HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190708plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 7/8/2019
Document dates: 06/19/2019 – 06/26/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 21, 2019 2:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Atkinson, Rebecca
Subject:5G Antenna Dangers to Human Health
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To: Palo Alto City Council Members
Eric Filseth, Mayor
Alison McCormack, Council Member
Tom Dubois, Council Member
Adrian Fine, Vice Mayor
Liz Kniss, Council Member
Lydia Kou, Council Member
Greg Tanaka, Council Member
In response to the Palo Alto postcard regarding File #: 19PLN‐00191
I strongly object to placing 5G Antennas in residential neighborhoods
because of the Dangers to Human Health ‐‐ especially Children.
Scientists have now documented many cumulative dangers to human health. The FCC is woefully many years out of
date. We have the responsibility to protect our citizens.
Below are a few of many articles explaining recent research:
http://fortune.com/2019/05/22/health‐concerns‐5g‐cellphones‐cancer/
https://mdsafetech.org/2019/04/28/stop‐5g‐may‐15‐2019‐day‐of‐action/
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/10/26/US‐cities‐counties‐sue‐FCC‐over‐5G‐cell‐network‐
rule/1911540569147/
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/20/horns‐are‐growing‐young‐peoples‐skulls‐phone‐use‐is‐blame‐
research‐suggests/?outputType=amp
https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g‐cell‐towers‐dangerous/
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=121685
https://takebackyourpower.net/un‐staff‐member‐5g‐is‐war‐on‐humanity/
https://www.defendershield.com/5G
2
https://www.gaia.com/article/5g‐health‐risks‐the‐war‐between‐technology‐and‐human‐beings
Please note the Child Endangerment Act Calif Code 273a.
https://www.california‐law.org/criminal‐defense/california‐state‐crimes/child‐endangerment‐penal‐code‐273a/
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely yours,
Edith Gilbertson
425 Alma St, # 211
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:edie gilbertson <ideasbyeg@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Priya Hariharan
Subject:5 G Transmitter Dangers
Attachments:cell tower SF Board of Appeals brief Hogan Lehmann 2019.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To The Palo Alto City Council
Attached for your review is a Brief written for San Francisco
which explains ‐‐ and documents ‐‐ the many health hazards
of 4G/5G installations.
I request that you take this into consideration regarding 5G Transmitter Applications now in process in Palo Alto.
Sincerely yours,
Edith Gilbertson
Palo Alto, CA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:pol1@rosenblums.us
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2019 12:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Meeting of June 24
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I urge the Council to pull the revision of the AECOM contract from the consent calendar and discuss the changes in open
council session. I have been disappointed by the opaque relation between City staff and the AECOM consultants because
we often are unaware of the communication between them and the specific detections that AECOM has been given by
staff. All effort must be made to assure that the interactions must be made transparent and open to Council oversight.
Stephen Rosenblum
Santa Rita Ave, Palo Alto.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 3:33 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:June 24, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #30: AECOM Contract Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
June 23, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JUNE 24, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #30
PROPOSED AECOM CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar and reject the
proposed contract amendment with AECOM, because AECOM has a potential
conflict of interest due to its receipt of funds from the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board.
The current City of Palo Alto agenda item is a proposed amendment to a
contract approved by the City Council on April 16, 2018, that is described
more fully below this letter in my April 15, 2018, letter to the City
Council about the original contract.
On November 1, 2018, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board awarded
contracts to AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) and another company
for an amount of up to $25,700,000 to provide on-call as needed general
engineering design and design support services for a five-year term.
See Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) staff report, “Award of
Contracts For On-Call General Engineering Design Services” in the agenda
packet for the November 1, 2018, JPB Board meeting on PDF pages 139-142
at: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-11-
01+JPB+FINAL+AGENDA+PACKET.pdf; and minutes of the JPB November 1, 2018,
JPB Board meeting on Page 4 of 5 at:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Director
s/Minutes/2018/2018-11-01+BOD+Regular+Meeting+Minutes.pdf.
2
The proposed amendment to the AECOM contract would create a continuing
potential conflict of interest in AECOM working for the City of Palo Alto.
AECOM should not be working for the City of Palo Alto on rail issues
related to Caltrain, because AECOM has a contract to receive funding from
Caltrain.
Therefore, you should remove this item from your Consent Calendar and
reject the proposed contract amendment.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 11:28 PM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: April 16, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #6: Rail Contract with AECOM
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
April 15, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
APRIL 16, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
CONTRACT WITH AECOM IN THE RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION AND
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar and reject the
proposed contract with AECOM, because AECOM has a potential conflict of
interest due to its receipt of funds from both the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board and the California High Speed Rail Authority.
3
I notified you at you January 29, 2018, meeting that the previous
contractor for this project, Mott MacDonald also had a conflict of
interest in regard to this project.
See my January 29, 2018, letter to you in the February 12, 2018, City
Council agenda packet Public Letters Set 2 of 2 on PDF pages 149-156 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63291.
On August 3, 2017, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board awarded a $4
million contract to AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to provide on-
call planning support for grade separation projects.
See Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers (JPB) Board staff report, “Award of
Contract to Provide On-Call Planning Support for Grade Separation
Projects” in the agenda packet for the August 3, 2017, JPB Board meeting
on PDF pages 155-159 at:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Director
s/Agendas/2017/2017-08-03+JPB+Agenda.pdf; and
minutes of the JPB August 3, 2017, JPB Board Meeting at the bottom of Page
6 of 8 and the top of Page 7 of 8 at:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Director
s/Minutes/2017/2017-08-03+JPB+approved+minutes.pdf.
Therefore, AECOM has a potential conflict of interest in working for the
City of Palo Alto on the Grade Separation project, because it receives
funds from the JPB for "Planning Support for Grade Separation Project".
The proposed contract with AECOM, including the Scope of Services for the
contract, appears in the 4/16/2018 staff report (ID # 9100) for this
agenda item at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64464.
The following information appears in that staff report and scope of
services at the pages indicated below:
Contract page 7, PDF page 12 of 51, under "Section 21. Conflict of
Interest, paragraph 21.1": "In accepting this agreement, CONSULTANT
covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any
interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict
in any manner or degree with the performance of Services."
Contract page 11, PDF page 16 of 51, under "Scope of Services Contents":
"Task 7. Assist the City during CAHSR Environmental Analysis Phase".
Contract page 12, PDF page 17 of 51, under "Project Understanding", first
paragraph, last sentence, "City is preparing for increases in passenger
rail service due to Caltrain's Electrification Project and the probable
California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Project."
4
Contract page 28, PDF page 33 of 51, under "Task 7. Assist City during
CAHSR Environment Analysis Phase": "At CITY's request, CONSULTANT will
attend relevant CAHSR EIR meetings and ensure that CITY's interests are
represented during the environmental analysis process. ... CONSULTANT will
review and summarize relevant information in the EIR documents and [help]
draft comments and [provide] supplemental information to the CHSRA to
address CITY's concerns."
Since November 2008, AECOM has had a $55 million contract with the
California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) for the Altamont Corridor
Rail Project as part of the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS.
In May 2013 CHSRA transferred funding for Altamont Corridor Planning to
the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), including the $36.43
million the California Legislature appropriated to CHSRA for the Altamont
Corridor when the Legislature approved SB 1029.
See the staff report prepared for the June 6, 2013, CHSRA Board Meeting,
Item #3 to "Transfer Leadership and Funding for Altamont Corridor to the
SJRRC at:
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2013/060613/AI_3_Proposal_Amend_MO
U.pdf
See "Amended Second Memorandum of Understanding" between the California
High Speed Rail Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission at:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2013/060613/AI_3_Attachment_MOU_SJR
RC.pdf, on PDF page 5 of 6, under "12. Funding.: The California State
Legislature appropriated funds specifically for environmental and design
work in the Altamont corridor as part of SB 1029 (Chapter 152, Statutes
2012) in the amount of $36.43 million. The Authority plans to apply these
funds to the planning and environmental work within the Region in
cooperation with SJRRC ..."
Monthly reports of the spending on the CHSRA contract with AECOM funded by
CHSRA and currently administered by SJRRC are provided to the CHSRA
Finance & Audit Committee.
These reports enable the calculation of the contract amount spent during
any time period by comparing the contract balance between two of these
monthly reports.
During the most recent twelve months, it is possible to calculate the
amount spent for the ten months of May 2017 through February 2018
inclusive.
For that ten month period over $7 million of the $55 million contract with
AECOM was expended:
Balance as of April 30, 2017: $37,222,747
Balance as of February 28, 2018: $30,201,568
-----------
Total Expenditure: $ 7,021,179
5
CHSRA June 2017 Contracts & Expenditures Report as of April 30, 2018:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2017/brdmtg_061417_FA_Contracts_Exp
enditures_Report.pdf, Page 1 of 19.
CHSRA April 2018 Contracts & Expenditures Report as of February 28, 2018:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2018/brdmtg_041718_FA_Contracts_Exp
enditures_Report.pdf, Page 1 of 18.
AECOM has a potential conflict of interest in working for the City of Palo
Alto, because it receives funds from CHSRA that are laundered through
SJRRC.
AECOM should not be working for the City of Palo Alto on rail issues
related to Caltrain and related to CHSRA, because AECOM receives funding
from both of these organizations.
Therefore, you should remove this item from your Consent Calendar and
reject the proposed contract.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Roland Lebrun <ccss@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 7:29 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg
Subject:Item #30 AECOM contract amendment #1
Attachments:German tunnel costs per Route Mile (RM).pdf; Tunnel portal widths.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Council,
The intent of this letter is to request that you consider the reallocation of tasks 6.6 (south Palo Alto tunnel)
and 6.7 (South Palo Alto tunnel with freight at‐grade) to a different firm with a commensurate budget
reallocation of $300,000.
