "There is no more
capacity to take on any more demand."
Shruti Shrivastava, the transportation project manager.
I believe a day of reckoning is not far away and our council members will be shamed for not making any
serious efforts to address both traffic safety and traffic congestion. Chief among those to be held
accountable will be Council Member Liz Kniss who famously denied we had a traffic problem, then half‐
2
heartedly apologized, called a special town hall to gather resident input and then has done NOTHING for
more than 6 months.
While Atherton considers dramatic action...
"Personally, I'd like to make a road diet on El Camino," said council member Elizabeth
Lewis.
...Palo Alto city government buries its head in the sand. It is time for new leaders who are up‐to the
difficult challenges we face.
John Guislin
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2019/04/24/study‐atherton‐traffic‐at‐saturation‐level
Docusign Envelope ID:DCF50868-13954829-SA7A-CECD3A88195D
9 OFFIC ~OF THE CITY »*RARERr
250 Hamilton Avenue,7th FloorPALOPaloAlto.CA 94301
ALTO
April 4,2019
l":;:1 APR I2 P z 25
Kimberly D.Bose,Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
888 First Street,N.E.
Washington,D.C.20426
Re:City of Palo Alto's Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared
for the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project (No.2299-082)and La Grange Hydroelectric
Project (No.14581-002)
Dear Secretary Bose:
The City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)submits the following comments regarding the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower Licenses for the Don Pedro and La Grange
Hydroelectric Projects (Draft EIS).
Palo Alto purchases water from the San Francisco Regional Water System (System)that is
owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco.Palo Alto depends on Tuolumne
River water supplied though the System for all of its potable water supply to serve Palo Alto's
20,000 customer accounts,including 17,000 residential customers and two hospitals.
The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)represents Palo Alto in
contractual,financial,and water supply planning matters with the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC).Both BAWSCA and the SFPUC submitted comment letters on the Draft
EIS.
Palo Alto appreciates FERC's efforts in the Draft EIS to properly balance environmental,
agriculture,municipal,and industrial beneficial uses of water.Palo Alto requests that FERC's
analysis in the Final EIS continue to evaluate how potential additional flow requirements will
impact the Bay Area's water supply,economy,and environment.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
[Peeeatened btc
E/SdrA /»
N%IaN
City Manager
CityofpaloAlto.org
punted wrth sov-hosed inks on too"recycted paper processed wrthoet chtonne.
20190412-0013 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/12/2019
Document Content(s)
15215498.tif..........................................................1-1
20190412-0013 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/12/2019
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org>
Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Disappointment in Staff
Attachments:Palo Alto FERC DEIS Comments.pdf
Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members:
I hope everyone’s having a nice Earth Week!
I wanted to share my deep disappointment in the City of Palo Alto’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the licensing of Don Pedro and La Grange Dams on the Tuolumne River (attached). These dams are
downstream of Hetch Hetchy, and are operated by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts. Don Pedro Dam
received its initial license in 1966, prior to adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Endangered Species Act, and other federal legislation aimed at safeguarding our environment. Relicensing only happens
every 50 years, so this is truly a once‐in‐a‐lifetime opportunity to improve how Don Pedro is operated to conform with
modern environmental laws. La Grange Dam was built in 1883, but only now is required to be licensed for the first time.
Licensing of these dams is under the purview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and is happening in
parallel with the State Water Board’s update of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, of which you are intimately
familiar. Back in August, 2018, Council did a wonderful thing in supporting the Bay Delta Plan. The motion, which
passed unanimously, was as follows:
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to support the State Water Resources
Control Board’s Bay Delta Plan to have 40 percent of natural water in the Central Valley to enter the Delta from February
to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives; and send a letter expressing this policy position to Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA ), California State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) , and other stakeholders Staff believes should receive the letter.
It strikes me that FERC is a stakeholder that should have received this information, yet there was nothing about it
included in the City’s letter.
There's a very clear link between the Bay Delta Plan and FERC licensing. The State Water Board, which overseas the Bay
Delta Plan, is mandated to provide a water quality certification (including unimpaired flows) in the FERC licensing
process. In other words, the State Water Board will determine unimpaired flows in the Tuolumne River.
