Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190408plCC701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/08/2019 Document dates: 03/20/2019 – 03/27/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY/SCHOOL COMMITIEE MEMBERS JESSICA BRETILE, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MARCH 21, 2019 2 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2-Approval of February 21, 2019 Meeting Minutes Staff recommends the City/School Committee incorporate the following changes to Agenda Item 9 of the Minutes for the February 21, 2019 City/School Meeting: 9. Update on Key Events: Including the Palo Alto 125th Anniversary. • Kristen O'Kane's name was corrected to reflect its proper spelling. • Part of the discussion of should be corrected as follows: "Council Member Cormack suggested a Snapchat filter would draw more students. She asked if Palo Alto High School was the oldest existing school." e sica Brettle sistant City Clerk 1of1 · City/School Liaison Committee Special Meeting Draft Minutes Cll Y 0 1- PALO ALTO Special Meeting February 21, 2019 Chairperson Kou called the meeting to order at 8:01 A.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: City of Palo Alto Representatives Alison Cormack, Council Member Lydia Kou, Council Member (Chair) Chantal Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager, Staff Liaison Palo Alto Unified School District Representatives Jennifer DiBrienza, Board President Jim Novak, Chief Business Officer, Staff Liaison Absent: Todd Collins, Board Vice President Oral Communications Rachel Kellerman expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists traveling the Embarcadero Corridor. A few years ago, Staff proposed a plan to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on Embarcadero Road, and residents felt it was a good plan. She requested the City/School Liaison Committee review pedestrian and bicycle safety as an urgent matter and in conjunction with Safe Routes to School and the potential closure of Churchill Avenue. Chair Kou requested the name of the project Staff had proposed. Ms. Kellerman did not have the name of the project. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Minutes for the December 13, 2018 City/School Liaison Committee Meeting. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Chair Kou to approve the minutes as presented. Page 1of12 DRAFT MINUTES Board Member DiBrienza reported Board Member Collins had reviewed the minutes and did not have comments about them. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Collins absent Chair Kou welcomed Superintendent Austin and noted support from the City Manager's Office. Ed Shikada, City Manager, indicated he and Deputy City Manager Rob de Geus were present. 3. Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings: a. CITY: Council Retreat and 2019 Priorities, Study Session With City's State Lobbyist Related to the 2019 Legislative Session, Fire Safety Month Poster Award Recognition to PAUSD Students; and b. PAUSD. Council Member Cormack reported the City Council chose transportation and traffic, fiscal sustainability, climate change, and grade separation as its Priorities for the year. Two Council Members were recused from discussion of grade separation, and the remaining five Council Members would serve as a Committee of the Whole. Board Member DiBrienza asked which Council Members were recused. Council Member Cormack responded Mayor Filseth and Council Member Kniss. A Rail Committee meeting should be scheduled soon. Winners of the annual fire safety poster contest received their awards at a Council meeting. The Council discussion with the City's lobbyist for state legislation focused on housing. Board Member DiBrienza advised that the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education (Board) had directed Staff to pursue funding for Supervisor Simitian's teacher housing project. PAUSD received a matching fund grant from the County of Santa Clara (County) for a Magical Bridge- type playground at El Carmelo Elementary School. The Superintendent had proposed priorities under the title of The Promise. Page 2 of 12 City School Lia ison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Kou stated the City's lobbyist provided a timeline for the Legislature's processing of bills. The City could submit comments on bills at the end of March and the beginning of April. The lobbyist anticipated Legislators would propose additional housing bills without funding mandates. Senate Bill (SB) 50 was a major housing bill. Elements of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA Compact) would support one-size-fits-all bills. The Council con~inued to monitor bills and was attempting to educate the community regarding the CASA Compact. 4. City and District Comments and Announcements. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, announced he would be leaving the City for a new position in Westlake Village. Chantal Gaines would be the new Staff Liaison for the City/School Liaison Committee. Chantal Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager, introduced herself and her responsibilities within the City Manager's Office. Don Austin, Superintendent, reported former State Secretary of Education Jack O'Connell and Capital Advisors Chief Executive Officer Kevin Gordon would provide legislative updates at the next Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education (Board) meeting. A late start bill would likely be re-introduced during the session, and it could have stronger support than the prior bill. A new bill would require on-campus police officers at all schools in California. Ed Shikada, City Manager, requested the number of the bill. Mr. Austin would provide the information at a later time. Board Member DiBrienza asked if the bill proposed police officers at all schools or only secondary schools. Mr. Austin replied all schools. The bill was not realistic but interesting. He would share information learned during the Board meeting at the next City/School Liaison Committee meeting. Chair Kou inquired whether the schools or the cities would have to hire the police officers. Mr. Austin indicated the bill did not contain details. Page 3 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES 5. Grade Separation Update. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, shared the Council's January 22, 2018 action regarding grade separation alternatives. The City had four at-grade crossings that needed a solution. The Rail Committee had narrowed its discussion from 34 discrete ideas to six. The Palo Alto Avenue crossing was removed as an alternative so that a coordinated area plan for the grade crossing, Downtown area, and the Transit Center could be prepared. The Loma Verde undercrossing was removed from an alternative because it was not in proximity to the grade crossing and was a part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan. Staff did not feel a tunnel alternative was realistic given the large construction and funding issues, but the community was interested in further study of a tunnel alternative. A new alternative was a southern tunnel for the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings with freight trains running on the surface of the tunnel and passenger trains running in the tunnel. Closure of the Churchill Road crossing was another alternative under study, which would impact the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and bus service. Alternatives for the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings were a hybrid elevated and depressed track, a trench, and a viaduct or elevated track. The last alternative was a Citywide tunnel. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) would meet in the next few months to discuss the distribution of $700 million among Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto for grade separations. The Council also directed Staff to return with a review of the criteria, timeline, and schedule for alternatives. The tentative date for the review was late March. A Community Advisory Panel met regularly and received public comment. A community meeting regarding the Churchill Road crossing was scheduled for March 27. Council Member Cormack added that a Downtown coordinated area plan could improve Palo Alto's connection with Menlo Park. She inquired about the potential action the Council could take on March 25, prior to the community meeting on March 27. Mr. de Geus advised that the Council would not narrow the alternatives on March 25. Council Member Cormack asked if the Churchill Road closure would be a full closure. Mr. de Geus replied yes. Page 4 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES Council Member Cormack indicated a closure of the Churchill Road crossing to cars only did not appear to be possible. The Council recognized that any modification of the four crossings would impact other crossings and traffic. Board Member DiBrienza requested the rationale for a full closure of the Churchill crossing. Mr. de Geus explained the decision was based on the amount of traffic at the crossing and the ability for traffic to navigate around the area. Closure was considered for each of the crossings. Ed Shikada, City Manager, clarified that any type of grade separation at Churchill Road would require property takings or severely limit access to the area. Chair Kou remarked that the options were limited by the narrowness of Churchill Road. She requested PAUSD Staff notify school populations of the proposal so that they could provide feedback. Mr. Shikada disclosed that coordination and meetings with PAUSD Staff regarding access were increasing as the list of alternatives narrowed. Separately and as part of grade separations, Staff was considering both mid-term and long-~erm options for Embarcadero Road. Chair Kou inquired whether classrooms at Palo Alto High School (PALY) were affected by noise. Don Austin, Superintendent, indicated the noise from trains was relatively significant and disruptive. Chair Kou asked if they could walk through the school to understand the noise impacts. Mr. Austin explained that in Southern California a sound barrier wall was usually installed between a rail line and nearby structures. He had not considered the impact of additional trains. The bus situation was a major concern for PAUSD. Grade separations would change the bus routes. He was interested in working toward a solution with City Staff. He asked if pedestrian and bicycle access at the Churchill Road crossing would cease with the closure of the crossing. Page 5 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. de Geus answered no. A bicycle and pedestrian underpass would be needed at Churchill Road. Mr. Shikada added that the Engineering Division had begun preparing concepts for the undercrossing. The concepts would be presented to the public at a meeting in late March. Mr. de Geus clarified the date as March 27. Board Member DiBrienza requested the location of the March 27 meeting. Mr. de Geus responded Mitchell Park Community Center. Council Member Cormack commented that people were aware of the issues for buses. Many options and opportunities were available to resolve the issues. 6. Cubberley Master Plan Update. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Assistant Director, relayed community concerns regarding housing, administrative management of Cubberley, gym space and shared uses, transportation and circulation, use patterns, wayfinding, and parking. The community also expressed a strong interest in obtaining input from parents of school-age children. The Cubberley Community Fellows would develop some strategies for reaching that demographic. In meeting with the City/School Traffic Committee and the Bicycle Advisory Committee, Staff would solicit input for ways to reach parents. Additional concepts were being prepared to address community concerns. The next community meeting was scheduled for May 9 at Cubberley Community Center. Staff was planning a joint study session between the City Council and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education (Board) members. Robert Golton, Bond Program Manager, reported a draft plan would be presented in May, but it was subject to Council and Board approval. The time horizon for the project was 10, 15 years. The property was very valuable, and PAUSD could not let it go. Staff would return to the Board the following week to affirm PAUSD's priorities for the property. Council Member Cormack advised that the consultant and Staff had incorporated the previous work on the Cubberley Master Plan. An option Page 6 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES with housing was crucial. She inquired whether the meetings were listed in thee-news. Board Member DiBrienza responded yes. Council Member Cormack hoped the e-news article highlighted the option for people to provide feedback without attending the meetings. Board Member DiBrienza indicated the Community Fellows were working on outreach. Council Member Cormack suggested the Council and Board could make some decisions during the joint meeting. Perhaps Staff could present a range of methods to manage the site, and the Council and Board could discuss the transition process. The site should offer programming for teens. Chair Kou remarked that outside space was needed for sports such as cricket, pickleball, and tennis. She inquired about PAUSD's thoughts for its portion of the site. Mr. Golton stated the future school site would be useful for staging construction and activities. Phasing construction on the site was an incredible advantage. Chair Kou noted structures would remain in the southern area · while construction occurred on the northern area. PAUSD should retain the property as replacing it would not be possible. Board Member DiBrienza was surprised by the ability to increase the amount of both square footage and green space. 7. Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP) Update. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, shared the Council's action taken on February 4 regarding the Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP). Staff had proposed a letter with a focused request and a handful of priority items. The Council preferred the letter contain all topics of interest and added almost all items contained in the Staff Report to the letter. Board Member Collins had attended the Council meeting and requested the letter include Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education's Page 7 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES (Board) concerns. The County of Santa Clara (County) Planning Commission had scheduled study sessions on February 28 and March 14. Ed Shikada, City Manager, indicated the Mayor was finalizing the City's letter, and it should be transmitted to the County soon. Don Austin, Superintendent, related the Board's concerns regarding ongoing funding sources based on number of students generated by the development and one-time funding for construction and dedicated land for a community school. Stanford University had not proposed any mitigations for those issues and had not acknowledged any issues that needed mitigations. The Board was working with the County rather than Stanford University. Council Member Cormack advised that she added topics to the letter to demonstrate the deep interconnections among the City, Stanford University, and PAUSD. Every Council Member was ready to include the importance of PAUSD in discussions. Board Member DiBrienza reported the Board sent a letter to the County more than a year ago and passed a resolution about its concerns. The Parent Teacher Association Council (PTAC) had shared the Board's concerns with parents at each school site. Dr. Austin had sent an email about the importance and impacts of the issues the prior week. Consequently, many PAUSD parents were writing to the County and were planning to attend meetings. Chair Kou added that parents were sharing information about the GUP and its impacts on PAUSD. The City may be able to assist with distributing PTAC's petition. Board Member DiBrienza clarified that PTAC had identified many ways that further growth would impact the school community. 8. City School Liaison Committee Format Discussion. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, recommended the City/School Liaison Committee (Committee) begin its meetings at 8:30 a.m. Meetings typically last for 1.5 hours. The Committee's mission or purpose had not been defined. From Staff's perspective, the Committee's purpose was to communicate effectively about opportunities to collaborate and share information. The City Manager and Superintendent were meeting monthly, which would be helpful in defining Agenda Items for the Committee. Page 8 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 DRAFT MINUTES Council Member Cormack felt the Committee had evolved over the past two years because of the collaboration needed for the Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP) and the Cubberley Master Plan. The list of topics in which the City's and Palo Alto Unified School District's (PAUSD) interests overlapped would help the Committee better understand the Committee's mission and purpose. She felt the components of a mission statement would be connections between the City and PAUSD along with City and PAUSD priorities. She had no preference for a start time. She wondered if private schools could be included in meetings. She requested PAUSD enrollment data from 2000 to the present. Board Member DiBrienza agreed that the list of connections would be a good starting point for discussion of a mission statement. She had no preference for a start time. Including private schools was a good idea. Determining a contact person, sharing Committee meeting agendas, and inviting questions and comments could facilitate relationships with private schools in Palo Alto. PAUSD could provide enrollment data to Committee members. She appreciated the changes the Committee had made in the last few years and the City Manager and Superintendent meetings. Chair Kou concurred with inviting private schools to attend meetings. Perhaps the item could be a standing item. Ed Shikada, City Manager, advised that a draft mission statement could be presented to the Council and the PAUSD Board of Education (Board) for approval. Board Member DiBrienza inquired about the existence of a list of connections. Mr. de Geus agreed to provide the list. Council Member Cormack recalled that the list was compiled in an effort to understand financial expenses, but the exercise should be broader than expenses. Chair Kou concurred. Mr. de Geus indicated City Staff drafted the list, but the list should include PAUSD's perspective as well. Page 9 of 12 City School Liaison Committee Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: 02/21/2019 bl ~ PICC I .Ll~U L L/~~I o/ ~ ""Z;/2-1/r'J [ ] _Jlaced Before Meeting [v(Received at Meeting We are committed to impacting learning through powerful teaching, creating space for innovation, and including all students in the pursuit of excellence. Together we promise: • The District shall serve the community of Palo Alto as a source of pride and provider of an excellent education for all students. • Demographics shall not predict the student experience, academic achievement, sense of belonging, inclusion, or post-secondary options. • Competent and thoughtful management of District operations shall build trust and enable schools to positively impact students in safe learning environments. • Creativity, innovation, forward thinking, and sharing of best practices shall energize the District and lead to the next right answers for our profession. High-Quality Teaching & Learning All students are challenged to reach high standards and are provided an experience capable of accelerating learning through pedagogical academic supports, unobstructed access to rigorous courses, and an unwavering belief that our schools can positively impact the trajectory of each child. Equity & Excellence All students shall experience an environment characterized by acceptance, respect, and support to become invested in the pursuit of learning and excellence without fear of threat, humiliation, danger or disregard. Excellence shall become the norm for all regardless of background or demographics. Our schools shall embrace uniqueness, strengths, and challenges with support, understanding, expectations, and encouragement to succeed. Wellness & Safety Create a physical environment that promotes safety through established protocols and procedures, appropriate internal and external security systems, and routine emergency preparations. Provide for the social, emotional, and physical health needs of students and staff and cultivate positive, identity-safe school environments that promote high levels of connection, engagement, and overall well-being throughout the school community Special Education & Inclusion Students with disabilities will be provided with appropriate identification and high-quality programs and services, in the least restrictive appropriate environment, designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for post-secondary opportunities. District Office Operations Align with industry-standard protocols and practices to maintain efficient, well-paced, compliant, and fiscally-responsible management of District operations. Moving the Needle The California School Dashboard is an on line accountability tool that visually illustrates Palo Alto Unified's performance on state and local indicators. The Dashboard is utilized by all public school districts across California and categorizes performance into color bands in order of level: Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red. Performance levels are based on current year results and whether results improved from the prior year. While the overall measures indicate high performance (Blue and Green) for our district, some student subgroups are not experiencing the same levels of success. By executing on each of the key strategies listed in the priority areas, we will move the needle for all under-performing student groups (Red and Orange). PAlO AlTO UNIFIED SCHOOl DISTRICT SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 2019 RECRUITMENT AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT FAIR 10:00am -3:00pm YOU'RE AMAZING! COME WORK WITH US. LOCATION: Peery Family Center, Palo Alto High School 50 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Enter parking lot from Churchill Ave entrance concordia architecture | planning | community engagement OPTION 1 - LOW HOUSING Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 Sa n A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d N e l s o n D r i v e Mon t r o s e A v e concordia architecture | planning | community engagement N 500’ 1000’ Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 1st f l o o r : E 1 2nd: B 1 , B 2 E4 F1F1 F1 H1 A4 A1 A2 B3, B4 C1C2 C3 D4 D1-3 OPTION 1 - LOW HOUSING 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2-4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.A 2.A 2.B 2.A Health & Wellness Center Health, Wellness, and Senior Programs Dance and Martial Arts Studios Outdoor Sports Club Rooms Gym (two shared, two community center only) Community Center Services Cubberley Admin. and Tenant Spaces Rentable/Flexible Spaces Large Flexible Event Space Commercial Kitchen Performing Arts Theatre Lobby/Café Music, Rehearsal, and Accessory Theatre Spaces Visual Arts Visual Arts Classrooms and Media Lab Art Gallery Visual Arts Studios Makerspace/Woodshop Educational Programs Cubberley Childcare and Preschools Primary/Secondary and Enrichment PAUSD Adult Education Greendell Elementary Potential Future PAUSD Uses (Phase 2) Future Middle or High School School District Offices 96,000 16,300 26,400 3,300 50,000 54,000 32,000 12,000 9,000 1,000 24,000 13,000 3,000 8,000 37,000 10,000 3,000 16,000 8,000 100,500 15,500 14,000 36,000 36,000 <155,000 <125,000 30,000 A A1 A2 A3 A4 B B1 B2 B3 B4 C C1 C2 C3 D D1 D2 D3 D4 E E1 E2 E3 E4 F F1 F2 ID MODULE CLUSTER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE # STORIES PHASE Housing PAUSD Staff Housing Housing tower by Gyms Housing above Community Center 32 32 - - # Units H H1 H2 H3 2 - - 2.A - - 28,160 28,160 - - Phase 1 Phase 2.A Phase 2.B Total 240,500 130,160 <125,000 495,660 A4 A3 1100’961’ 407’ 785’ 465 ’ to M i d d l e f i e l d 1st floor: E2, B1 2nd: B1, B2 E3 F2 concordia architecture | planning | community engagement OPTION 2 - MEDIUM HOUSING Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 Sa n A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d N e l s o n D r i v e Mon t r o s e A v e concordia architecture | planning | community engagement N 500’ 1000’ 1st f l o o r : E 1 2nd: B 1 , B 2 E4 F1F1 F1 H1 A4 A4 H2 A1 A2 B3, B4 C1C2 C3 D4 D1-3 OPTION 2 - MED HOUSING ID MODULE CLUSTER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE # STORIES PHASE Housing PAUSD Staff Housing Housing tower by Gyms Housing above Community Center 80 32 48 - # Units H H1 H2 H3 2 4 - 2.A 1 - 70,760 28,160 42,600 - Phase 1 Phase 2.A Phase 2.B Total 283,100 130,160 <125,000 538,260 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2-4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.A 2.A 2.B 2.A Health & Wellness Center Health, Wellness, and Senior Programs Dance and Martial Arts Studios Outdoor Sports Club Rooms Gym (two shared, two community center only) Community Center Services Cubberley Admin. and Tenant Spaces Rentable/Flexible Spaces Large Flexible Event Space Commercial Kitchen Performing Arts Theatre Lobby/Café Music, Rehearsal, and Accessory Theatre Spaces Visual Arts Visual Arts Classrooms and Media Lab Art Gallery Visual Arts Studios Makerspace/Woodshop Educational Programs Cubberley Childcare and Preschools Primary/Secondary and Enrichment PAUSD Adult Education Greendell Elementary Potential Future PAUSD Uses (Phase 2) Future Middle or High School School District Offices 96,000 16,300 26,400 3,300 50,000 54,000 32,000 12,000 9,000 1,000 24,000 13,000 3,000 8,000 37,000 10,000 3,000 16,000 8,000 100,500 15,500 14,000 36,000 36,000 <155,000 <125,000 30,000 A A1 A2 A3 A4 B B1 B2 B3 B4 C C1 C2 C3 D D1 D2 D3 D4 E E1 E2 E3 E4 F F1 F2 Note: assignable square footage areas are pulled from the program document, excluding housing. Geometries in model may differ slightly from these tar- gets. Some of these figures are likely to change in the master plan. A3 Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 1100’961’ 407’ 785’ 465 ’ to M i d d l e f i e l d 1st floor: E2, B1 2nd: B1, B2 E3 F2 concordia architecture | planning | community engagement OPTION 3 - HIGH HOUSING Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 Sa n A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d N e l s o n D r i v e Mon t r o s e A v e concordia architecture | planning | community engagement N 500’ 1000’ Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 E1, E 2 , B 1 , B 2 E4 F1F1 F1 H1 A4 A1 A2 B3, B4 C1C2 C3 D4 D1-3 CONFIDENTIAL Note: assignable square footage areas are pulled from the program document, excluding housing. Geometries in model may differ slightly from these tar- gets. Some of these figures are likely to change in the master plan. ID MODULE CLUSTER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE # STORIES PHASE Housing PAUSD Staff Housing Housing tower by Gyms Housing above Community Center 132 32 48 52 # Units H H1 H2 H3 2 4 2 2.A 1 1 107,530 28,160 42,600 47,370 Phase 1 Phase 2.A Phase 2.B Total 330,470 130,160 <125,000 585,630 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2-4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.A 2.A 2.B 2.A Health & Wellness Center Health, Wellness, and Senior Programs Dance and Martial Arts Studios Outdoor Sports Club Rooms Gym (two shared, two community center only) Community Center Services Cubberley Admin. and Tenant Spaces Rentable/Flexible Spaces Large Flexible Event Space Commercial Kitchen Performing Arts Theatre Lobby/Café Music, Rehearsal, and Accessory Theatre Spaces Visual Arts Visual Arts Classrooms and Media Lab Art Gallery Visual Arts Studios Makerspace/Woodshop Educational Programs Cubberley Childcare and Preschools Primary/Secondary and Enrichment PAUSD Adult Education Greendell Elementary Potential Future PAUSD Uses (Phase 2) Future Middle or High School School District Offices 96,000 16,300 26,400 3,300 50,000 54,000 32,000 12,000 9,000 1,000 24,000 13,000 3,000 8,000 37,000 10,000 3,000 16,000 8,000 100,500 15,500 14,000 36,000 36,000 <155,000 <125,000 30,000 A A1 A2 A3 A4 B B1 B2 B3 B4 C C1 C2 C3 D D1 D2 D3 D4 E E1 E2 E3 E4 F F1 F2 H2 H3 A4 A3 OPTION 3 - HIGH HOUSING 1100’961’ 407’ 785’ 465 ’ to M i d d l e f i e l d E3 F2 concordia architecture | planning | community engagement Cubberley Master Plan Draft 03.20.19 Sa n A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d N e l s o n D r i v e Mon t r o s e A v e N 500’ 1000’ 1st f l o o r : E 1 2nd: B 1 , B 2 E4 F1F1 F1 F3 A3, A4 A4 A1 A2 B3, B4 C1C2 C3 D4 D1-3 1100’961’ 407’ 785’ 465 ’ to M i d d l e f i e l d 1st floor: E2, B1 2nd: B1, B2 E3 F2 PHASE 1 PHASE 2.B PHASE 2.A To: City of Palo Alto CAO Committee From: Debra Figone, MRG Consultant Date: March 19, 2019 MEMO Subject: 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to you materials that will be used during the CAO Committee meeting scheduled for March 25, 2019 at 4:30 pm. I would expect this meeting to take approximately 60-90 minutes. Attached you will find the following: 1) A "working agenda" for the meeting. 2) A process overview, including proposed key elements for each CAO, comments and questions for the Committee, and schedule. 3) Performance areas and indicators of positive traits for each CAO. 4) Draft Council input questions for use during one on one interviews. As we will discuss, Council input is proposed through one on one interviews as opposed to on-line surveys. Additional materials may be presented during the meeting. The proposed schedule completes the 2019 CAO performance evaluations by early September. Closed session compensation decisions would follow in October with open session adoption by early December. A 6-month check-in approach is proposed for the City Manager, as will be discussed when we meet. If you have any questions before March 25, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to once again working with the City Council and the CAO's on this year's process. Purpose: City of Palo Alto 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process Working Agenda CAO Committee -March 25, 2019 • Review proposed 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process (e.g. schedule, key assumptions, key processes, etc.) • Receive CAO Committee feedback on key elements and schedule Topics: 1) Review and Discuss • Key Assumptions • 2019 Process Elements (with relevance by CAO) • Proposed Schedule • Other? 2) Confirm CAO Committee Feedback 3) Next Steps 1 City of Palo Alto 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process Discussion Draft for March 25, 2019 CAO Committee Process Review Process City Attorney City Clerk City Manager Comments/Questions/ Actions Target Date Molly Stump Beth Minor Ed Shikada for CAO Committee What is the 1. Evaluate 1. Evaluate 1. 6-mo check-Do these outcomes meet your Kick off process by desired outcome 2018-19 2018-19 in on how it's expectations? mid June, before for the 2019 Performance Performance going to date Council recess begins. Performance Provide process Evaluation 2. Set 2019-20 2. Set 2019-20 2. Set 2019-20 orientation through Process? goals goals goals memo and offer 1/ 1 meeting with 3. Set 3. Set 3. Set consultant. Compensation Compensation Compensation Complete Council closed session portion of evaluation and compensation processes by week of 10/8. Complete Staff portion and Council open session adoption by early December. 1 Process Performance Areas and Indicators of Positive Traits (See for each CAO) Direct Report Survey and Interviews CAO Self- assessment Receive Council input (as an individual) through 111 interview (or on- line survey) (See sample questions) City Attorney Moll Stum Yes No Yes Yes City Clerk Beth Minor City Manager Ed Shikada Comments/Questions/ Actions Target Date for CAO Committee What evaluation "tools" and processes will be used in 2019? Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes As used in the past. Serves as a basis for performance expectations, goals, and evaluation framework. Biannual process occurred in 2018. Review use again in 2020. Provides CAO's perspective on performance and recommended goals Due to MRG July 1 Preparation materials and input Input process occurs questions will be calibrated for during the July recess the CAO's evaluation process. Council will receive relevant materials to help prepare for individual input (includes CAO self-assessment, prior year's evaluation and current 7/12 -Confidential prep packet received via mail by Councilmembers at home or business ear's oals, in ut uestions . 7 /15 thru 26-Conduct 2 Process City Clerk City Manager Comments/Questions/ Actions Target Date Beth Minor Ed Shikada for CAO Committee grescheduled 1/1 In 2019, input will occur interviews (or access through 1/1 interview (phone on-line survey) or in person). Should on-line survey method also be offered as an Draft Preliminary Yes Yes Modified 2018-19 process -no MRG drafts preliminary Distribute preliminary performance formal eval. evaluation (or 6-month check-draft to Council by evaluation and 6-month check-in document) based on August 8 (or 1 week 2019-2020 goals in and 2019-20 individual Council input. before session) for goal setting Closed Session # 1 Conduct Closed Yes Yes Yes Session #1 with Consultant facilitates Council Closed Session (3 Council only Discuss Discuss Prepare for 6-discussion of preliminary CAO's over 2 days preliminary preliminary month check-in evaluation in Closed Session max) draft and draft and with City #1. develop Council develop Council Manager 8/14 & 15 "consensus" "consensus" Council consensus (or majority and/or draft evaluation draft evaluation (see option) view) is reached for Closed 8/21 & 22 for discussion for discussion Session #2 discussion with with City with City Clerk CAO City Clerk will assist Attorney in in Closed w/scheduling Closed Session Session #2 Cit):'. Attomex and Cit):'. Clerk #2 Process: A full annual evaluation. 