Background: AECOM have grossly misrepresented tunnel costs and associated impacts on adjacent properties
as evidenced by the attached documents:
1) German tunnel cost of $125M for a 2.61‐mile tunnel (including portals)
2) Portal widths (HS2 final report)
For twin bored tunnels the spacing of the two bores is assumed to be 0.5 times the TBM or starter chamber
diameter to the inside face of the portal cutting, with one tunnel diameter between the bores. This may be
reduced if required, particularly for TBM reception. There is significant precedent for this from projects such as
CTRL as shown in this figure
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Roland Lebrun
Document No: ETO_MGM_Capital Investment Benchmark_R01.0_20190501_1300 Confidential and Proprietary
Page 71 of 263
Earthwork and drainage (SCC 10.04, 10.05, 10.06)
Table 5-35 and Table 5-36 summarize DB unit costs for earthwork and trackbed infill from the
reference documents and years as shown.
CCC min in
EUR/m³
CCC max in
EUR/m³
Year 2016 2016
Topsoil included included
Cut 14 24.5
Embankment 14 28
Sub-ballast n/a n/a
Table 5-35 - Unit costs DB – earthwork
CCC min in
EUR/m³
CCC max in
EUR/m³
Year 2016 2016
At-grade trackbed infill 20 34
Table 5-36 - Unit costs DB – at-grade trackbed infill
Tunnels (SCC 10.07)
Table 5-37 shows the main cost components of the DB tunnels chosen previously for benchmarking.
Length Diameter TBM Total cost
Total cost
per RM in
USD
Year
of
cost
basis
Tunnel mi ft. ft. EUR USD EUR USD USD/RM
Kaiser-Wilhelm Tunnel 2.61 29.53 33.14 18,000,000 21,597,480 105,000,000 125,985,300 48,274,780 2011
Katzenberg
Tunnel 5.83 30.84 36.48 20,000,000 23,997,200 340,000,000 407,952,400 34,977,997 2004
Albvorland
Tunnel 5.08 31.50 35.66 21,572,000 25,883,380 380,000,000 455,946,800 44,873,817 2015
Finne
Tunnel 4.33 31.50 35.66 18,735,000 22,479,377 258,000,000 309,563,880 35,738,575 2007
Table 5-37 - DB tunnel cost components
The most detailed costs are available for the Finne Tunnel. Therefore, its costs were used for the cost
benchmark of Pacheco Tunnel No. 2. Table 5-38 shows the cost components of the Finne Tunnel
with cost basis 2007.
High Speed Two Ltd High Speed 2 Final Report
A1.6.2 Width
As the construction portal and the permanent portal have different functions and different
limitations they may be in different locations along the alignment. It is therefore necessary to
consider each individually.
A1.6.2.1 Construction requirements
To allow the launch of a TBM or start chamber from a headwall the width required is
dictated by the working space required at the base of the portal structure and the space
required to form a stable cutting. The cutting may have vertical or battered sides; however
the particular Geotechnics of each site will be evaluated to assess space requirements.
The working width at the base of the portal will depend on the alignment and may be varied
to suit the available space at the portal location. It is however necessary at this stage to
make working assumptions for the space required. If the running tunnels are to be in a
single TBM drive with a dividing wall then the portal width should be sufficient to allow the
TBM to approach and enter the headwall. In some cases it is necessary to carry out some of
the TBM assembly in the cutting; although the TBM can be “walked” into position from an
assembly point further up the cutting therefore a working assumption of 1.5 times the
diameter of the TBM or starter chamber will be assumed.
For twin bored tunnels the spacing of the two bores is assumed to be 0.5 times the TBM or
starter chamber diameter to the inside face of the portal cutting, with one tunnel diameter
between the bores. This may be reduced if required, particularly for TBM reception. There is
significant precedent for this from projects such as CTRL as shown in Figure ##
CTRL TBM reception portal
The proposed basis for design is shown graphically in the schematic below.
Page A22 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 15 December 2009
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 1:10 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Gaines, Chantal; kanne.megan
Subject:Connecting Palo Alto - Consent Item #30 - 6/24/19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable Palo Alto City Council Members and City Manager, Ed Shikada:
I am sending a note regarding the June 24, 2019 City Council meeting agenda, specifically #30 on the consent calendar,
regarding the revised contract award to AECOM for consulting services related to Connecting Palo Alto. It is our understanding that a new traffic consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, will be replacing the former one, and will
be a sub-consultant to AECOM. The Professorville neighborhood would like to remind Staff and Council that a robust and transparent traffic study, with effective traffic mitigations, was promised. A stated criteria throughout this process has
been to maintain or improve local access and reduce the impact of regional traffic on neighborhood
streets. Please ensure this is a prime objective of these consultants as you double their contract. Our neighborhood
repeatedly asked Staff for a meeting with the former traffic consultants to discuss mitigation options for the clover leaf of Alma, Lincoln and Emerson St., but to no avail. We will continue to seek this meeting with AECOM and Hexagon
Transportation Consultants and appreciate your support.
Sincerely, Barbara Hazlett
cc:
Chantal Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager Megan Kanne, CAP Member
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2019 5:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Mercedes Dealership
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Palo Alto City Council,
It seems that the Staff is putting the vote to you next Monday about the Mercedes
proposal at our Baylands.
There is a lack of transparency here as the Architectural Review Board has been passed
by. At the last meeting
of the ARB that they would have denied the project because of so many issues that have
not been resolved.