On December 12, 2018, the State Water Board adopted new flow standards of 30‐50% of unimpaired flow in the lower
San Joaquin River Basin, which includes the Tuolumne River, between February and June. Flows would start at
40%. There are additional steps that must be taken before the rivers actually experience these unimpaired flows, but
they are now State policy.
The FERC DEIS was released on February 11, 2019 — two months after the State adopted its new unimpaired flow
standards — yet the DEIS failed to analyze the new flow regime. This wasn’t too big of a shock, given that the FERC
Commissioners were appointed by President Trump, but the lack of analysis is in clear violation of federal policy, and is
being challenged.
I can honestly say that in my 30+ years of environmental advocacy, I have never seen a worse document than the FERC
DEIS, which we responded to in great detail in our comment letter (available upon request). Yet the City's letter states,
2
"Palo Alto appreciates FERC's efforts in the Draft EIS to properly balance environmental, agriculture, municipal, and
industrial beneficial uses of water.” This comment is an embarrassment to our community, which takes great pride in
our environmental leadership. The sentence was actually drafted by BAWSCA and distributed to its member agencies as
part of a recommended form letter to FERC. A dozen other BAWSCA member agencies included the exact same
sentence. So disappointing!
In my opinion, this was a clear case in which staff did a disservice to Council and the Palo Alto community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
peter@tuolumne.org
(415) 882-7252
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Morgan Bell <morgan@yourlocalsecurity.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 2:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Foothill College ranked safest college campus in California [New Report]
Hi City Council,
According to a new report released by the safety experts at Your Local Security, Foothill College not only ranked as the
safest college campus in California, but is also the #3 safest college campus in America. Congratulations!
Our analysts calculated several different factors to determine campus safety, including hate crime, property crime,
violent crime, and violence against women. Thanks to your efforts, Foothill College is leading the nation in ensuring that
students can further their education in a safe and secure environment!
If you’re interested in receiving a custom‐made badge honoring your school’s achievement, please reply back to this
email, or email us at media@yourlocalsecurity.com.
Click here to read the full report.
Access our media kit here, which includes our methodology, citation guidelines, and high resolution images that you can
use.
About Your Local Security: YourLocalSecurity.com—an ADT Authorized Premier Provider—aims to provide the security
tools and information needed to build a safer home environment.
2
Thanks,
Morgan Bell | Communications | Your Local Security
morgan@yourlocalsecurity.com
www.yourlocalsecurity.com
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FYI: “L.A.'s Green New Deal Sustainability pLAn 2019”
http://plan.lamayor.org/?smid=nytcore‐ios‐share
Best, John
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)
SB 50/SB 4 compromise summary
SB 50 will be amended to do all of the below. SB 4 will be held in committee.
Statewide provisions:
• Sensitive communities agreement with housing advocates:
o Include at a minimum those areas: designated high segregation and poverty and low-
resource in TCAC opportunity maps; top 25% Cal EnviroScreen scores; 2019 HUD
qualified census tracts; potentially others
o COGs run process to identify sensitive communities with minimum requirements for
outreach to disadvantaged populations
o Opt in before July 1, 2025 to planning process based on petition with 20% population in
census tract signing and specified outreach requirements
• Changes to ensure offsite affordable housing is actually built: no certificate of occupancy on
market rate without building permit, and has to be near transit and within half mile of original
project site.
• Technical amendments to clarify how density bonus works.
• Commitment to include inclusionary percentages that are worked out with housing advocates
and agreeable to SGF committee.
• Creation of fourplexes by right (regardless of jurisdiction population) in residential areas on
vacant land and allows conversions of existing structure—but no demolition, as follows:
o 75% of exterior walls must be intact and no more than +15% increase square
footage. Also has to abide by all other local regulations (setbacks, lot coverage, FAR,
height, etc).
o Must include SB 35 limitations on eligible parcels.
• Exempt very high fire hazard severity zones.
• Exempt coastal zone in cities with populations less than 50,000.
• Restrict bill to infill parcels in coastal zone regardless of jurisdiction size.
In counties over 600,000 population:
• SB 50 zoning provisions regarding rail, ferry, job rich, and bus stop (as modified below):
o Exempt contributing parcels in legislatively-adopted historic districts in existence as of
2010, and density bonus language going forward
o Bus stops: Shorten headways to 10 minutes during peak times to qualify. Clarify that it’s
each line going in each direction. Must have met the headway standard for the past 5
years.