3 Process City Clerk City Manager Comments/Questions/ Actions Target Date Beth Minor Ed Shikada for CAO Committee City Manager Process: A 6-month check-in and goal setting only-no formal evaluation. In Closed Session # 1 Council prepares for the check-in with the City Manager. Option: No Closed Session #1 to prepare for City Manager check-in. Meet in Closed Session #2 onl Conduct Closed Yes Yes Yes City Attorney and City Clerk: Closed Session (3 Session #2 CAO meets with Council to CAO's over 2 days Council and each Discuss and Discuss and Conduct 6-discuss draft consensus max) CAO final annual final annual month check-in evaluation, look-back over the evaluation and evaluation and with City prior year & look-forward to 8/28 & 29 goal setting with goal setting with Manager and set the upcoming year. Final edits and/or City Attorney City Clerk goals from Council/CAO discussion. 914 & 5 City Manager: City Clerk will assist The City Manager meets with w/scheduling Council. Receives feedback more "informally". Goals will be established. Documentation will be produced as relevant. Areas for discussion could 4 Process Conduct Compensation Survey Conduct Closed Session with CAO Committee re: Compensation Criteria and Recommendations to Council Conduct Closed Session with Council to receive CAO Committee Yes City Clerk Beth Minor Yes City Manager Ed Shikada Comments/Questions/ Actions Target Date for CAO Committee come from City Manager's self-assessment, any information received by during Council 111 input interviews/survey, and/or other interests that surface Compensation Process Yes MRG survey method will include City determined utility and non-utility agencies as used in past surveys. July/August: due to CPO by August 30 Closed session discussion with Week of 9/23 CAO Committee to review compensation data for merit increases or other contract terms and develop a recommendation to the full Council. MRG facilitates. Support from the Chief People Officer. Closed session discussion. Council receives data considered by the CAO Committee. MRG facilitates. City Clerk will assist w/scheduling Week of 10/8 City Clerk will assist w/schedulin 5 Process recommendation on compensation Adopt CAO salary changes and contract amendments in 0 en Session Conduct Open Session for CAO Committee to Debrief 2019 Process (optional) Conduct 2019 Process Satisfaction Surve City Clerk Beth Minor City Manager Ed Shikada Comments/Questions/ Actions Target Date for CAO Committee Support from the Chief People Officer. HR/City Attorney's Office to coordinate staff report & amendments. HR to coordinate with payroll. If desired, CAO Committee debriefs 2019 process. MRG conducts 2019 process satisfaction survey. (Note: League of Ca. Cities Conference is 10/16-18) Early December Week of 10/28 City Clerk will assist w/scheduling 6 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process CAO Committee Meeting, March 25, 2019 Individual Council Input Process Questionnaire for 1/1 Interview Example: Council Input to Palo Alto City Attorney Evaluation 2019 Introduction Your individual input to the City Attorney's annual performance evaluation is requested. The following questionnaire will be used in a confidential 1/1 interview to gather your input. You will be asked to rate the City Attorney and offer comments on key performance areas. The rating scale is as follows: Exceptional (E): Exceeds standards on a consistent basis Highly competent (HC): Generally exceeds standards and requirements Competent (C): Expected performance level Needs Improvement (NI): Does not consistently meet standards Poor (P): Consistently deficient in meeting most standards Each Performance category is defined and then followed by a request to rate the City Attorney's performance in each performance category and to provide examples of successes and/or opportunities for improvement. After discussing your ratings for key performance areas, we will discuss your perspective on the achievement of goals, overall performance and suggested goals for next year. You will be asked to provide some summary thoughts on achievements and areas for improvement, as needed. Your input is very important to the performance evaluation process. Thank you for your participation. Ratings and Comments by Performance Area Technical Competence and Professional Development Indicators of Technical Competence and Professional Development: a. Demonstrates an understanding of the City's business operations and goals. b. Provides legal advice to Council, the City Manager, and the City management staff that is timely, accurate, understandable and usable. c. Remains neutral with respect to policy/political matters. d. Identifies alternatives to advance goals of Council/CM/Department heads/staff while reducing legal risk. Proactively identifies legal issues and risks. e. Identifies and resolves issues at the earliest feasible opportunity. f. Reviews and manages City lawsuits and claims appropriately. g. Collaborates effectively with City Manager and department directors to resolve City legal issues. h. Engages in professional development/learning activities to keep abreast of new developments in her field and continue to build skills. 1. Please rate the City Attorney on overall technical competence and professional development. 2. Provide examples of areas of strength and areas for development. 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process CAO Committee Meeting, March 25, 2019 Individual Council Input Process Questionnaire for 1/1 Interview City Attorney/City Council Relationship Indicators of a positive City Attorney/City Council Relationship: a. Does a good job in researching and responding to Council calls, questions and inquiries. b. Demonstrates the appropriate level of preparation for Council meetings. c. Demonstrates the appropriate level of leadership/participation during Council meetings (e.g., expressing opinion, offering suggestions, listening/talking when appropriate to do so). d. Understands and acts on Council agreed-upon priorities. e. Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that feedback into action. Demonstrates actions that encourage mutual honesty, respect and trust. 3. Please rate the City Attorney on her overall relationship with the City Council. 4. Provide examples of areas of strengths and areas for improvement. Public Relationship Indicators of a successful City Attorney/Public relationship: a. Listens openly to public request and suggestions. b. Is responsive to requests from the public, within the context of the job responsibilities. c. Is a good representative of the City. 5. Please rate the City Attorney on her overall public relationship. 6. Provide examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement. Department Leadership Indicators of positive Department Leadership by the City Attorney: a. Exercises sound judgment. b. Models good leadership with staff and in the role as a department director. c. Presents crises when possible but responds to crises when necessary. d. Demonstrates good interpersonal skills. e. Effectively manages outside Counsel to achieve positive results. f. Works effectively with Departments to collaboratively solve problems. 7. Please rate the City Attorney on her overall Leadership as a Department Director. 8. Provide examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement. Staff Leadership and Management Indicators of effective staff leadership and management by the City Attorney: a. Attends to the creation and maintenance of a positive work environment (e.g., through employee recognition, an environment of openness, and regular communication). 2 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:48 PM To:Gavin Newsom; Joe Simitian Cc:Council AnswerPoint Subject:11 studies find cause of autism Book commentary by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo ----This is based on How to End Autism Epidemic by J.B. Handley.----- and article by Robyn Charron, FocusforHealth.org, August 28, 2017 11 studies since 2004 say Aluminum Adjuvant is guilty What is autism? (Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD) Biological studies since 2004 prove there is an ‘immune activation event’ in the brain characterized by poor social skills, repetitive actions and non-verbal communication. Over 50% have an IQ of less than 70. and 30% never speak more than a few words, They are sickened by digestive and bowel disease and many suffer debilitating anxiety. Some are never toilet trained and many struggle with frustrations that lead to self-assault or assault a caregiver. The statistics show a disparity in autism rates across developed nations for how info was collected. How common: 1911 Autism first used as term by Eugen Bleuler 1980 Infantile autism becomes own category 2013 Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD, classified Rate of Autism in various countries Poland 1 in 3,333 Germany 1 in 263 Denmark 1 in 145 Japan 1 in 55 USA` 1 in 45 South Korea 1 in 38 Hong Kong 1 in 27 Robyn Charron, FocusforHealth.org, August 28, 2017 Cause of Autism from How to End the Autism Epidemic by J. B. Handley -------- Eleven groundbreaking discoveries since 2004 reveal autism is created by immune activation events in the brain during its development usually before age of 36 months, and that this can be triggered by the ALUMINUM ADJUVANT in vaccines. The final discovery was in 2010. ------------- (See Chap. 5 for names of scientists and discoveries: e.g. #1- 2004, John Hopkins: autism brains are permanently inflamed #2- 2005, CA Inst of Tech: immune activation leads to autism #4- Harvard McLean Hosp., immune activation can take place after birth #5- U of Brit. Col: aluminum adjuvant causes behavior/motor function deficits, #7- French study, Aluminum stays in brain longer than known, #11-Keele U, England, High aluminum in brains of autism victims 2 Cure of Autism-- Biomedical Intervention from the above book: * Special diet: gluten, dairy, soy, sugar. Most autistic kids have digestive problems. Removing gluten has cured a few and improved most all. * Gut Healing: autistic guts are impaired. Probiotics can get rid of candida. *Nutrition: Since guts are impaired, supplements help: B12, magnesium alleviate many symptoms *Detoxificatin: infrared saunas, ionic footbaths, magnetic clay, chlorella and cilantro. Detox helps many. * Advanced therapies - stem cells, hyperbaric oxygen, and IVIG infusions * Suramin Study: A trial drug on 10 children proved UNLOCKED brains but is not licensed for children. Autistic children have a permanent brain lock for an in flamed state...this drug may help unlock the brain but it wore off after six weeks. Ways to reduce Aluminum 1. Drink silica mineral water. Two brands are in the U.S.: Vittel ad Fiji water. Drink up to 51 oz in one hour to detox aluminum. 2. Adopt ketogenic diet; It has been used for years to reduce seizures. Ketogenics are now supplements to get the body into ketosis more quickly. 3. Vitamin D regulates the immune system at reducing inflammation and eliminating pathogens.. 4. Selenium: this trace element assists in restoring the glutathion redox system. Author Mr. Handley stopped working at a company he founded to be full time with his son Jamison. Now at 15, his son is a true nature boy, self taught at swimming. After biomedical intervention restored his ability to speak, he is now learning to read. He smiles alot! For More Help Handley recommends the best book on Biomedical Intervention is ** Healing and Preventing Autism, A Complete Guide by Dr. Jerry Kartzine and Jenny McCarthy. ** MAPS is Medical Academy of Pediatric Special Needs has a list of doctors in every state who are proficient in assisting autism recovery. ** National Vaccine Information Program(Very credible non-profit center ** VAERS. Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System (report vaccine damage here) ** NVICP National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (government agency who. has paid out over $4 billion in vaccine damage/death ** AutismActionNetwork.org. Non-profit for good info on autism ** Do buy -- How to End Autism Epidemic by J. B. Handley -----Please share this information with friends, relatives and schools.----- From: Arlene Goetze, MA, Writer/Editor, No Toxins for Children first Dir. of Communication for Bishop of San Jose 1981-5; founder/editor of Catholic Women’s Network, a non-profit newspaper on women’s spirituality; freelance to national publications; Reiki and EFT practitioner; Drumming for Health with Alzheimer’s patients. Mom of 7 and grandmother of 18. photowrite67@yahoo.com N.B. Center for Disease Control, CDC, who has the responsibility of safety for vaccines has 56 vaccine patents among its staff and safety committee. In 1986 Congress gave vaccine companies Immunity who were going out of business from lawsuits for damage/death—rather than insist they remove unsafe ingredients from vaccines. 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 1:16 PM To:Ro Khanna; Joe Simitian Subject:CDC Vax list = more autism Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com . . . ten years of practice data clearly show   that unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children   have a dramatically lower risk of autism   compared to children vaccinated on the CDC schedule. . . .     --3 points why CDC schedule is no longer valid  1. Organisms for early vaccines have evolved so old vaccines are worthless  2. Overstimulation of the immune system w/vaccines tips the immune system into autoimmunity and allergy  3. Hepatitis B vaccine given newborns overdoses them on aluminum and wears off as kids get old enough for behavior to get HepB.  Real-Life Data Show that the CDC Vaccine Schedule is Causing Harm March 19, 2019 From: Children's Health Defense, led by R. F. Kennedy, Jr., Atty. Image here not printed: ----- Autism results in three groups of children ------ Unvaccinated --715 children 1 case of autism in 715 Partly vaccinated-- 2,629 children 1 case in 438) CDC’s figures on its vaccine schedule. NHIS survey (1 in 45) By the Children’s Health Defense Team In 2015, California’s governor signed SB277, a bill that eliminated the state’s non-medical vaccine exemptions. The bill placed California families in the difficult position of either accepting the state’s “one-size-fits-all” vaccine mandate or forfeiting their children’s right to any preschool or K-12 classroom education. Not content with eviscerating parents’ right to exempt their children from even one of the nearly six dozen doses of vaccine currently required through age 18, the bill’s sponsor, shockingly, is now going after the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship and seeking to invalidate doctor-granted medical exemptions. Writing in late 2018 in Pediatrics (the journal of the pro-“pharmaceutical agenda” American Academy of Pediatrics), the California legislator used thinly veiled words of intimidation to threaten disciplinary action for doctors who write “unwarranted” medical exemptions, including revoking their authority to grant such exemptions. … ten years of practice data clearly show that unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children have a dramatically lower risk of autism compared to children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule. 2 Medical data from an integrative pediatric practice in neighboring Oregon suggest that California and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should instead revoke their unforgiving one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination. Board-certified pediatrician Paul Thomas, who has a thriving practice in Portland, has just furnished a stunning response to officials’ demand that he “show the proof” that the slower, evidence-based vaccine schedule recommended in his book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, “is safer than the CDC schedule.” After opening up his practice data to a deep dive by an independent and internationally known health informatics expert, the consultant found results—“more powerful than a study”—that amazed them both: ten years of practice data clearly show that unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children have a dramatically lower risk of autism compared to children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule. “Real-world” findings Up until the mid-2000s, Dr. Thomas administered vaccines in lockstep with the CDC schedule. However, when he witnessed previously healthy one-year-old patients regressing into severe autism for four years running, he started questioning this approach. After delving into published research never mentioned in medical school, Dr. Thomas developed the slower and more selective vaccine schedule described in his book.