The applicant was given a choice of a denial or a 4th meeting and they chose the 4th
meeting. The work of
the professional volunteers should be given respect and be part of the decision of what
happens to this 'huge'
monstrosity of an edifice, which does not fit in with surrounding buildings, and will
disturb birds and other
wildlife with the much to bright lighting around the perimeter of the top floor.
Why doesn't the staff report include minutes or a video of the ARB's most recent 4 hours
of deliberations?
Not enough transparency, it seems, to make a vote that supports our focus on
sustainability and climate change.
Thank you,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2019 8:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Baylands Mercedes/Audi project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Council Members,
The proposed Mercedes/Audi auto dealership is absolutely the wrong way to go. It is massive. Many find it ugly, but of
course that is a matter of taste, which does not always prevail in PA. Worst of all many trees and/or a bike path would
be sacrificed to build this temple to Mammon. Birds, such a vital part of the baylands, would be deprived of habitat.
Birds are vital to our environment. Mercedes cars are NOT.
The project violates City rules. I have read that ARB has not yet approved this project, and some PTC members have
reservations. This means that it is premature and improper for Council to hear this proposal next week. That hearing
should be postponed until all the preliminary work by our advisory boards is complete.
More generally, with climate change and sea rise breathing down our necks, how can anyone propose more
development in or near the wetlands?
On another topic, my husband and I were hoping to attend the meeting scheduled for 5 this afternoon, to participate in
public comment. However at the last moment the time was changed by 2 hours and the later time is not possible for us
today. Only last week a similar thing happened. The discussion of the plastic ban, attended by a large number of
people, was delayed by about two hours due to an executive session running very late. One might get the impression
that the powers that be in our fair town wish to discourage public participation. Could that possibly be?
Yours sincerely,
Carol Kiparsky
800 Cowper St
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 20, 2019 9:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item 35, Auto Dealership
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am writing, not as a member of any city commission, but as a member of the community, to encourage you to approve
the Zoning Amendment and construction of new auto dealership buildings. Mercedes, their architect, and ownership
group have demonstrated willingness, even eagerness to be good community members and Baylands neighbors. They
have the support of the Planning commission and apparently only color and landscaping issues with the ARB. As
examples, they have agreed to asked for bicycle path changes, environment friendly construction, plan bicycle loaners
for Baylands use, and agreed to suggested tree planting beside the Baylands, They have spent time to understand the
surrounding Baylands and the city can expect them to be good neighbors. Please approve Action item 35.
Don McDougall
650 815 1455
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, June 21, 2019 5:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
RE: Agenda Item #35 – Mercedes dealership, 6‐24‐19
Dear Council Member,
I am perplexed why this project is before you tonight – why it even made it this far given its mass/FAR and zoning issues,
and non‐compliance with the Baylands Master Plan (BMP)?
Now it is on you to do the right thing and uphold our Codes, zoning and the BMP. Remember when Mercedes came
before the city council before with a proposal for this site ‐ it was much smaller then, yet was rejected by the council?
Why in the world would you approve of this jumbo edition now? This is our Baylands – we are supposed to abide by the
principal there that “less is more”, not that “more and bigger is alright”.
The project doesn’t comply with current zoning for the property, so will need a zoning change, then making it
incompatible with the surrounding zoning ‐ spot zoning. This then in turn would set a bad would precedent for future
Bayland projects that may come before you. You surely don’t want to pick up this sticky wicket, do you?
Buildings are to blend in and conform to the requirements of the BMP, yet it doesn’t in so many ways. Here is one of
many examples big (literally) and small ‐ the building is needlessly lit‐up all around its edges so that birds in the area or
flying over at night will have lights shining where it shouldn’t and needn’t be for no reason, counter to the BMP. You can
see a clear outline of the whole building at night – it’s ridiculous and serves purpose. The applicant just doesn’t get it.
This is the interface with protected Baylands. It is highly regulated. This isn’t auto row on El Camino in Sunnyvale.
We pat ourselves on our back for saving our Baylands unlike other cities. Now we better do more than pat – we better
enforce. It’s up to each of you Monday night.
Winter Dellenbach
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Deborah Wexler <drkwexler@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:DO NOT APPROVE DEALERSHIPS at the Baylands
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Do not approve these dealerships at the Ming’s site. I own an Audi and I don’t want this built there. Out of scale and
does not belong near wetlands. Yes, there are dealerships and office buildings there but they are in scale and maybe
shouldn’t have been put there in the first place. So don’t compound that mistake with another even bigger one. For
once, stop thinking about tax revenue and what developers want and think about what is right!
Deborah Wexler
Forest Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Anneke Dempsey
Subject:Proposed building on the Ming site near the baylands
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members:
I don’t see the harm in an auto dealership on the site and I understand developers wanting more "Bigger is Better”
buildings; however, if the following is true, I think the Council would be wise to circulate accurate information to get
citizen input, more than just the input from knee‐jerk reactions from those opposing or supporting the project. You will
STILL get those communications but the wider the circulation of fact is the better of two options.