• SB 50 parking (no parking around rail, 0.5 spaces per unit minimum elsewhere)
In counties 600,000 population or less, modify equitable communities incentive to:
• Grant waiver from density (with minimum of 30 units/acre in urban jurisdictions and 20/units
acre in suburban jurisdictions, as defined in existing law), height limits of zoning on the parcel
plus one story, and floor area ratio of 0.6 times the # of stories for projects within half-mile
around rail/ferry in cities over 50,000
• Continue to work with Senate EQ on identifying a definition of “infill” that doesn’t induce
sprawl.
• Exempt floodplains per SB4
• SB 4 parking applies: no parking minimum within ¼ mile of rail in cities over 100,000, 0.5 spaces
per unit minimum elsewhere
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:07 PM
To:Gabrielle Layton; Pat Burt; Waldfogel, Asher; Hetterly, Jennifer; Greg Schmid (external); Allen Akin;
John Guislin; Mary Gallagher; Norman H. Beamer; Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong
Subject:Fw: [Livable CA Sharing] Attached is text of today’s amendments to SB 50
Attachments:Final SB 50 and SB 4 amendments summary (combined).docx
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Rick Hall <rclistad@gmail.com>
To: LC Sharing <livablecaliforniasharing@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019, 7:59:36 PM PDT
Subject: [Livable CA Sharing] Attached is text of today’s amendments to SB 50
>
>
>
--
To join this group use this link:
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/join-us-for-california/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Livable California Sharing" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
livablecaliforniasharing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/livablecaliforniasharing.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick
--
To join this group use this link:
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/join-us-for-california/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Livable California Sharing" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
livablecaliforniasharing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/livablecaliforniasharing.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2019 4:47 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Cc:Marc Berman
Subject:Mercury News editorial
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/28/editorial-the-alarming-magnitude-of-the-bay-area-housing-
crisis/
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Non-support for Greg Scharff
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elected Council Members:
I do not support any further involvement of Greg Scharff in Palo Alto government affairs. It was clear from his behavior
that he was only interested in "being in charge", and not particularly interested in other, or opposing points-of-view.
For far too many years the same small group of people have dominated Palo Alto politics. It would not be in our best
interests to continue this control of City policies by the few.
Please do not appoint Scharff to any Palo Alto Boards and/or Commissions.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2019 1:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NYTimes editorial re SB 50
“California Has a Housing Crisis. The Answer Is More Housing.
A bill clearing the way for more urban development in the state would help address affordable
housing and climate change.
By The Editorial Board”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/california‐housing.html?smid=nytcore‐ios‐share
Best, John
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:john@kovalfamily.com
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 7:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please oppose SB50
Palo Alto City Council,
I wanted to send a message in opposition to the San Franciscation of the rest of the state. Can you picture when the
whole state looks like SF with the filth and poor living conditions that exists there? If we wanted to live like that, we
would have moved there. WE should not be penalized for that!
Finally, the bill does nothing to address the infrastructure required for such a massive increase in housing
units/population. Where will the water, electricity, sewer treatment and transportation to support this type of
thoughtless growth.
SB50 is an irresponsible piece of legislation being forced upon us by the representatives who don’t care about our needs
and desires.
Sincerely,
John Koval
john@kovalfamily.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Helen Lechner <helen.lechner@me.com>
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2019 4:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Train Tunnel
This seems like the right time to drop the tunnel idea. With an estimated price tag of between
$2.5 billion and $3.8 billion and a requirement to acquire property, it appears to be an
unrealistic solution.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Grade Crossings
Attention Council Members Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka,
I attended last Monday’s discussion on rail grade crossings. I left the meeting as the motion was being put together. I
was hoping that the tunnel option would be taken off the list of options for a final choice. Only later did I read that
members Kou and Tanaka voted to keep the tunnel option alive. Council members Kou and Tanaka, if you know where
Palo Alto is going to get 3 to 4 billion dollars or have some construction ideas, you need to bring them forward. You need
to attend the WG meetings and get and understand the details on why the tunnel option won’t work. Homes would be
taken, Alma would be closed in areas during construction and upon completion Alma would be limited to 2 lanes in a
couple spots. Do you really want this.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
2
Amos Tversky
Open House
This event is primarily for people of other faiths. Seating is limited.