\ For the past ten years, his practice has put parents in the driver’s seat of making vaccine decisions, offering them a full discussion of vaccine benefits and risks—including the risks of neurotoxic vaccine ingredients such as aluminum—as well as providing detailed advice about how to support a well-balanced immune system. Dr. Thomas reports that while the majority of families in his practice vaccinate, “almost none of them follow the CDC schedule.” The independent consultant identified a total of 3,344 pediatric patients born into the practice over the ten-year period, including 715 unvaccinated children and 2,629 partially vaccinated children. The medical records showed that the latter received about three to six times fewer vaccines (7 to 18 shots) than same-age children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule (25 to 40 shots). … if California followed the modified vaccine schedule, it would spare about 9,000 cases of autism annually. At a national level, the slower schedule would prevent about 90,000 cases of autism annually. The practice data showed the following: * One case of autism in the unvaccinated group—a rate of 1 in 715. * Six cases of autism in the partially vaccinated group—a rate of 1 in 438. * In comparison, government data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) show a diagnosed autism rate of 1 in 45 children (aged 3-17 years) as of 2014 and, by 2016, a rate of 1 in 36. In an interview with Del Bigtree on the show HighWire, Dr. Thomas put his practice data in a wider context, noting that if California followed the modified vaccine schedule, it would spare about 9,000 cases of autism annually. At a national level, the slower schedule would prevent about 90,000 cases of autism annually. Dr. Thomas also explained that the consultant’s findings validate his own waiting room observations of an “incredibly healthy” patient population. On the other hand, he speculated that the autism rate in the unvaccinated group might have been even lower— perhaps 1 in 1,000 or less—if his unvaccinated group came from a low-risk patient population. In his clinic, however, many of the children in the unvaccinated group forego vaccination precisely because they are “high risk” for vaccine injury due to a family history of autoimmunity or autism in other family members. 3 The pediatrician also observed that he watches all of his vaccinated patients carefully—if any show signs of immune system trouble, he calls a halt to vaccination to help the child get back into balance. Dr. Thomas is not the only pediatrician to have achieved a dramatically lower autism rate in their patient population through a modified vaccine schedule and support for a healthy lifestyle. In a 2013 article in the North American Journal of Medicine and Science, Dr. Elizabeth Mumper described her pediatric practice’s experience between 2005 and 2011 after she implemented changes to address autism risks, telling patients to minimize exposure to environmental toxins, encouraging prolonged breastfeeding, recommending probiotics, providing nutritional counseling, recommending limited use of antibiotics and acetaminophen and allowing a modified vaccine schedule. No new cases of autism occurred in any patients born into her practice over the seven- year period, even though the CDC autism rate would have predicted about six new cases. We just assumed that vaccines are safe—but we never looked. We don’t need to be causing this much harm.\ Tragic and illogical In his HighWire interview, Dr. Thomas makes a number of crucial points highlighting why the CDC vaccine schedule is not only illogical but harmful: * First, most of the organisms for which vaccines originally were developed have adapted and evolved, so that many of the “tired old vaccines” being routinely and repeatedly injected into children across the nation “are almost worthless.” Time and science have revealed that highly vaccinated people’s immune systems are “not as robust and leave them less able to fight off other infections.” Even the annually retooled flu shot has been shown to make people more susceptible to other severe respiratory viruses. * Second, there are “tons and tons—hundreds—of articles showing that overstimulation of the immune system when [children] are very young—called ‘immune activation’—triggers neurodevelopmental problems” and tips the immune system into autoimmunity and allergy. In fact, a large and growing body of literature shows that today’s highly vaccinated children are the sickest generation in history. As Dr. Thomas points out, one child in two graduates high school taking medication for a chronic condition. * As a third example of how the CDC schedule “makes no sense,” the hepatitis B vaccine administered to newborns and young infants not only contains many times more neurotoxic aluminum than the daily maximum of injected aluminum allowed for adults but also wears off by the time children get to the age where they might actually engage in the risk behaviors that transmit hepatitis B. Reminding his fellow pediatricians of their Hippocratic oath, Dr. Thomas states that “We just assumed that vaccines are safe—but we never looked.” The situation as it currently stands, he says, is tragic. Still addressing his professional peers, Dr. Thomas emphasizes, “We don’t need to be causing this much harm.” Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. 1 Carnahan, David From:J Fruchterman <Jim.F@Benetech.org> Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:05 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City; Transportation; Kleinberg, Judy Subject:Communication with the business community Dear Ed,    As both a longtime resident and employer in Palo Alto, I want to note my disappointment with the city staff’s constant  failure to engage the business community (including not only merchants, but also employers like my organization which  rent commercial space) as an actual stakeholder in decisions that affect us.  As a longtime employer, the deforestation  of California Ave is a landmark example for me, but I recently had to intervene at the end of last year when residents  effectively decommissioned a 50‐space parking lot on High Street adjacent to the California Ave business district (by  insisting on making it a two‐hour lot where there is almost no demand for two‐hour spaces, leaving the lot 95‐98%  vacant during workdays).  I had to work on the staff to point out both how bad this was given the construction going on,  and get the decision partially reversed. The cycle of do and undo is not exactly an optimal approach to decision making.    As Judy Kleinberg has ably pointed out most recently, the latest example is that staff hasn’t reached out to the business  community about taxing them.      I’m used to government processes at the national and state levels on legislation and regulation, and the norm seems to  be to actively involve affected stakeholders in the discussion of making significant changes, rather than staying quiet and  hoping they won’t notice.      Why is Palo Alto not able to do better at this? When I ask the question of staff, they repeatedly refuse to engage on this  omission to reach out to stakeholders (beyond reacting to whoever is complaining loudly, it seems).  How do we change  this communications gap?    Thanks, Jim     Jim Fruchterman  Founder, Benetech  Email: jim@benetech.org       Twitter: @JimFruchterman    Blog: The Beneblog       480 California Ave, Suite 201   Palo Alto, CA 94306   USA   (650) 644‐3406   Fax: (650) 475‐1066  www.benetech.org       Benetech ‐ Technology Serving Humanity   A nonprofit organization       1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:54 PM To:Perron, Zachary; Council, City; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Binder, Andrew; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; waynejdouglass1@gmail.com; Jena mclemore; Dr t; stephanie@dslextreme.com; patriceventresca@gmail.com Subject:From the archives of Aram James—2013 —-should Mt. View think twice about banning vehicle dwellers from their streets ????? Should the Mt. View City Council rethink its proposed ban on vehicle dwellers?????          FYI: Mt. View City Council      http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2013/08/04/sleep‐car‐go‐jail    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, March 24, 2019 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Amendments to the Wireless Ordinance     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:44 PM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Amendments to the Wireless Ordinance    Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Baltay, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Lew and Ms. Thompson,     On behalf of United Neighbors, thank you for deciding not to greenlight the Director of Planning’s proposals with respect to neighborhood cell towers today.    Both your thoughtful consideration of the myriad factors involved in what Mr. Lait is asking you to do and your concern for the quality of life in Palo Alto are greatly appreciated.   Incidentally, in his decision to overrule your Board and approve utility-pole-mounted ancillary cell tower equipment in Barron Park, Mr. Lait established his own aesthetic standard—a standard which sets the bar so low that telecom companies can, in effect, install whatever equipment they wish. Specifically, the Planning Director wrote that the test of aesthetic compatibility was compatibility not with the neighborhood, but with the existing equipment on utility poles. It is this misguided perspective that is just one of the reasons why we residents believe it is imperative that the Wireless Ordinance not be amended in such a manner as to eliminate Architectural Review Board public hearings and to rest the sole authority for deciding the appearance and location of cell towers in the Planning Director’s hands.   2 Thank you again,     Jeanne Fleming     Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151       1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: ARB/PTC cell towers     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:06 PM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: ARB/PTC cell towers    Dear ARB, Planning Commission, and City Clerk,    Like many other Palo Alto residents, I oppose the amendments that Mr. Lait wants to make to Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance to bring it into compliance with the FCC’s controversial recent order. For the following reasons:  1. They are unnecessary.   Why is Palo Alto rushing to codify in its Wireless Ordinance what so many cities are suing to keep out of theirs?   City Staff are telling the ARB, the PTC and City Council that Palo Alto risks being sued by the telecom industry if it doesn’t make these changes. In fact, the likelihood that a telecom company would sue the City over non-compliance with an FCC order that, first, is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the largest cities in the United States and that, second, Congress is seeking to repeal–is zero. So is the likelihood that any Court would agree to hear such a case.  2. They are not in the best interests of the residents of Palo Alto.   These amendments make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to install cell towers right next to our homes.   2 They eliminate public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board, and give Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and where they can install it. And we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.   3. These amendments fly in the face of City Council’s support for repealing the FCC order.   To quote Mayor Filseth in his letter of February 7, 2019 to Congresswoman Eshoo: “The deployment of [cell towers] must be done through the usual public process associated with local government, a process that … needs no modifications from the FCC. … The FCC’s decision to …restrict our ability to best determine the needs of our own city represents the FCC’s failure to listen to local governments across the country.”    Please listen to concerned residents and do not let Mr Lait run amuck.    Ann Protter  185 N California Ave  Palo Alto        1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell Tower Hearing Thanks and have a great day.  B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379  From: Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net>   Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 4:45 AM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Cell Tower Hearing  Dear Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission,  For the reasons below, we oppose the changes that Mr. Lait is proposing to Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance to comply with the FCC’s recent order:  The FCC's order is the subject of a major lawsuit by many large U.S. cities, so it is unlikely that the telecom industry would sue Palo Alto for non-compliance. In addition, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo has introduced legislation to repeal the order. These changes are not beneficial to Palo Alto residents.They eliminate public hearings and review by the ARB and give too much power to the Planning Director for where ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment can be installed. It is best for residents if the ancillary equipment for the cell towers is put underground and not installed on utility poles nor on street lights in Palo Alto. Thank you for your service to our community,  Mary Dimit  Palo Alto resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: In opposition to the amendments that Jonathan Lait is introducing     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Herc Kwan <herc.kwan@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:06 PM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: In opposition to the amendments that Jonathan Lait is introducing    Dear members of the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission,    I am writing to voice my concerns and objection to the amendments that Mr. Jonathan Lait is trying to make to the  Wireless Ordinance of the City of Palo Alto so that it will be compliant with the FCC's recent order which is extremely  controversial. Basically Mr. Lait is ignoring the needs of the residents of Palo Alto and does that in his own interests.    These amendments are unnecessary. When many cities are planning to sue, why is Mr. Lait pushing to get these into our  Wireless Ordinance? After attending the last meeting at the City Council where Mr. Lait was present, I can conclude that  it is obvious that Mr. Lait does not pay attention to the residents' opinion and disregards our concerns.  As I have mentioned multiple times already to both the ARB and City Council, we live right next to a pole that some ugly  telecom equipment will be installed on and, after expressing our concerns and frustrations, we still are told that nothing  can be changed. My wife, two young daughters, and I are really finding it difficult to understand what motivates Mr. Lait  to rush to introduce these amendments which will make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to install  cell towers right next to our homes. This is simply unacceptable.    If Mr. Lait is going to do things as he wishes, then why do we have the Architectural Review Board? How do we residents  of Palo Alto express our concerns if their voices are going to be shut out?  2   Thank you very much for your attention.    Best Regards,    Herc Kwan  Resident, 2490 Louis Rd  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: March 21st Consideration of proposed wireless administrative standards     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>   Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:29 PM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: March 21st Consideration of proposed wireless administrative standards    Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Baltay, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Lew and Ms. Thompson,     I am writing to you on behalf of United Neighbors to urge you to withhold your imprimatur from senior City Staff’s plan to remove your Board and the residents of Palo Alto from the City’s process for reviewing the applications of telecommunications companies seeking to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     As you know, Planning Director Lait is recommending that the City’s Wireless Ordinance be amended to bring it into compliance with a recent FCC Order. The amendments that he is proposing include changes that would give the Planning Director the sole authority to decide where cell towers are to be located and what they will look like.     Setting aside the unwisdom of the City revising its Wireless Ordinance to comply with an FCC Order that is the subject 1) of a lawsuit brought by the largest cities in the United States, and 2) of repeal legislation filed by our own Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, and endorsed by Palo Alto’s City Council, please be aware that there is nothing in that FCC Order that requires undoing the review process currently in place in Palo Alto. Nothing.     