Be more than three times more massive than its neighboring buildings
Be 40' to 50 feet tall, making it taller than any other buildings around
Obtain zoning unlike any other property east of 101, creating precedent that other developers will
no doubt want too
Get an exemption to not count thousands of square feet of floor space, again creating a new
precedent that could enlarge other commercial buildings citywide
Fail to provide a tree‐lined bike/pedestrian path along East Bayshore and Embarcadero that both
the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board thought important
Create new light pollution that adversely impacts the natural Baylands environment
Ray Dempsey
1036 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:James Poppy <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 5:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Protect our Baylands. Don’t allow Mercedes development.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Come on, City Council,
This proposal goes against everything you say is a priority for Palo Alto.
Show us that you aren’t just shills for developers and special interests.
Your credibility is at an all‐time low. Show some conviction.
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 5:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mercedes / Audi Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members:
Here are some important concerns to address at tomorrow’s Mercedes/Audi dealership hearing:
Excessive Floor Height
Many residents, along with members of both the PTC and ARB, have expressed concern over the huge mass
of the project. Much of this stems from floors that are taller than necessary:
Floor Description Can
Shrink
2nd Floor
Parking
Garage
This proposed garage deck is 18 feet tall even though standard floor-to-floor height
for a parking garage is 10 feet. The new city garage under construction near
California Avenue has 10 foot 8 inch high second and third floors, but the extra 8 inches do not cause the building to exceed the height limit and it’s not in a height-
sensitive area. The proposed Hamilton/Waverley garage had a floor 10 foot 6 inch floor in height. The proposed Mercedes/Audi facility has both surface and roof
parking available for taller vehicles, so 10 feet for the garage is quite sufficient.
8 feet
1st Floor Service
Area
This proposed height is 18 feet. That is taller than current car service areas in Palo Alto. The plans submitted a few years ago for the Mercedes-only dealership
proposed a service area 15 feet tall. If height reduction is made an explicit goal,
architects might find ways to further reduce the height, such as putting taller equipment in special locations.
3+ feet
Roof
Parapets
These are four feet high. Moving them away from the roof edge so they cannot be
seen from nearby will reduce the apparent height of the building. The Council has advocated this very approach for other buildings. Since the building greatly exceeds
its parking requirements, any minor loss of roof parking capacity is not significant.
4 feet
Combining the above would lower the major portions of the building by 15+ feet, dramatically shrinking its apparent mass and yet not impairing functionality. Since the parking deck would drop by 11+ feet, the 50 foot
elevator tower going to the roof could be just 39 feet tall, again making the building more like others around it.
In summary, please do not approve the proposed floor heights but rather ask the ARB and applicant to work
out ways to lower the apparent building height by at least 15 feet.
Zoning Change
Although the project is requesting you change both parcels to CS(D)(AD), there are no other sites with CS
zoning east of 101 currently. Rather, other nearby parcels that aren’t PCs are zoned as ROLM(E)(D)(AD),
which also allows for auto dealerships. CS zoning permits more office space than ROLM and once two
2
Baylands parcels are given CS zoning, all others could ask for it too and increase their office sizes in an area that’s not very transit-friendly and already highly congested at rush hour. Please ask the ARB and applicant to
look at whether ROLM zoning would be sufficient for this project.
Furthermore, you are being asked in the Record of Land Use Action to approve the statement
Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. (Section 4)
There are actually no Service Commercial areas anywhere east of the Bayshore Freeway other than the
Mercedes parcel, so the statement above is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-1.3, as the
proposed zoning change is clearly not compatible with its surroundings.
Actual Square Footage of Project
The public have been given quite different numbers for the size of the project, including:
84,900 sq. ft. per the agenda item description - note it does not say “floor area”
103,962 sq. ft. from page ZA100 of the project plans, summing Mercedes/Audi FAR 104,131 sq. ft. per the Environmental Impact Report
110,373 sq. ft. from page ZA100 of the project plans for the parking calculations
170,892 sq. ft. from page ZA500 of the earlier plans, which included parking garages, after subtracting for spaces not longer being proposed
Based on the above, the agenda description does not match the EIR nor the project plans. This means the
public has not been correctly informed as to the actual size of the project.
Uncounted Floor Area
The recent four-page addendum to the staff report from Ed Shikada does not describe the uncounted floor area situation correctly. It says on page three that,
“within the one-story volume of the building is a multi-level automated parking lift system that moves
new car inventory within this space … staff has concluded that the puzzle lift does not count towards floor area because it is not a floor of the building.”
Yes, a puzzle lift is not a floor itself - but it rests on a floor, just like any other shelving or storage system. If
we’re going to stop counting floors that contain some form of shelving or storage racks, that will utterly change
decades of past interpretation of our Municipal Code.
Furthermore, the plans do count the puzzle lift area on the ground floor as floor area, so the quote above from
the addendum is not correct.
That quote also fails to address the key objection, which is to how to count second floors that house part of the
puzzle lift. These are not within any “one-story volume of the building” but rather a separate floor above offices or showroom space on the ground floor. Whether a second floor has a puzzle lift resting on it, or any other
storage or building use, each separate floor of a building has always counted as floor area and so should for this project too. I estimate approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of floor area has not been counted due to this omission.