For any questions, please email outreach@mcabayarea.org
1 / 1
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Samina Sundas <saminasundas@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Would you please join me for Ramadan open-house at MCA?
Attachments:Ramadan open-house at MCA.pdf
Hello Palo Alto city council members,
Kindly join me for Ramadan open‐house at MCA on Saturday, May 11th 2019 at 6:30.
MCA Khadijah Hall. 3003 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara, CA 95054.
Please let me know if you are available so I can reserve a table to us?
Thanks,
Samina
650‐387‐1994
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 27, 2019 4:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kou, Lydia; mtb324@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; Binder,
Andrew; Becchetti, Benjamin; Sullivan, David; Brettle, Jessica; Minor, Beth; Joseph Kongtong
Subject:Fwd: "Letter-to-the-Editor" | REBUTTAL to opposition that "SENIORS DESERVE BETTER !"
Who will address the absence of large floor-to-ceiling windows promised the public by downtown Palo Alto Avenidas Senior
Center's published designs
(in local newspapers)? ... or address the vile airborne diseases fostered by the lack of fresh air within the stinky, stuffy building?
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 smells", homeless-persons body odors and their airborne diseases. Where
is the exercise equipment shown in the design plans? Although promoted in their designs, I see no treadmill or rowing machine.
The entire place stinks badly from toxic formaldehyde 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. The community is already
complaining about violent reactions to the horrid stench of glue chosen to hold down the carpeting. It gives people headaches, makes
them nauseous, and congests sinuses. I suspect, from the shoddy workmanship and cheap materials used, that the contractor cut
corners with an atypical or substandard glue. It is the responsibility of the architect or designer, not Avenidas' responsibility, to check
for disparities in the contractor's adherence to environmental and safety rules. It is foolish to expect or ASSume Avenidas to research
or explain failures to the public.
Below find a statement from a Stanford Nurse who was on the Board at Stanford Hospital for procedures and protocol for
patients at the Cancer Center, to keep patients safe/healthy and to promote a tranquil environment free of any
harmful airborne or physical hazards.
"Having worked in nursing @ Stanford Hospital for 30 years, I understand the needs of the elderly
since I have experience in Geriatrics and also in Infectious Disease. I know how important it is to NOT
use carpeting where elderly congregate. It is not only bad for health, it harbors germs. It also is a risk for elderly
to fall or trip. We must be pro-active for our seniors and residents of Palo Alto."
-Sylvia P. Gleason (Stanford nurse for more than 30 years)
Over the past two years, downtown Palo Alto's Lytton Gardens Senior Communities and Webster House Health Care Center have
each replaced much of their carpeting with attractive soft vinyl faux-wood flooring for health, safety, easy of cleaning and maintaining
reasons. Toxic chemicals are used to clean carpets, soap and water clean vinyl flooring.
I am shocked at how toxic and poorly designed Avenidas has recently become.
The front facade was left intact, but the original historical untouched sections of Avenidas is reserved for staff, and the public is
left to "enjoy" the awful rebuild ... As one of Avenidas' founders, I would like to know much money did Avenidas raise
through fundraisers to create this monstrosity?
SENIORS DESERVE BETTER !
2
-Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:deborah berek <dljb@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:31 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City
Cc:Hur, Mark
Subject:Request for Short Term Parking Space/Small Business
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for acting to address the parking shortage in downtown Palo Alto. The establishment of a
multistory parking structure on Sherman Avenue will ultimately provide much‐needed parking for those who
patronize our local businesses.
Unfortunately, during the construction period, the reduced access to parking and increased pedestrian
inconvenience will be a significant hardship for businesses immediately adjacent to the construction. These
conditions will be particularly damaging for small businesses such as Prime Dry Cleaners at 2506 Ash Street.
Even before the construction of the new Visa building at 385 Sherman Avenue, short term parking for safe and
rapid access to Prime Dry Cleaners to drop off or pick up clothes was impossible during the lengthy midday
lunch period. Shoppers and diners left their cars along Ash Street for hours at a time. The new parking
structure construction project will make a challenging situation considerably worse for everyone involved.