2 Yet it is as part of his effort to dispense with what has become the inconvenient-for-him involvement of the Architectural Review Board and the citizens of Palo Alto that Director Lait is now asking you to recommend that City Council incorporate into the Code a set of “objective aesthetic standards” he has drafted for cell towers. Please don’t do as he asks and thereby give cover to the inappropriate consolidation of power into the hands of an unelected bureaucrat for whom aesthetic concerns are unimportant. Even the most cursory reading of the Notes and Comments on the cell tower designs Mr. Lait has put before you make it clear that—should City Council actually grant him the sole authority to determine the siting and appearance of cell towers—he means to continue as he started, which is to say: 1) he will ignore your wise counsel that the prosperous and technologically sophisticated telecommunications companies can do far better by the residents of Palo Alto than the massive, unsightly cell towers they are proposing to install here; and 2) he will instead approve ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous utility-pole mounted installations such as those he has already approved— contrary to your recommendation—in Barron Park. In other words, he will let them do it on the cheap.   Please consider, for example, what Mr. Lait’s Staff Report has to say about the “underground design” that you have favored and that we residents favor as well. It says “All vault designs …occupy underground space that the City may wish to use for utility purposes in the future.” In other words, City Staff doesn’t want underground cell tower equipment vaults, and that will always be reason enough for Mr. Lait to allow telecom companies to avoid having to install them. On behalf of United Neighbors, I ask you to not give Mr. Lait what he wants, namely: a menu of “standards” that he will then twist to suit himself, all the while saying that he is doing so with the blessing of the Architectural Review Board.   Instead, I ask you to please recommend to City Council:  1.That the Architectural Review Board continue to hold public hearings to review every proposed cell tower associated with the massive buildout the telecom industry is undertaking here; and 2.That a volunteer Task Force led by Palo Altans Tina Chow and Bill Ross work with Staff to develop a set of amendments to the Wireless Ordinance, amendments the purpose of which is to further protect residents’ interests—not, as Mr. Lait proposes, amendments intended to remove existing protections such as Architectural Review Board public hearings. So you know, Professor Chow is on the faculty of the Engineering School at Berkeley, and Mr. Ross is a land use attorney who represents several of the cities suing the FCC with respect to its recent Order. Professor Chow will be speaking to you Thursday morning about several of amendments to the Ordinance that she is proposing. Thank you for your consideration. And thank you, as always, for your concern for the quality of life in Palo Alto and your thoughtful analysis of the telecommunications companies’ applications to locate cell towers in our community.  Sincerely,  Jeanne Fleming  Jeanne Fleming, PhD  JFleming@Metricus.net  650-325-5151  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please do not make amendments to Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:48 AM  To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board  <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Please do not make amendments to Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance    Dear Members of the Palo Alto Planning Commision and Architectural Review Board:    I am writing today to add my voice to the many who are opposed to Mr. Jonathan Lait's proposed amendments to bring  Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance into compliance with the FCC's controversial recent order.    As you are aware, The FCC's order is the subject of a major lawsuit. New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, Portland  and San Jose are all fighting against this order. In addition, our very own Congressional Representative, Anna Eshoo, has  also introduced legislation to repeal this order.    Please consider that these amendments are unnecessary. Why would Palo Alto change its Wireless Ordinance when so  many major cities are suing AGAINST doing such a thing? The telecom industry, is up to its usual trick of fighting using  fear and intimidation. City Staff is advising the City Council, the ARB and The PTC that the telecoms will sue if Mr. Lait's  changes aren't made. We also have Congress on our side. Congress is seeking to repeal the FCC's order. Why codify  something that so many powers are patently against? There is plenty of time to be thoughtful here, instead of  haphazardly tampering with our ordinances.    2 Consider also that the amendments are not in the best interest of the residents of Palo Alto. Why would we incorporate  these amendments when these allow all the privileges and power to the telecom companies to run roughshod over our  beautiful neighborhoods? Telecoms would be able to install cell towers on poles right next to our homes. The equipment  is heavy, unattractive, noisy, and potentially hazardous.     Should the proposed amendments be made, public hearings and review by our esteemed Architectural Review Board  would be eliminated. Planning Director Lait would have complete authority to allow hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy,  and potentially hazardous equipment right next to my home and many other homes. He has already approved this in our  city without following our laws and ordinances. He has chosen to bypass professional input of our ARB, PC, and our  residents by approving this type of equipment. This, without a thoughtful approach to find solutions that will work for  the long term.     Finally, consider that the amendments are in conflict with the City Council's support for repealing the FCC order. Palo  Alto is OUR beautiful city. The telecoms don't care about out neighborhood beauty, quality of life, and property values.  Let's not put them in charge of the needs of our city. Let us not allow the FCC and our Planning Director to circumvent  our usual public process.    Please do NOT approve Mr. Lait's amendments.    Thank you for your service and for your consideration.    Yours truly,    Annette Evans Fazzino  663 Lowell Ave            1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 7:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Request to not amend Wireless Ordinance     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 1:39 AM  To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board  <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Request to not amend Wireless Ordinance    I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the amendments being proposed to Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance based on FCC’s recent controversial order. This order is the subject of a major lawsuit by dozens of major cities. Out representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, has also introduced legislation to repeal this order. I believe this amendment is unnecessary, not in the best interest of the residents of Palo Alto like me, and not aligned with City Council’s support of repealing FCC order.  Please take in to account the voice of the residents of Palo Alto and do not pass these amendments to our city’s wireless ordinance.  Thank you,  Jyo Nimkar  A Palo Alto resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Code Amendments, Small Cell Wireless Facilities - Commission Agenda Item 4, March 27, 2019 Attachments:Verizon Wireless Letter 03.27.19.pdf Thanks and have a great day.  B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379  From: Paul Albritton <pa@mallp.com>   Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 4:05 PM  To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Yang,  Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca  <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Code Amendments, Small Cell Wireless Facilities ‐ Commission Agenda  Item 4, March 27, 2019  Dear Commissioners, attached please find our letter prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the draft amendments to  Code Section 18.42.110. Verizon Wireless appreciates the City’s efforts to bring the Wireless Ordinance into compliance with recent  FCC Actions.    We urge the Commission to adopt Verizon Wireless’s proposed revisions attached to our letter.  Thank you.  ‐‐   Paul Albritton  Mackenzie & Albritton LLP  155 Sansome Street, Suite 800  San Francisco, California 94104      (415) 288‐4000  pa@mallp.com  MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 March 26, 2019 VIA EMAIL Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Draft Ordinance Amending Code Section 18.42.110 Small Cell Wireless Facilities Commission Agenda Item 4, March 27, 2019 Dear Commissioners: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the draft ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to address small cell wireless facilities (the “Draft Ordinance”). Several provisions conflict with the recent Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) order addressing appropriate small cell approval criteria. In particular, the discretionary permitting requirements for Tier 2 and 3 facilities cannot apply to small cells, which must be reviewed under objective criteria as Tier 1 facilities. Two provisions exceed the City’s authority by dictating the technology used by wireless carriers which is regulated by federal law. We urge the Commission to direct staff to make needed revisions described below and shown in the attached marked language. If these changes cannot be made, we urge the Commission to decline action on the Draft Ordinance, and direct staff to make necessary revisions for the Draft Ordinance to comply with federal law. To expedite deployment of small cells and new wireless technology, the FCC adopted its September order to provide guidance on appropriate approval criteria for small cells. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018). Among other topics, the FCC addressed aesthetic criteria for approval of qualifying small cells, concluding that they must be: “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance.” Id., ¶ 86. “Reasonable” standards are “technically feasible” and meant to avoid “out-of-character deployments.” Id., ¶ 87. “Objective” standards must “incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner.” Id., ¶ 88. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission March 26, 2019 Page 2 of 3 As we explain, several requirements of the Draft Ordinance contradict federal law and must be revised or eliminated. Our comments are as follows. All Small Cells Should Be Approved Administratively As Tier 1 Facilities. The Draft Ordinance retains the existing code provision granting Tier 1 approval for eligible facilities requests. This administrative approval is appropriate because the FCC’s criteria for evaluating eligible facilities requests are objective, and FCC rules require an expedited decision within 60 days. The same is true for small cells. As described above, the FCC requires that small cells be reviewed under objective criteria. Under new FCC Shot Clock rules, applications for small cells on existing structures must be reviewed within 60 days. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c). As with eligible facilities requests, administrative approval is appropriate for small cells. In contrast, the Draft Ordinance treats certain collocated small cells as Tier 2 facilities and all new small cells as Tier 3 facilities (the same category that applies to new macro facilities such as towers). Draft Ordinance § 18.42.110(c). This is inappropriate because Tier 2 and 3 facilities involve several subjective requirements. For example, both mandate a noticed community meeting. Draft Ordinance § 18.42.110(d)(7). However, soliciting public comment introduces subjectivity and the illusory impression that personal concerns would override objective standards, frustrating both the public and decision-makers. The public’s subjective personal concerns simply cannot be addressed by decision-makers implementing what must be an objective process. While a community meeting could be optional, the notice and meeting required for Tier 2 and 3 facilities are irrelevant to objective review. For new small cells, Tier 3 review also requires the subjective findings for a conditional use permit, including no detriment to “general welfare” or property and improvements in the vicinity. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.76.010(c). Such subjective determinations cannot apply to small cells. Potential referral to the Commission or Architectural Review Board is excessive and unnecessary, because under objective standards, the Commission or Board should reach the same conclusions as the Director. Appeals to the Council also invite subjectivity, and the various community meeting and hearing requirements would likely exceed the 60-day Shot Clock time frame for small cells. In sum, Tier 2 and 3 procedures are subjective and excessive for the expedited, objective review that the FCC requires for small cells, and they should be processed administratively as Tier 1 facilities. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission March 26, 2019 Page 3 of 3 The City Cannot Dictate the Technology Used By Wireless Carriers. Federal law regulates the technical and operational aspects of wireless facility development, and it preempts local requirements that constrain the type of technology available for wireless carriers. See New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105-106 (2nd Cir. 2010). Several Draft Ordinance provisions exceed the City’s authority by dictating technology options. One is the requirement to use the smallest equipment that is technically feasible to achieve a network objective. Draft Ordinance § 18.42.110(i)(1). This standard also inappropriately invites subjectivity, and it ignores the equipment volume allowances included in the FCC’s definition of small wireless facility. This requirement must be stricken. Another provision obliges permittees to redesign operating facilities with smaller equipment, potentially underground, if new technology becomes available. Draft Ordinance § 18.42.110(j)(7). This also places the City in a position to dictate the technology to be used for wireless facilities, and the provision is preempted by federal law. Further, this requirement violates the vested rights of wireless carriers who have built their facilities based on plans approved under permits that are guaranteed a 10-year term by California Government Code Section 65964(b). This provision must be stricken. The Draft Ordinance requires several revisions to comply with federal law, including new FCC regulations addressing small cell approval criteria. The Commission should direct staff to make needed revisions on the Draft Ordinance to avoid conflict with state and federal law. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton Attachment cc: Albert Yang, Esq. Jonathan Lait ATTACHMENT Proposed Revisions to Draft Amendments, Code § 18.42.110 (Wireless Ordinance) § 18.42.110(c) (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request or a small wireless facility as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (a) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (b) Any collocation of a Small Wireless Facility; or (c) Any other collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF, including a Small Wireless Facility, that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. § 18.42.110(i)(1) (1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; § 18.42.110(j)(7) (7) Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the applicant shall place above-ground equipment below ground and replace equipment remaining above-ground with smaller equipment, as determined by volume. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for such replacement. 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: VTA Information: Ridership for January 2019 Attachments:Ridership for January 2019.pdf     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: VTA Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org>   Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 12:47 PM  To: VTA Board of Directors <VTABoardofDirectors@vta.org>  Subject: VTA Information: Ridership for January 2019    VTA Board of Directors: Attached is a memorandum from Chief Operating Officer Inez Evans regarding VTA ridership for January 2019. Thank you. Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95134 408.321.5680 board.secretary@vta.org Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Writer's Direct Telephone: (408) 321-7005 TO: VT A Board of Directors _ __4_ Nuria I. Fernandez ~~~ General Manager/CEO THROUGH: FROM: Inez Evans \)_. _ 0 c. . .,..,. Chief Operating Officer ~ \:::! ~~ DATE: March 19, 2019 SUBJECT: VTA Ridership for January 2019 January 2019 total monthly system ridership for bus and light rail was 2,859,009, a decrease of 0.6% over January 2018. Special events: There was one major event-the 2019 NCAA College Football Playoff in January 2019. About 13,830 riders were recorded for the event. There were no major events in January of last year. January 2019 total monthly ridership recorded a 2.0% decrease compared to December 2018. Ridership change from January to December typically averages -1.0%. Bus ridership was down 0.9%. Light Rail ridership recorded an overall increase of 5.8%. The Mountain View-Winchester line recorded a 13.0% increase, the sixth consecutive month of increased ridership. Overall, ridership declines have come down and the core routes recorded a slight increase of 0.2%. The core routes carry about 70% of the overall ridership. January 2019 had some new service changes to many routes. Ridership Jan-2019 Jan-2018 Percent Dec-2018 Percent Change Change Bus 2,186,203 2,205,816 -0.9% 2,234,080 -2.1% Light Rail 672,806 673,170 5.8% 682,367 -1.4% System 2,859,009 2,849,986 -0.6% 2,916,447 -2.0% 3331 North First Street Administration 408-321-5555 San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Customer Service 408-321-2300 Solutions that move you Eleven key core routes recorded an overall average weekday ridership improvement of 2. 