Thank you very much for reading these comments,
Jeff Levinsky
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 8:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mercedes dealership at gateway to Baylands
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members:
I urge you to please send this huge project back to the drawing boards.
City staff has not registered compliance with the Baylands Master Plan, which includes “recommendations to
enhance the park quality of Embarcadero Road as the entrance to the Baylands and to create a gateway
experience for visitors to the park.”
This dealership building is far too massive for the site. The PTC narrowly recommended approval, with 4
commissioners concerned about the large scale.
The ARB has NOT approved it, but has requested another hearing with drawings and specs missing from
previous meetings. Give them time for that review.
Why is staff pushing this? Is it a matter of money? How much is it worth to the city to allow this out‐of‐
scale building to violate the approach to and the spirit of the Baylands, which are truly one of Palo Alto’s
treasures?
Please do not approve this project until it has been modified to better integrate with its surroundings.
Thank you,
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner and former 30‐year‐resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:29 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Holman, Karen (external)
Subject:MERCEDES BENZ PROJECT
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Greetings City Council Members,
We are writing to support Karen Holman's comments below, regarding the proposed Mercedes Benz project in the Baylands on the site of the former Ming's restaurant. We agree that this is a project
considerably out of scale for this location. The removal of the large trees is a major concern, and
every effort should be made to keep as many of these trees as possible. We had hoped by now that
the Council would realize that its consistent approval of oversized projects throughout our city is
destroying its once unique character. To wit: Take a look at the disaster underway on Page Mill Road just East of El Camino Real. This building is beginning to take the shape of one of the most ugly in
town, and it is our belief that the incredible traffic delays that have been caused over the past year
during construction will only continue when people attempt to enter and leave this hotel. Just think
that the four old homes there that could have been replaced with a modest building of affordable
homes with a smaller footprint than what we will now have to live with.
Please wake up elected officials, and begin to take some pride in our city. Your actions so far have
done nothing but turn Palo Alto into a mini metropolis that lacks the space for all the mammoth
projects you consistently approve.
Finally, all that I have read re global warming tells us that this site will be under water by 2050. What
are you doing to prevent our Baylands from becoming under three feet or more of bay water?
Sincerely,
Richard and Jeanne Placone
Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto
*************************************************************************************************
The following is Karen Holman's statement
Dear friends of Palo Alto Baylands,
The Baylands
This coming Monday, June 24, at 7:30 the Council is scheduled to consider the large Mercedes and
Audi project on Embarcadero and East Bayshore, at the gateway to the Baylands. It is Item 35 on the
Agenda.
2
The City staff has been reticent to consider the Baylands Master Plan as a guidingdocument for this
project. The Baylands Master Plan in fact states that the site is a gatewayto the Baylands. City staff has provided tables of compliance with other City requirqmentsbut not compliance with the Baylands
and its Master Plan.
“..,. The Baylands Master Plan also includes several recommendations to enhance thepark quality of
Embarcadero Road as the entrance to the Baylands and to create agateway experience for visitors to the park….”
While the applicant agrees that this will be a destination location (not reliant on freeway visibility), the
project dramatically changes the streetscape to expose and highlight the new building by removing
existing trees and creating a large, incompatible building in this sensitive and gateway location to our Baylands.
Diligent and concerned members of the public have calculated that the Mercedes part of this project
is 51% larger than a prior application that a prior Council rejected as too large.
How We Got Here
The city's Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the project by a
narrow 4 – 3 vote with 4 Commissioners indicating their concern about the project’s large scale being
incompatible with the Baylands,
The City's Architectural Review Board (ARB) on June 6 offered the applicant the choice of a denial or
a continuance of the project to a fourth hearing. The applicant agreed to the latter. However, staff is
asking the City Council to certify in the Record of Land Use Action that the ARB voted approval of the
project. The staff report lists a number of concerns the ARB identified as outstanding issues, but I both
attended part of and watched the entire four - hour ARB session on video, and individual ARB
members expressed more reservations.
Those include being split about the large mass and scale of the project, compatibility between it and neighboring buildings, whether the project will actually comply with requirements approved by the ARB if it happens to go forward without its complete recommendation, and how well the project
integrates into the rest of the Baylands.
Again, the ARB has not completed its review, not voted thumbs up approval. Additionally, the ARB submissions are supposed to include contextual drawings to help assess compatibility issues. This applicant has not provided those drawings or some lighting specifications
necessary to the ARB. The project as currently designed will have significant lighting impacts on the
Baylands, which can be detrimental to wildlife migratory patterns. A vague recommendation before
the Council will reduce the lighting to “security levels” after hours (10PM), but that has no specificity nor was it reviewed by the ARB.
As one example, what is the purpose of this “halo” and will the glow dominate this area ofthe
Baylands as it appears in the plan submission?
The ARB minutes from its latest review of the project are still not available online. Will Council members and the public have time to review a four-hour video that is available on the Media Center
site but not the City’s?
3
Once the Baylands gateway is transformed with such an urban project, it
will not only change that location but set the stage for future degradation of the scenic corridor as classified in our own Comprehensive Plan.
A compatible Mercedes/Audi project can be designed that is respectful of our processes,the public,
and all of us who consider the Baylands precious.