Designating two (2) short‐term (ten‐minute) parking spaces along the 2500 block of Ash Street would facilitate
the functioning of the businesses located nearby and protect the people who depend upon their services.
Failing to establish such short term parking spaces will endanger those businesses and the people who will
have to negotiate a hostile parking and pedestrian environment in order to accomplish normal business
errands.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues and your assistance with public safety.
Sincerely,
Deborah Berek
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Michael Herrick <runsitbe@me.com>
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2019 10:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hur, Mark
Subject:Fwd: RPP Program
Dear Council Members,
Further to Mr Hur’s prompt, below, and my lack of faith in reaching out to my multiple‐car owning neighbors to drum up
support for their non‐car‐owning neighbors ahead of their own interests, I write directly to you entreating that you
review the current RPP policies. If I am reading my flyer correctly, the policies allow all car‐owning residents to have one
free pass and they may then also purchase, for $50 each, up do 5 other passes. My wife and I, as tax paying, non‐car‐
owning residents of an apartment in Palo Alto’s first boarding house, must pay $50 to obtain a pass for use at most a
dozen times per year for 3‐5 hours at a time. For our first 3 years here on Emerson Street in Downtown North we have
not had a need to have a pass at the ready. With the arrival of a child in June, and anticipation that we will likely need to
rely on Zipcar and Enterprise more often, we will be purchasing a One‐Year Hangtag to place in our occasional rental
cars so as to avoid the risk of a ticket.
The Palo Alto RPP policy, from the narrow perspective of 2 Emerson St residents, is not family or environmentally
friendly. I encourage you to review the oversight which leaves non‐car owners with no other option than to pay money
to park — quite infrequently — near their residences while car owners park for free, day‐in‐and‐day‐out on the street.
Sincerely
Michael Herrick
235 Emerson St, Apt 1
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Hur, Mark" <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: RPP Program
Date: April 29, 2019 at 2:50:10 PM PDT
To: Michael Herrick <runsitbe@me.com>
Hello Mr. Herrick,
Thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto.
The first resident permit is free as a decal which is affixed to a specific vehicle for the duration of the
program year. Downtown RPP resolution does not allow the first free parking permit to be a hang tag. If
you wish to obtain a hang tag, you must pay an additional fee as mentioned by our permit vendor.
A second option would be to create a resident account and purchase one‐day passes for $5.00 (50 max
per program year). One‐day permits allow you to park any vehicles without tying a permit to a specific
vehicle.
2
I apologize this does not address your concerns, but we must adhere to our policies in place for
consistency. If you would like to pursue changes to the resolution, the staff requires significant resident
support and City Council approval for implementation. We recommend contacting fellow residents for
added support and submit a petition for consideration.
Mark Hur | Operations Lead
Office of Transportation | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2520 |E: Mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a
service request.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michael Herrick <runsitbe@me.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:37 PM
To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RPP Program
Dear Mark,
My wife and I have been living at 235 Emerson St, Apt 1 for more than 3 years. I commute, by bike, to
Stanford’s campus for work and she takes Caltrain into SF using Ford Go Bike to get the rest of the way
to her work.
We do not own a car by choice (and economic necessity) … and to achieve the end goal of what the
NYTimes weekend editorial over the weekend seems to be arguing for when it singled out Palo
Alto/Stanford as ground zero in the struggle to resolve the California housing crisis while also
combatting climate change.
In order not to own a car in California we do occasionally rely on Zipcar and/or 24‐hour Enterprise
rentals booked through the Oak Rd location. We have generally not had a problem with the RPP rules
since when we have a rental we either have found space in our building's shared off street parking or
have not needed to leave the rental on the street for more than 2 hours Mon‐Fri.
This past Friday turned out to be a problem. I picked up a rental at 2:00 Friday afternoon and while I
managed to get the car parked off street before I had to head back to work, for several reasons it would
have been much better to be able to leave it in one of the several empty spots on my block as my
neighbors are all able to do with the one free permit they are allotted per year.
So why am I writing to you? I stopped by the RPP window in City Hall a short while ago and was given
the option only of *purchasing* a hangtag for $50. This does not seem right for people in my and my
wife’s situation. Should not people like us be eligible for one hangtag (perhaps even emblazoned
“RENTAL”), first one free, each year?