7% over January 2018. Some of the top routes with increased ridership are shown in the table below: Route 522 64 73 77 55 323 25 72 Totals Jan-19 6,477 2,759 2,471 1,936 2,084 1,650 5,487 2,357 25,221 Jan-18 6,225 2,652 2,373 1,840 2,000 1,583 5,424 2,298 24,395 Difference 252 107 98 96 84 67 63 59 826 Percent Change 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 5.2% 4.2% 4.2% 1.2% 2.6% 3.4% Forty-eight of the 69 bus routes, or 70%, did not meet the weekday standards as defined in the Service Design Guidelines. Nine of the 18 core routes met the weekday standards as defined in the Service Design Guidelines.The core routes and light rail stations that had the most average weekday ridership declines are shown in the tables below: Route Jan-2019 Jan-2018 Difference Percent Change 22 8,691 9,299 -608 -6.5% 66 4,861 5,019 -158 -3.1% 61 1,352 1,392 -40 -2.9% 26 2,658 2,674 -16 -0.6% Totals 17,562 18,384 (822) -4.5% Jan-2019 Jan-2018 Difference Percent Station Change San Antonio Station 1,321 1,423 (102) -7.2% Ohlone-Chynoweth Station 1,057 1,138 (81) -7.1% Berryessa Station 234 265 (31) -11 .7% Snell Station 243 273 (30) -11.0% BayPointe Station 205 234 (29) -12.4% Totals 3,060 3,333 (273) -8.2% The fiscal year-to-date total system ridership for bus and light rail recorded a 1.9% decrease. Light Rail recorded an increase of 1.3% this Fiscal Year. Ridership (Current) (Prior) Percent Bus Light Rail System Jul' 18-Jan'19 Jul' 17-Jan' 18 Change 16,016,773 16,499,344 -2.9% 5,045,548 4,980,048 1.3% 21 ,062,321 21 ,479,392 -1 .9% 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Wireless Ordinance Amendments     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:30 PM  To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Wireless Ordinance Amendments    Dear ARB and PTC members,    I understand you will be considering amendments to Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance to align it with the FCC’s very  controversial position.  I urge you to push back and consider what the overwhelming majority of your constituents want  and do what many other leading cities have done by resisting the FCC’s orders.       The requested changes are unnecessary, not in the best interests of Palo Alto residents, and are contrary to City  Council’s support for repealing the FCC order.    Please, please consider the residents whom you represent and “just say no” as other leading cities have.     Thank you,  Chris Robell  Old Palo Alto resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, March 23, 2019 4:32 PM To:Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; nick yovino; Mayor; hennessy; Mark Standriff; Joel Stiner; beachrides; terry; Council, City; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Kreutzer; margaret-sasaki@live.com; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; jerry ruopoli; bballpod; popoff; Cathy Lewis Subject:Fwd: 2021 for the C-130s to fight our wild fires, if all goes as it should (!)   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 4:21 PM  Subject: 2021 for the C‐130s to fight our wild fires, if all goes as it should (!)  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Sat. 3‐23‐19              This says 2021 for the C‐130s to fight Calif. wild fires, assuming no glitches:                   https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/firefighting‐planes‐stalled                 Note that the C‐130s, when available in 2021 maybe, can deliver 4,000 gal. of retardant. The 747 can deliver  19,000.                  Trump and Congress should transfer $5 billion from the DOD budget for conversion right away of 50 747s for  retardant tanker duty.  If the Calif. economy goes down due to the wild fires, it will be open to terrorists and maybe  worse. The defense industries alone in Calif. should be protected from ruination by the wild fires and their deadly  smoke.                   LH                    LH  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, March 23, 2019 3:22 PM To:Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Mark Standriff; Joel Stiner; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Mayor; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; bballpod; popoff; Irv Weissman; Council, City; terry; robert.andersen; nick yovino; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Cathy Lewis; margaret-sasaki@live.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Kreutzer; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com Subject:Fwd: Who benefits from Amerikaner Stutzpunkte in D. Land?   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:03 PM  Subject: Fwd: Who benefits from Amerikaner Stutzpunkte in D. Land?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:52 PM  Subject: Fwd: Who benefits from Amerikaner Stutzpunkte in D. Land?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM  Subject: Fwd: Who benefits from Amerikaner Stutzpunkte in D. Land?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:29 PM  Subject: Who benefits from Amerikaner Stutzpunkte in D. Land?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                      Thurs. 3‐21‐19  2                To all‐  This appears on a DW website teaching Deutsch:     https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwBWKbBPwkBgXSMhfMmXdxhqVCM                        Translating it is easy, almost even if one has never studied G. It says, in German word order:                      U.S. troops in Germany: Who bears the costs?                      In Germany are many U.S. soldiers stationed. Now about that is discussed, whether Germany these troops  alone pay for should. However, for whom are the U.S. military bases more important: for Germany or for the USA?                     This was not issued by the Chancellor (Kanzlerin) or anybody else in the Deutsche Regierung. DW wrote this. Is  anybody suggesting that Germany alone should pay all of the costs of the U.S. military bases there? I have not heard it,  but DW says it is being discussed. It does not seem to be discussed here when the U.S. DOD budget is $716 billion, with  $750 in Trump's FY2020 budget. I think it is reasonable that the Germans, the rich men of Europe, should pay a large  part of the cost of U.S. military bases there. They are so rich, and the American people, who still provide their military  defense almost 75 years after WWII, need so much. The Germans are the rich men of Europe, and we provide their  military defense! They have some strange power over Congress and the President to get us to do that.                        Our thinking is that it costs less to station troops in Germany with trillions of dollars of weapons to deter the  Russians than it would cost to evict them by war if they conquer Ukraine, Poland, Germany and France in six weeks  sometime. How likely is it that they will try? The French have nukes, and the Russians know it. And the western  Europeans would be the big losers in a Russian conquest.                     In looking up stutzpunkte, I found this:  Die Amerikaner unterhalten Stutzpunkte in 18 europaischen  Staaten.  The Americans maintain military bases in 18 European countries.  More than I realized. 18 is about 2/3 of them.  They must love us. That is where much of our $716 billion DOD budget this year goes. Much of it goes too to provide a  free military defense for Japan and S. Korea. And then?    And the result? Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Japan, S. Korea,  even Taiwan, all have magnificent high speed rail systems. They all have some form of national health care. And their  universities are affordable.  They can have all of that, and more, because they all have little jokes of a military. They let  us fight their wars and this constitutes a complete screwing of the American people.                    A DOD budget of $350 billion would deter any aggressor. To spend $750 billion on the DOD, proposed by Trump  for FY 2020, is an obscenity. It is a way for the Republicans to show the American people who's boss, to rub our noses in  it. Bleed us white to enrich the countries we defend, deny us HSR, national health care, affordable universities, and a lot  more. We get into things like Viet Nam. If the "communists" there were a threat to us, they were certainly a threat to  Japan. But we told them to relax and live the good life. We'd fight the war for them. Then we made damn sure they got  rich treating our wounded. This was the U.S. government turning on its own people, and it continues.                  California is faced with more horrific wild fires. These fill the air in much of the State with deadly wild fire smoke.  Too bad, you Californicators, tough luck. Yeah, but a few billion for 50 747s converted to fire retardant tankers would  really help with that. And a lot of you in other states are going to face more wild fires too due to climate change, and  these would be available there. So you have a stake in standing up to the crooks in Washington, D.C., including the top  crook in the WH. Horrific flooding in Houston, hurricane Sandy, hurricane Katrina, horrific wild fires in California, all  exacerbated by climate change. Sooner or later, the people of the U.S. are going to insist that much of that DOD money  be spent here, on us, not to enrich the Germans, the French and the Japanese. What the U.S. government is doing to us  now is little short of treason.                California Gov. Newsom yesterday made a disaster declaration re the wild fires here, before they start again. $50  million will go to tree thinning and undergrowth clearing. A full 100 National Guard troops will engage in thinning and  clearing. Peanuts. Weak as water! We all deeply appreciate the efforts of the Guard, but 100 of them won't stop many  3 wild fires.  I wouldn't want to do that work, but we need more than Newsom is proposing. Newsom needs to get real  about the wild fire situation here. They use ONE DC‐10 dropping 10,000 gal. of retardant on the wild fires, and they can  rent a 747 based in Colorado to drop 19,000 gallons per pass, when it's available. About $16,000 per hour to rent it. It  goes all over the world fighting fires. There is video of it fighting a wild fire in Chile. It was used belatedly on the Camp  fire around Paradise, Ca. Diane Feinstein got seven old planes from the Coast Guard that are being converted to drop  retardant. 4,000 gal. per pass. C‐130s or something. 4,000 gal. The 747 can drop 19,000 gal. per pass. We need 50 of  them, at maybe $100 million each to buy and convert. $5 billion, but it would prevent a collapse of the California  economy. Anybody with any sense is going to flee out of California if these deadly wild fires continue. The smoke they fill  the state with is deadly. Full of particulate matter, heavy metals when towns are burned, asbestos, many other  carcinogens. CBS's Dr. John Lapook said one night on the network news that wild fire smoke contains thousands of  compounds, and can cause serious health problems for the elderly, and for people with pre‐existing heart and lung  conditions. Is Lapook putting out fake news? Nobody, including health expert Trump, has said that he is. When all of the  doctors, pharmacists, bankers, engineers, professors, top management people leave, you'll get a collapsed economy in  California, and it is the world's fifth largest.                 Trump needs to get off of his vendetta against the people of California. We have a lot of money to help elect  somebody else who will work for the benefit of the American people. The people of California have a real interest is  getting rid of this punk.                      LH                                                    1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Monday, March 25, 2019 3:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:FYI: NYTimes: “Copenhagen Wants to Show How Cities Can Fight Climate Change” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/climate/copenhagen‐climate‐change.html?smid=nytcore‐ios‐share      Best, John     (Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)  1 Carnahan, David From:Sandra Chin <sandy_chin@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:German Shepherd used as rescue Dear PA City Council,  Hope all is well!  I saw this video and would like to share with you as an idea to train German Shepherd dogs to help monitor  the train tracks.    https://www.facebook.com/GermanShepherdTunisia/videos/2547020852039448/    Best regards,    Sandra  1 Carnahan, David From:robell <robell999@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 24, 2019 9:38 AM To:Council, City; Planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:In support of Residential Parking Program for Old Palo Alto Dear PTC and City Council Members,    I write to you in support of a residential parking program for Old Palo Alto.    As a 77‐year old resident of Channing House in Palo Alto, I prefer to drive during daylight hours and when  traffic is as light as possible. My son lives at 2290 Emerson in Palo Alto, and I enjoy visiting him. However,  securing a parking spot near his home during the week is impossible at daylight hours when I feel comfortable  driving. This has kept me from venturing out to visit him, and I plead with you to implement the residential  parking program for this part of town.    In my neighborhood at 850 Webster St, Palo Alto, the residential parking program has been in place for a  couple of years. While it may not be perfect, it has made life much easier for many. Please expand this  program to include Old Palo Alto.    Thank you for considering my request.    Mary Robell  850 Webster St, Apt. 923  Palo Alto, CA 94301    1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 25, 2019 9:18 AM To:JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Jonsen, Robert; cbolanos@smcgov.org; council@redwoodcity.org; Council, City; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary Subject:Klobuchar didn't prosecute controversial police killings or brutality cases as a county attorney | APM Reports FYI:   https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/03/25/amy‐klobuchar‐police‐hennepin‐county‐prosecutor      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 25, 2019 1:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:please let’s stop the sprawl https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/to‐build‐cities‐of‐the‐future‐stop‐driving‐cars/      Thank you, David Page  1 Carnahan, David From:Steven Atneosen <atneosen@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 10:11 AM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City Subject:Re: Gas Powered Leaf Blowers in Palo Alto City Council:    Please advise. I'm not asking you to solve the problem, but to simply point me in the direction of the paid  officials and unpaid advocates who I may work with to solve this problem; seeing as we as a community have  so fabulously failed in this regard. Many thanks.    Steven Atneosen   atneosen@hotmail.com    From: Steven Atneosen  Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 5:31 PM  To: liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Gas Powered Leaf Blowers in Palo Alto      Dear Liz:    I thought I'd reach out to you given your strong support of climate and quality of life issues for Palo Alto during  your tenure as mayor. In a few words, many thanks for your leadership on this front.    I've noticed that despite the fact that gasoline powered leaf blowers are prohibited in Palo Alto, they are used  exclusively by gardeners in the area, and property owners are ignorant or belligerent to this law. It is a simply  problem to fix with appropriate attention given that the emissions for an hour of a gasoline powered leaf  blower operation equates to driving a Toyota Camry 1,100 miles (according to CARB.    I would like to help on this front, so I'm looking to you for guidance on who at City Hall would be best to  champion this initiative. Is it the police department? City Council with an information campaign? Please point  me in the right direction.    Many thanks.    Best,    Steven Atneosen   atneosen@hotmail.com  650.229.8281  1 Carnahan, David From:Shikada, Ed Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:56 PM To:Megan Kanne; Council, City Cc:Mercurio, Etty; Litzinger, Millette; Gaines, Chantal; Apex Strategies Subject:RE: Interactive Alternative Explorer Hi Megan – Thanks so much for doing this; REALLY impressive!    Let me ask that councilmembers provide any comments and suggestions to Chantal and me.  