Thank you,
Karen Holman
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 8:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mercedes/Audi project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Council Members ‐
I ask that you please reject this oversize, inappropriate proposal. It is not a suitable gateway to our wonderful Baylands
open space and the exposed, tree‐less sidewalk will make pedestrian/bike access to that area unfriendly. I am also
concerned that the light pollution will have a negative impact on wildlife in the area.
Please push this back and insist that the applicant provide a better alternative.
Regards,
Pria Graves
2130 Yale Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 8:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:dont allow the Mercedes and Audi dealership on 2 parcels on the corner of Embarcadero and East
Bayshore
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilpersons,
The proposed complex will do this:
Be more than three times more massive than its neighboring buildings
Be 40' to 50 feet tall, making it taller than any other buildings around
Obtain zoning unlike any other property east of 101, creating precedent that other
developers will no doubt want too
Get an exemption to not count thousands of square feet of floor space, again creating a
new precedent that could enlarge other commercial buildings citywide
Fail to provide a tree-lined bike/pedestrian path along East Bayshore and Embarcadero
that both the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board thought important
Create new light pollution that adversely impacts the natural Baylands environment
Sincerely,
Larry Alton
lalton@pacbell.net
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Casey Cameron <alt.caseyc@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:I oppose the development of the auto dealerships in the Baylands
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To Members of the City Council of Palo Alto,
I am opposed to the building of the Mercedes / Audi dealership project in the Baylands. It entails an enormous
and inappropriate use of precious natural land and a zoning change that we should not allow.
Thank you for your consideration,
Casey Cameron
1033 Bryant St.
Palo Alto 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:abby boyd <abby650@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 11:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Deny developers Baylands
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
No big building on Ming’s site
No bigger building east of Bayshore.
Save the bay.
‐‐
null
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Bubenik <dbubenik@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 1:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message for June 24 City Council meeting
Attachments:PaloAltoCityCouncilJune24.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached pdf
David Bubenik
420 Homer Ave Palo Alto
Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
As you evaluate the proposal for 1700 -1730 Embarcadero Road on June 24, please give
thorough consideration to its mass and compatability with its environment.
The mass model pictured above shows how the project is much, much larger than any
of its neighbors. It was constructed from the applicant's dimensioned diagrams using
Sketchup 3-D modeling software, and placed into Google Earth using the latter's model
location and placement facility. A sliver of Ming's roof shows through the building front.
The Moire pattern on the Audi showroom indicates the accuracy of the model and its
placement.
The next image shows the building at street view, borrowed from the applicant's latest
1
submission. It is a stark, corporate look, wildly incompatible with anything around it.
The design is likely dictated by the manufacturer, as seems to be the current fashion,
but does Mercedes-Benz corporate govern what gets built in Palo Alto?
At the ARB meetings considering this proposal, members of the public expressed their
concerns about this project's suitability at the gateway to Palo Alto's Baylands. I share
their concern. In response, ARB members rightfully pointed out that the corridor to the
Baylands has been despoiled by commercial development for many years.
True, but should we insist on repeating the mistakes of the less environmentally
informed past? Do past transgressions justify new atrocities? I think not.
For the sake of the next many years, please send this thing back to the drawing board
(metaphorically) with clear instructions on compatability to its site. Let's leave a better
legacy to the future than our predecessors left to us.
David Bubenik
420 Homer Avenue
Palo Alto
2
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Richard Willits <richardwillits@me.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 2:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mercedes Dealership
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To my dear friends on the council,
Please think hard about the message of allowing the glorification of gasoline on Embarcadero.
Climate change, which threatens our city, is strongly driven by fossil fuel‐powered vehicles. Mercedes & Audi still sell
gasoline and diesel‐powered cars and trucks. No dealers should be allowed to sell such vehicles in our city. Each such
new vehicle could be carbon‐polluting for decades to come, compounding this misery. We need to stop this now.
Richard Willits
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 2:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 35. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council:
I urge you to take a careful look at Item 35 on your Agenda tonight. There appear to be many critical
issues on zoning changes, size and massing of the proposed buildings, and compatibility with the
Baylands Master Plan. It is important with such decisions that both you and the public have a chance
for full consideration of the range of issues raised by both the PTC and ARB before a final decision is
made.
Thank you,
Greg Schmid
Palo Alto CA 94303
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:gmahany@aol.com
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 2:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mercedes and Audi project on Embarcadero
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To PA city council
Do not let the car dealership or any developer run over the planning commission or architectural review board. If developers can get
the Palo Alto city council to override the planning commission and architectural board why have them? When we
remodeled our house, we had to go through the architectural review board and have drawings for floor plans and elevations, pay
planning and building fees, so dose the car dealership developer not have to this too. Developers complaining to the city council are
just trying to get architectural/planning variances and avoid city building fees.
The proposed complex will:
Be more than three times more massive than its neighboring buildings: Why are the developers
so keen on a large building as anything built in the bay lands is temporary?
Be 40’ to 50 feet tall, making it taller than any other buildings around: This will make the building
a good reef as the bay rises with sea level.