Sincerely,
3
Michael
_________
Michael Herrick
Francesca Fontana
235 Emerson St, Apt 1
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Daytime phone: (650) 725‐5006
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:President & CEO, SVCF <president@siliconvalleycf.org>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:40 PM
Subject:You're Invited: RV Briefing and Discussion
Dear City Council Members,
The number of people living in recreational vehicles in Silicon Valley – a visible demonstration of our
regional housing crisis – is on the rise. In response, local cities have been pressured to increase
enforcement of restrictive municipal codes around parking time limits, vehicle size restrictions and
registration violations, while also working to develop action plans focused on outreach, case
management, human services, faith engagement, shelter, and safe parking.
In partnership with Assemblymember Marc Berman (AD-24), SVCF will bring together mayors from
San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to gather input and discuss solutions to individuals and families
living in RVs, trailers and other vehicles. The goals of this briefing and conversation are to:
Learn and understand the scale of the problem,
Identify research needs, particularly around impact of local ordinances, and
Identify local and regional solutions that exist or that we can develop.
This lunch meeting will take place on Friday, May 10, 2019 from 11 a.m. – 2 .p.m., at:
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 300
Mountain View, CA 94040
We hope to see you on May 10. Please RSVP HERE to attend the briefing. If you have any questions,
please contact Megan McQuillan at mmcquillan@siliconvalleycf.org or at 650.930.9885.
Sincerely,
Nicole Taylor
President and CEO
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify me immediately. Thank you.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 28, 2019 8:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FYI: Visualizations of effects of predicted sea level rise resulting from global warming for selected
major global coastal areas
“Sea Level Rise
Predicted Sea Level Rise Impacts on Major Cities from Global Warming Up to 4°C
By: Climate Central
Data from: Climate Central, USGC, Google
https://earthtime.org/m/stories/sea_level_rise
Best, John
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:sharing a link to a TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Hello MAGICAL Palo Alto City Council Members,
I want to share a TEDx presentation I gave a few weeks ago (the link just went live) about Magical Bridge Playground and
our work to give everyone a chance to play. Also, I want to let you know that PBS Newshour spent a day with us filming
a segment about the playground, which will air in 4‐6 weeks. This will shine a national spotlight on our work.
Here is the link to the Tedx Talk: https://youtu.be/oYMnw‐IQdAs
If there are ever opportunities to give you a tour of the playground or get you involved (in any way) with our work,
please do let me know.
With gratitude,
Jill Asher and Team Magical Bridge Foundation
‐‐
Jill Asher
Magical Bridge Foundation
My Tedx Talk about Magical Bridge
p: 650‐520‐8512
e: jill@magicalbridge.org
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kira Ticus <kticus@ecoact.org>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mesterhazy, Rosie
Subject:Walk Smart Pedestrian Safety Training at Addison Elementary
Hello,
I'd like to invite members of the City of Palo Alto City Council to join the Addison Elementary 2nd Graders on a
Walk Around the Block ‐ a comprehensive pedestrian safety training lead by Ecology Action's Walk Smart
Program. Walk Smart has partnered with the City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Program to bring this
innovative program to Addison Elementary this spring.
The trainings are scheduled for Friday, May 17th. As I believe this email will become part of the public record, I
prefer not to share details of the event publicly; however, I'd be happy to share our schedule with any
interested council members. During the training, students will head out to the streets surrounding the school
to practice being a safe pedestrian. The training includes lessons on how to cross the street safely, being
careful around driveways, and communicating with other road users. We'd love to have City Council members
join us to observe the program in action.
Please let me know if anyone is available to attend so that I can communicate with the school. And please
don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Best,
Kira
Kira Ticus | Senior Program Specialist
EcologyAction | EcoAct.org
Direct (831) 515-1338
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:39 PM
To:Yang, Albert
Cc:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City
Subject:RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Dear Mr. Yang,
Thank you for responding.