That will help avoid any  Brown Act issues.    One question off the bat.  Could you create a version that allows a numeric impact (instead of the color), either a score  or a ranking?      Thanks again,  ‐‐Ed    Ed Shikada City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329-2280 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org   From: Megan Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 5:49 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Mercurio, Etty <etty.mercurio@aecom.com>; Litzinger, Millette <millette.litzinger@aecom.com>; Shikada, Ed  <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Apex Strategies  <apexstr@pacbell.net>  Subject: Interactive Alternative Explorer    Dear Rail Committee of the Whole,    I was listening to the Committee meeting stream from Monday and I heard requests from the members for a way to play around  with the evaluation matrix and the alternatives, so I made this: https://observablehq.com/@megankanne/palo‐alto‐rail‐crossing‐ alternatives/2    I'm happy to change it in any way that would be helpful to your analysis.    Regards,  Megan, CAP member  1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:13 AM To:Larry Yang; Council, City Subject:RE: Rail committee website not up to date? Hi Larry,      Although the discussion was on rail, the Committee of the Whole is not the Rail Committee, there is no Rail Committee  this year.  The information for the Committee of the Whole is located on the Council’s agenda page, here is the  link.  Neither the action minutes nor the transcription are linked there yet due  to the Council not having yet approved  the minutes and the transcriptionist has not returned the transcript to us.   As soon as each of those is completed they  will be linked to the page.    Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Larry Yang <lyang8888@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 12:14 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Rail committee website not up to date?    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/hsrs/default.asp    It doesn't have the meetings in 2019. I don't see the minutes from the March 21 meeting, nor any agenda for upcoming  meetings. Am I not looking in the right place?    Thanks.    == Larry Yang, Ramona St, Palo Alto    1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 22, 2019 9:05 PM To:Council, City; council@redwoodcity.org; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; HRC; gstone22@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; stephanie@dslextreme.com; Kniss, Liz (external); Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary Subject:Reparations and SB 50 -Palo Alto Weekly March 22, 2019 by Aram James Palo Alto Weekly  Spectrum ‐ March 22, 2019  Letters to the editor      Reparations and SB 50  Editor,    Although at first blush I find myself strongly supporting SB 50, I appreciate the scope of the questions raised in Greer  Stone and Pat Burt's guest opinion in the March 15 issue of the Weekly ("SB 50 undermines single‐family neighborhoods  and diversity").  In the past, I was part of a group in Palo Alto called Stop The Ban (STB), which fought to overturn/forestall Palo Alto's  then‐proposed ban on vehicle dwellers.  STB worked tirelessly for several years to convince the City Council and faith groups to support a Safe Parking Program  or what Stone and Burt's article refers to as, "managed location for RV dwellers." The resistance to the program was  overwhelming.  We organized a panel discussion on the topic at a local church that was attended by about 100 folks, including former  City Council member Karen Holman. Our keynote speaker was a counselor from a very successful Safe Parking Program  in Santa Barbara. Still, we had no success in getting the powers that be in Palo Alto to consider such a program.  I'm wondering if the answer is not a total refusal to support SB 50's call for more and dense housing, but rather, making  certain that the bill includes provisions for a very large percentage of the dense housing, envisioned by SB 50, to be set  aside, in perpetuity, for low‐ and very low‐income individuals, including seniors, people of color, the disabled, the  formerly unhoused, etc.  In addition, we could begin a discussion of mandating housing for the victims, and their families, of housing segregation  going back generations in Palo Alto. Yes, a big‐time discussion of providing permanently free or very low rent housing as  a form of reparations for the wrongs Palo Alto visited and continues to visit on our African‐American brothers and  sisters. SB 50 could include language that would require a principled discussion of reparations statewide.  Aram James  Park Street, Redwood City  1 Carnahan, David From:Hanna Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Research project tobacco and e-cigarette marketing Hello Palo Alto City council,          My name is Hanna   and I am a student from Palo Alto High School and was hoping to ask you a few questions.  I am currently researching an issue on tobacco. My research question is, how do tobacco advertisements target youths  in low‐income communities and how are e‐cigarette companies beginning to do the same? As a social justice and  methodologies requirement, I am too compose some sort of action research. Which is one of the reasons for me  contacting you. I went around and researched several liquor stores and 7‐elevens near Palo Alto to see what the  marketing for tobacco and e‐cigarettes products were like. One observation I found was several signs located outside of  tobacco's retail store that read “Under 21 no tobacco, we card and have your ID ready” and “giving tobacco to minors  could cost you, it is not only wrong it is illegal. “ I did some further research on the signs and found that age of sale  warning is also a legal requirement for all retailers due to the Tobacco Control Laws of 2017. The first question that I was  unable to find in my research,  Who is supposed to make sure the warning signs are up in stores? Is it a state agency or a  local agency?  Another question that will help my understanding, What is done if the signs are not up in the retailer  stores? And my last question is, In your opinion, Are these signs effective in preventing teens and those under 21 from  buying e‐cigarettes and other tobacco products?  I hope you find a time in your schedule to respond to my questions  research, and any response would be greatly appreciated.   Thank you.  Sincerely,  Hanna    1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 23, 2019 2:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:SCSC Roundtable March 27, 2019 Agenda Dear Council,    As you may recall, during Council's Priority Setting meeting earlier this year, I pleaded with you to make sure that the  City of Palo Alto set some clear objectives/standards for belonging to the new Santa Clara | Santa Cruz County  roundtable group, to address the dumping of aircraft noise over the City of Palo Alto. I understand that PACC will have a  meeting to discuss airplane noise and I look forward to this follow up then.     In the meantime, as the working of this table become more transparent, I urge you to please request three equally  important items from the Roundtable and regarding the upcoming agenda for the March 27 meeting of the SC SC Roundtable.    1) To please have explained at the next meeting how the Agendas are being pulled together. Who is proposing what,  and what is the basis for setting priorities. The March 27 Agenda lists an SJC Departure procedure. Was this item  proposed by the FAA? SJC? the City of San Jose? (who does not belong to the new roundtable) or......?     2) Ensure that any discussions of any procedures to begin with AEDT maps and the proper environmental docs (due for  any and all FAA actions per FAA's own rules). AEDT maps are "what if" scenarios which can estimate noise impacts on  the ground and also show where the route will go and who will be potentially affected. According to Volpe National  Transportation Systems Center (the experts who train people on this program), an AEDT map for a route can take about  1 (one) day, to 1 week to produce for any route. Therefore, there is plenty of time to put an AEDT map together for the  SJC LOUPE departure discussion before March 27.     3) How are roundtable funds being spent so far and to have a report on a monthly basis. BTW, the roundtable facilitators  have represented that they know how to use AEDT, so I would assume they will have noise maps for any and all  procedures that they raise for discussion.     I know you work really hard on behalf of the City, and thus it is greatly appreciated when you can take the time to ask  for some of these core items from regional bodies that the City belongs to. I believe that making sure this is is done will  serve the community well.     Thank you,    Jennifer                1 Carnahan, David From:Francesca Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, March 22, 2019 5:06 PM To:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Stop Verizon's cell nodes in our residential neighborhoods Dear Palo Alto City Council, Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission,    Please put a moratorium on any further consideration of cell nodes in our residential neighborhoods. I am not saying we  can't have 5G, but please put the cell nodes along freeways and on top of commercial, industrial and city owned  buildings, not in our residential neighborhoods.     Sebastopol City Council declared a moratorium on telecommunications applications until further research was  completed stating The proposed towers would add unsightly equipment, overload poles, devalue property and increase  radio frequency radiation in our neighborhoods. Verizon then withdrew their application and backed out. Santa Rosa City  Council also put on hold Verizon's Wireless project to install antennas and wireless equipment throughout the city.    San Jose, along with 100 cities and counties, is suing the FCC over this broadband power grab. The legal challenge is now  in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 9th circuit and supported by Rep. Eshoo's bill, H.R. 530, aiming at regaining local  control. This is not the time to push Verizon's cell nodes through. Please stop and think about what you are doing to Palo  Alto's neighborhoods.    Thank you,  Francesca Kautz  . A • CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO Al TO MEMORANDUM FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING 3/19/2019 [X] Placed Before Meeting [ I Received at Meeting Item #2 TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE DATE: March 19, 2019 ID# 10179 SUBJECT: 2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan & $4 million FY 2019 Budget Referral Update Attached to this memorandum is an example of the services inventory that staff has been working on based on City Council direction. It is based on FY 2019 Adopted Budget resources for the Library Department and illustrative of the efforts currently underway. DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER: ' Ed Shikada City Manager DRAFT/WORK IN PROGRESS Ubrary Department Service Portfolio Contracting services, facilities management, Is 37,025 1 s 1,271,282 1 o.40 I 2.9%1 Ensure 13,520 hours of Low Cost Recovery: I N/A I Other coordination of library operations and library services can be some facilities rental planning. I redered annually. (20% feesare meant to be· Increase from FY 2008) collected, but aren't -s--T ""·'" 1-,,,,-currently. LIB I Access to !The library provides free and open access to 0.0% 18.8 Library checkouts Low Cost Recovery: No j Munlclpal Code I Other Collectlons collections (books, media, eBooks), resources, per capita or the Intended relalfonship and services to all by acquiring print & digital approKimately 500,000 between the amount resources for circulation In the library system titles readily available paid and the benellt for public use. library staff processes within an average of 2 received, public benefit feedback from the public on materlals business days. acquisitions and considers the public's opinions when acquiring new materials. Materials are rotated as needed based on public feedback and industry best practices. This includes digital material content, access to which is provided through Digital literacy Program. l,ML!~157t LIB !Access to 'The library provides and ensures adequate s 15,000 s 1.4% Low Cost Recovery: No N/A Other Technofosy and equitable free public access to unique, intended relationship useful, and educational technology. This between the amount access includes publlc computer access, web paid and the benefit communication, technology used for public received, public benefit programs, and emerging technologies. •perform experiments on integrating I I technology Into library services (Grant l ___ l funded) ,. Library Department Service Portfolio LIB ue LIB Digital Literacy IThe library provides digital literacy support, I S Service which Is the ability to use digital technology to find Information, and to critically evaluate that Information's authority and relevance. ellbrary services for digital materials access, and special programming for new technologies for public access. Make technology related services and technology based collections avallable to the public. Integrate apps for successful public use. Provide customer service to enable the public to successfully access library technology resources. This does not Include digital material content (which Is part of Access to Collections Program). !Children's !The library provides programs and focused IS Services staff time to promote chlidhood literacy and learning. Activities Include a Readers Advisory (advises chlidren on what books to read for assignments and personal Interest), chlidren's storytime, special event performers, and more. General library use and materials circulation by the public Is Included In this service area .. ITeen Services !The Library provides programming for teens h such as creative writing workshops, Reading Advisory services that provide book recommendations specific to the age group and lndlvtdual, and other services that are meant to develop youth ages 13 to 17 In Palo Alto. A partnership with local schools allows teens to use their school ID card as a library card, encouraging. A Teen librarian Is dedicated to teen services. s 479,210 2.51 I s 1,998,520 18.25 $ 277,446 2.43 DRAFT/WORK IN PROGRESS 0.0%1Complete 305,111 onlinel low Cost Recovery: No N/A Other 0.0% 0.0% database sessions and 150,000 internet sessions Support ove visits annu; programs w attendles a branch loca nearly S cardhol rlmllllon fly, 1,914 ith 74,299 t the five tions and 5,000 ders. ----Serve 6,000 through tee annuall\ Increase frc peek In artlclpants programs, ii 174% m the prior FY201Z. --------- intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received, public benefit low Cost Recovery: Programs supplies supported by Friends group, No Intended relatlonshlp between the amount paid and the benefit received, public benefit low Cost Recovery: Programs supplies supported by Friends group, No Intended relationshlp between the amount paid and the benefit received, public benefit ' N/A l Other I N/A -l~er .· DRAFT/WORK IN PROGRESS Ubrary Depanment Service Ponfollo ~ -· ~..__ ~~~=·-~=-~~--~~~--~~~ LIB )Adult Services Besides targeted Children's and Teen services, $ 164,269 $ 2,995,516 25.52 s.s" low Cost Recovery: I N/A I Other the Library provides services for the general Programs supplies adult public. The library develops programs supported by Friends for adults based on community feedback. group, No Intended They work dosely with partners, such as the I relationship between Community Services Oepartll)ent and Palo I the amount paid and the I Alto Adult School, to provide teaser programs I benefit received, public for classes provided by CSD (i.e., Digital benefit Photography, Excel, yoga). Other services for adults include reader's advisory, reference, and ESL classes. General library use by adults facilitated by staff Is included In this category of services. LIB !Community IThe Library provides community space though $ -$ 596,509 2.43 1 0.0% Support 12,434 room No cost recovery at this I N/A I Other Connections access to collections, to meeting and working reservations annually, a time. Cost recovery for space, community outreach, community 25% year Increase room usage was events, emergency response servlcH, between FY 2016 and FY planned, but is not community services (Ballot Boxes/Early 2017. currently being Voting, PAHA, Citizenship, Tax Assistance), Implemented. This may and more. Health and wellness activities are be moved to CSD next also provided for In the library space. . ' FY. I I ..L •. - I ~ MEMO To: City of Palo Alto CAO Committee From: Debra Figone, MRG Consultant Date: March 25, 2019 Subj: 2019 CAO Performance Evaluation Process Performance Areas and Indicators of Positive Traits Replacement documents COUNCIL MEETING ;s /7-s;-/\1 !SdReceived Before Meeting OReceived at Meeting The CAO Committee packet of March 19, 2019 included outdated versions of the Performance Areas and Indicators of Positive Traits for the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager. Attached are the most current versions. We apologize for the . . mconvemence. Palo Alto City Attorney Performance Areas and Indicators of Positive Traits 1. Technical Competence and Professional Development a. Demonstrates an understanding of the City's business operations and goals. b. Provides legal advice to Council, the City Manager, and the City management staff that is timely, accurate, understandable and usable. c. Remains neutral with respect to policy/political matters. d. Identifies alternatives to advance goals of Council/CM/Department heads/staff while reducing legal risk. Proactively identifies legal issues and risks. e. Identifies and resolves issues at the earliest feasible opportunity. f. Reviews and manages City lawsuits and claims appropriately. g. Collaborates effectively with City Manager and department directors to resolve City legal issues. h. Engages in professional development/learning activities to keep abreast of new developments in her field and continue to build skills. 