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