Since everything I have requested—the Council-passed text of Mr. DuBois’s Motion, the Council-
passed text of Ms. Kou’s Amendment to his Motion, the Council-passed text of Mr. Fine’s Amendment
to Mr. Dubois’s Motion, the Council-passed Resolution and Amendments to the Wireless Ordinance,
and the Staff Report—was finalized at the latest before the end of the evening on April 15th, I trust
the City Clerk will be providing me with copies of these materials today.
As I said in my original email to you, we are simply trying to confirm that we know exactly what
Council’s decisions were on April 15th.
Thank you, as always, for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:10 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Ms. Fleming,
I referred your email to the City Clerk’s office as they are responsible for managing all of the items you requested. I will
follow up with them on your requests.
Sincerely,
Albert S. Yang | Deputy City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org
2
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not
use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error,
please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:07 PM
To: Yang, Albert
Cc: Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; 'Tom DuBois'; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Dear Mr. Yang,
I haven’t heard from you, so I am writing now to make certain that you received the email I sent you
on Monday.
I trust you will let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:24 AM
To: 'Yang, Albert' <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: 'Clerk, City' <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Dear Mr. Yang,
I would appreciate it if you would please:
1. Give me a copy of the Resolution and amended Wireless Ordinance that Council approved on
April 15, 2019.
I have, of course, a copy of the Resolution and amended Ordinance as they appeared in the
electronic file that accompanied the Council Agenda for Item 7 on April 15, 2019 and was
released before the meeting. But I want to be certain that it is these specific documents that
Council was considering when they approved the Resolution and amended Ordinance on the
15th. In other words, I want to be certain that I have in hand final documents that include any
changes that may have been made to the documents between when they were released to the
public and when Council approved them.
3
2. Give me a copy of the final Staff Report for this item.
3. Give me a copy of Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed, of Ms. Kou’s Amendment to
Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed, and of Mr. Fine’s Amendment to Mr. DuBois’s
Motion exactly as it was passed.
I would like to confirm that we know exactly what Council’s decisions were.
Thank you for your help. And please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:23 PM
To:Brettle, Jessica
Cc:Yang, Albert; Minor, Beth; Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois,
Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission
Subject:RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Dear Jessica Brettle,
Thank you for responding. I appreciate your help.
I look forward to reading the materials you have sent, and perhaps asking you a question or two once
I have.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:03 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Hi Jeanne,
I wanted to follow up and clarify that the Resolution being circulated for signature includes changes to a few typos, and
the Ordinance being prepared for second reading is being updated to include the changes presented by Staff at the
meeting.
Once we have both of those documents, we will provide them to you.
Sincerely,
Jessica
Jessica Brettle
Assistant City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2630
Email: Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org
2
From: Brettle, Jessica
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:47 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Hello Jeanne,
I have attached the Action Minutes from the April 15, 2019 City Council meeting, which includes the full set of minutes
for the Wireless item. This are being put in front of the Council for final approval on May 6, 2019.
The final Staff Report on the Wireless Item can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70193
The At‐Places Memo which was attached to the report is located here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65751.73&BlobID=70529
The Resolution and Ordinance as they appear in the Staff Report are the exact documents Council considered at the
meeting. The Resolution is being circulated for signature and we can provide the final version to you once it has been
signed. The amended Ordinance is still being drafted for second reading at a future Council meeting. You should see that
document at a future meeting soon.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions. 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: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 9:24 AM
To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Wireless Resolution, amended Ordinance and Motions
Dear Mr. Yang,
I would appreciate it if you would please:
1. Give me a copy of the Resolution and amended Wireless Ordinance that Council approved on
April 15, 2019.
I have, of course, a copy of the Resolution and amended Ordinance as they appeared in the
electronic file that accompanied the Council Agenda for Item 7 on April 15, 2019 and was
released before the meeting. But I want to be certain that it is these specific documents that
3
Council was considering when they approved the Resolution and amended Ordinance on the
15th. In other words, I want to be certain that I have in hand final documents that include any
changes that may have been made to the documents between when they were released to the
public and when Council approved them.
2. Give me a copy of the final Staff Report for this item.
3. Give me a copy of Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed, of Ms. Kou’s Amendment to
Mr. DuBois’s Motion exactly as it was passed, and of Mr. Fine’s Amendment to Mr. DuBois’s
Motion exactly as it was passed.
I would like to confirm that we know exactly what Council’s decisions were.
Thank you for your help. And please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151