2. Council Relationship a. Does a good job in researching and responding to Council calls, questions and inquiries. b. Demonstrates the appropriate level of preparation for Council meetings. c. Demonstrates the appropriate level of leadership/participation during Council meetings (e.g., expressing opinion, offering suggestions, listening/talking when appropriate to do so). d. Understands and acts on Council agreed-upon priorities. e. Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that feedback into action. Demonstrates actions that encourage mutual honesty, respect and trust. 3. Public Relationship a. Listens openly to public request and suggestions. b. Is responsive to requests from the public, within the context of the job responsibilities. c. Is a good representative of the City. 4. Leadership as a Department Director a. Exercises sound judgment. b. Models good leadership with staff and in the role as a department director. c. Presents crises when possible but responds to crises when necessary. d. Demonstrates good interpersonal skills. e. Effectively manages outside Counsel to achieve positive results. f. Works effectively with Departments to collaboratively solve problems. 5. Staff Leadership and Management a. Attends to the creation and maintenance of a positive work environment (e.g., through employee recognition, an environment of openness, and regular communication). b. Fosters teamwork among staff members. c. Demonstrates the ability to recruit and manage high quality, diverse applicants. d. Demonstrates the ability to retain high performers within limits of control (e.g., within the confines of pay scales, job proximity and family/personal factors that can lead to employee turnover). e. Engages in personnel issues appropriately. f. Assures that employees are engaging in professional development (e.g., through coaching, targeted work environments, internal/external training, professional conferences and other learning opportunities). 6. Management of Operations and Organizational Effectiveness a. Competently manages the day-to-day business of the City's full service law office. b. Assures the development of clear staff workplans and holds staff accountable to those workplans. c. Effectively assures competent budget development, execution, and financial controls and monitoring. d. Attends to the long-term financial health of the City through efficiency improvements such as mana$ing the expenses of outside Counsel. e. Encourages high performance and continuous improvement among staff and in all City operations. 2 Palo Alto City Clerk Performance Areas and Indicators of Positive Traits 1. Technical Competence and Professional Development a. Ensures fair and accurate elections. b. Competently manages City records. c. Teaches other departments how to develop agendas, minutes, and ceremonial resolutions/proclamations. d. Effectively manages the Boards and Commissions recruitment process. e. Adheres to the Fair Political Practice Commission requirements (e.g., filings, campaign expenditure reports, economic interest reports). f. Stays current on legalities and emerging legal issues. g. Engages in professional development/learning activities to keep abreast of new developments in her field and to continue to build skills (see summary of professional development time spent during performance period in self-evaluation). 2. Council Relationship a. Responds to Council requests with accuracy and in a timely manner. b. Understands and acts on Council agreed-upon priorities. c. Demonstrates the appropriate level ofleadership/participation during Council meeting. d. Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that feedback into action. e. Actions encourage mutual honesty, respect and trust. 3. Public Relationship a. Appropriately visible and accessible to the public. b. Willing to listen openly to public requests and feedback. c. Responsive to requests from the public, within the context of her charter and the law. d. Perceived as neutral by the public, staff, and the Council while still upholding the law. e. Is a good representative of the City. 4. Leadership as a Department Director a. Generally exercises sound judgment. b. Strikes the right balance of dealing with day-to-day demands vs. attending to long-term strategic interests of the City and/or her scope of accountability. c. Prevents crises when possible but responds to crises when necessary. d. Effectively assures competent budget development and monitoring. e. Demonstrates good interpersonal skills. f. Can build consensus and negotiate differences when the situation calls for doing so (e.g. in agenda development and records mana~ement). g. Brings the right balance of creativity and mnovation to the job. Is proactive in looking at process improvements. h. Models good leadership with her staff members. 5. Staff Leadership and Management a. Attends to the creation and maintenance of a positive work environment (e.g., through employee recognition, an environment of openness, and regular communication). b. Demonstrates the ability to recruit and manage high quality, diverse applicants. c. Demonstrates the ability to retain high performers within limits of control (e.g., within the confines of pay scales, job proximity and family/personal factors that can lead to employee turnover). d. Assures the development of clear staff goals and holds staff accountable to those goals. e. Encourages high performance and continuous improvement. f. Engages in personnel issues appropriately (e.g. avoids micromanagement but intervenes when people need help). g. Coaches staff members and assures that employees are engaging in professional development. Palo Alto City Manager Performance Areas and Indicators of Positive Traits 1. Vision and Strategy a. Supports the development of the Council's vlSlon; communicates and fosters it throughout the organization and within the community. b. Supports Council's development of a City-wide strategy. c. Strikes the right balance of dealing with day-to-day demands vs. attending to long-term strategic interests of the City. d. Encourages the City to tackle difficult, but necessary, long-range challenges. e. Prevents crises whenever possible but responds to crises when necessary. 2. Council Relationship a. Identifies problems and recommends solutions. b. Keeps Council members appropriately and equally informed and does so in a timely manner. c. Assures Council has access to information when needed. d. Understands and acts on Council agreed-upon priorities e. Demonstrates the appropriate level of leadership/participation during Council meetings. f. Assures that staff members' participation at Council meetings demonstrates adequate preparation, clear analysis and appropriate participation. g. Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that feedback into action. h. Is respectful, yet forthright in interacting with Council. 3. Community and Key Stakeholder/Partners Relationship a. Listens openly to public request and suggestions. b. Is responsive to requests from the public, within the context of the job responsibilities. c. Manages boundaries and expectations well. d. Is engaged and committed to building and sustaining community by fostering strong bonds among different interests and stakeholders and the City. e. Does a good job in representing of Palo Alto's interests when negotiating with key stakeholders (e.g., government organizations at the local, regional, state, and federal level; boards and agencies, school districts, Stanford University, the Chamber of Commerce, friends' groups, and other organizations). f. Is visible and present in the community. g. Is a good representative of the City and a capable communicator. 4. Executive Leadership a. Exercises sound judgment. b. Sets and models high ethical standards. c. Represents the city well as its chief executive. d. Promotes mutual respect and is effective in acting as part of the team. e. Effectively manages in an environment of conflicting values and opinions. f. Moves the organization forward through planning and effective change management. g. Can build consensus and negotiate differences. h. Negotiates fairly and effectively on behalf of the City with unions. 5. Operational Management and Organizational Effectiveness a. Assures that day-to-day City Operations are being managed effectively and efficiently. b. Effectively assures competent oudget development, execution, and financial controls and monitoring. Attends to the long-term financial health of the City. c. Fosters the right balance of creativity and innovation with getting things done. d. Assures that there are clear staff goals and accountability to those goals. e. Fosters high performance and continuous improvement among staff and in all City operations. f. Advances the use of technology in the delivery of city services. 6. Staff Leadership and Organizational Culture a. Models and leads through mission, values and personal example. b. Builds and sustains a strong and capable organization through recruiting and retaining employees, managing employee and organizational performance, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, fostering balanced and considered risk-taking and building a culture of service and responsibility. c. Attends to the creation and maintenance of a positive work environment (e.g., through open and regular communication, teamwork, cross-departmental collaboration and employee participation and recognition). d. Fosters competent and accountable personnel management in the organization. e. Coaches staff members and assures that employees are engaging in professional development and growth. f. Is respected and trusted by staff. 7. Professional Contribution and Development a. Is a respected and recognized leader in his field; makes contributions, within a reasonable and prudent level, in the world of local government and public affairs. b. Continuously learns and improves his own capability. 2 '"' ec.... -' ,_...,,, ..J '\=C.... l'Y\ -=b \ \. '\ \ l '\ l~~\ FY 2020 Residential Rate Projections -Updated FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 Electric_ Utility ~l-8% ;L_ 3%-5% IL_3%-5% Jl 3%-5% ;[_ 3%-5% Gas Utility l 10% ~=-10% -J[ 10% J[ 2%-3% ::~~ 2%-3% --JC 7% 6% JI 6% ][ _,6% .~ Wastewater II I 6% J. J,_ ~ IJ 4% r: -· 2% lr _ 3% · 11 -~ II -6% Water Uti I ity 6% . - L Refuse -:~~ 3% 11 3% II 3% ll _ 3% r .. 2%-3% I' 2%-3% 'I 2%-3% Ir -2%-3% 4.5% 5% 5% 4% 4% ~ A c1rv OF ¥PALO ALTO 55 .I If ,I to: Palo Alto Council Finance Committee Ed Shikada, City Manager Wayne Tanda, Transportation Consultant March 1, 2019 6 From: Neilson Buchanan, Michael Eager, Pat Slattery, Allen Akin and John Guislin Leaders from Evergeen Park/Mayfied and Downtown RPPs met with Wayne Tanda on February 27. The purpose of this meeting was to submit RPP needs to city staff who are in the process of finalizing workplans and budgets for the FY19/20 Council Priorities. We were pleased with Mr. Tanda's effort to understand history and needs of our RPPs. Mr. Tanda explained his role to support city manager and the yet-to-be-hired Chief Transportation Officer who will be reporting directly to city manager hopefully by early summer. We reluctantly acknowledge the need for the new CTO to be involved and buy into the priorities and budgets for his department. Nevertheless, we think certain projects can be implemented on a faster track: Valet/Ambassador Parking and Garage Wayfinding/Signage. Attached are the RRP issues submitted to Mr. Tanda. Most of these issues have been under discussion for over 4 years and we would like to present them briefly to the Finance Committee. Let us know when you can agendize our issues so that we can keep our neighbors informed. These are our top priorities for the coming year. We are deferring other issues in consideration of the staff turnover and vacancies. Please allocate resources to improve Evergreen Park, Crescent Park, Downtown North, Professorville and University South neighborhoods. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell . cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com February 27, 2019 Dear City Council and Staff: We would like to present our recommendations for the Evergreen Park and Mayfield Residential Permit Program, as well as related parking issues. 1. Continue the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP and retain the number of non-residential permits at the current level of 125 permits in Zones A,B,C,D; 125 permits in Zones E and F, and 40 permits in Zone G. 2. Expand our RPP area to the west side of El Camino between Stanford Avenue and Park Blvd to add 30-40 more spaces for the use of non-residents. 3. Non-residential permits in EGP/Mayfield should be sold with the same pricing structure as the permits for non-residents in the Downtown RPP. RPP permits should be significantly more expensive than garage permits. 4. When the new California Avenue public parking garage is completed, non-residential parking permits in EGP/Mayfield should be eliminated. 5. Parking should be restricted and enforcement should be provided for Evergreen Park and Mayfield just as it is for the Southgate neighborhood on days when there are games and major events at Stanford University. 6. Implement a process to give priority to employees working in neighborhood serving businesses when non-residential parking permits are sold in the EGP/Mayfield RPP. 7. Create dynamic informational signage for all public garages showing the number of vacant spaces still available in the garage to improve garage utilization. 8. Implement valet parking in public garages to improve utilization of garage spaces. 9. Provide an annual professional audit of the EGP/Mayfield RPP to evaluate whether employees purchasing non-residential parking permits meet criteria, including working in a registered business in the area and income level. Sincerely, Michael J. Eager, on behalf of Evergreen Park and Mayfield residents 1960 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ,• PALO ALTO RPPs Resident Priorities Submitted Palo Alto City Council Finance Committee on behalf of Downtown RRP Neighborhoods by Allen Akin Neilson Buchanan [ cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] John Guislin March 1, 2019 Commitment to on-going monitoring and improvement of RPP systems that: • Gives priority to protecting residential neighborhoods • Uses pricing to incent use of city garages and lots • Supports low-wage workers and neighborhood serving business Actions Required: 1. Commitment to annual reduction in number of non-resident permits sold, starting from a base of the actual number of non-resident permits sold in the most recent year. • No annual waffling by Council. • No buffer to accommodate commercial growth. EXAMPLE: DTN RPP: Start with a 10% annual reduction. 2018-2019 858 non-resident permits sold. 2019-2020 858-85 = 773 maximum non-resident permits available. This is a very moderate slope of reduction. 2. Annual professional audit of RPP documentation to ensure requirements are enforced and black-market activities are minimized. 3. Adoption within 12 months of a new pricing model that makes full-price non-resident neighborhood permits at minimum twice as costly as the most expensive commercial parking option near the RPP area. NOTE: This excludes low-income permits, which should have moderate price increases over time. 4. Implement a process to give priority for non-resident permits to neighborhood serving businesses. Council directed staff to do this two years ago and again last year. Please get this done in 2019. 5. Implement valet parking in targeted (promised) garages along with way finding to deliver maximum utilization of city parking garages and lots. 6. Re-examine the benefits of the dormant NTCP-Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program - that set objective standards for neighborhood traffic volumes, speeds and cut-through percentages. Look at reviving and updating this program or using it as a model for other programs that would maintain objective neighborhood quality standards. 7. Establish a stakeholder group to address harmonizing parking and housing policies. • I