Obtain zoning unlike any other property east of 101, creating precedent that other developers will
no doubt want too: If city hall gives one developer exceptions others will want them too and use
the courts to get them!
Get an exemption to not count thousands of square feet of floor space, again creating a new
precedent that could enlarge other commercial buildings citywide: Does the city council want to
walk on this slippery slope
Fail to provide a tree-lined bike/pedestrian path along East Bayshore and Embarcadero that both
the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board thought important: Palo Alto claims
to be bike/pedestrian friendly. Will Palo Alto city council demonstrate their commitment to this
standard or let developers walk all over them?
Create new light pollution that adversely impacts the natural Baylands environment: Lighted window in tall buildings are a known bird killer. This has been studied and mitigatable with known architectural practices and window treatments. Is Palo Alto going to require the
developers to do them?
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 4:02 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:June 24, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #2: Cross Bore Contract
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
June 24, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JUNE 24, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #2
CROSS BORE VERIFICATION PROGRAM CONTRACT
Dear City Council:
The contract document attached to the staff report for the agenda item (ID
# 10222) does not include information I am accustomed to seeing for
contracts presented to the City Council for approval.
There is no signature from the contractor on the signature page, there is
no Schedule of Performance, and there is no Scope of Service (or
specifications).
The Invitation for Bid (IFB Number 174268) says that the contractor will
provide weekly reports that include videos of laterals on the customer's
side of the property line.
Utility customers should be notified when videos of laterals on their
property are available, and of how and when they can access those videos.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:$719,000 for Art is Way Too Much!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members:
The following was recently sent to you by Pat Marriott:
"Council Members:
Have you forgotten your fiduciary responsibility?
Spending $719,000 of taxpayer money for 3 pieces of “art” for the police station is irresponsible.
There are plenty of artists who would be happy to donate work to get visibility. You could have a
rotating display. Maybe there are staffers in the police department who are artists.
Give the money to the poor. Put it into a housing fund, but DO NOT throw it away on this frivolous waste.
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner"
I concur completely with Pat. The mere idea of spending that much money on some art is complete
financial irresponsibility when there are so many other more pressing needs existing in our
community.
Greg Tanaka, I hope you and others will vote down this proposal.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:No on $719,000 art contract
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council
Please DO NOT approve the $719,000 art contract for the police station.
Why is this excessive fee being given to an artist from El Cerrito? Palo Alto has an excellent group of resident artists, the Pacific Art League, whose facility is right across the street from City Hall and the Police Station. I am not against art for the new police station, but I am strongly against the Council supporting an artist outside of Palo Alto.
Thank you, Alan Cooper 270 Kellogg Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:54 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Pat Marriott
Subject:Fw: $719,000 for "art"?! Council votes on this TONIGHT
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
Here we go again!! Hugh amounts of money for what up to now is mediocre art. I totally agree with Pat Marriott in her statement below. A far better use of these funds would be to provide an off street
resting place for all the RVs along El Camino Real and elsewhere. I've previously suggested that the
Council designate a parcel of land in our Baylands near the former dump for a paved parking lot with
electric outlets, and a building with toilots and showers. That would be the humane thing to do with
our tax payer money. A small rental fee could be charged to help defray costs.
What is the matter with our city councils? Why, for example, do you continue to contemplate a $20
million pedestrian/bike bridge over 101, a process that has been years in doing nothing but talk, while
East Palo Alto has already built an amazing bridge over 101 for around $8 million. You are should be
ashamed of yourselves and I mean everyone of you present and recent past.
Richard Placone
Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto
From: Pat Marriott [mailto:patmarriott@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 9:31 AM
To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org' (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org)
Subject: $719,000 for "art"?!?!?!
Council Members:
Have you forgotten your fiduciary responsibility?
Spending $719,000 of taxpayer money for 3 pieces of “art” for the police station is irresponsible.
There are plenty of artists who would be happy to donate work to get visibility. You could have a rotating display. Maybe there are staffers in the police department who are artists.
Give the money to the poor. Put it into a housing fund, but DO NOT throw it away on this frivolous
waste.
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 11:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: $719,000 for "art"?! Council votes on this TONIGHT
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I agree with Pat, especially with our pension expenses etc. And it would be
an opportunity for artists to get visibility, and a rotating display. A very creative City
project. We could use it for the facilities needed for the safe parking for the motor
homes??
Thanks,
Suzanne Keehn
4976 Orme St
94306
-
Council Members:
Have you forgotten your fiduciary responsibility?
Spending $719,000 of taxpayer money for 3 pieces of “art” for the police station is irresponsible.
There are plenty of artists who would be happy to donate work to get visibility. You could have a rotating display. Maybe there are staffers in the police department who are artists.
Give the money to the poor. Put it into a housing fund, but DO NOT throw it away on this frivolous
waste.
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jacqui Bury <jacquibury@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 1:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:A better use for $713,000
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Please don’t buy three pieces of art for a police station for $713,000.
Instead, give it to Pets in Need for upgrading your crumbling animal shelter and income‐sliding scale spay and neuter
services.
Regards,
Jacqui Bury
From my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 3:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:1% for public art -- at police station or anywhere else
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
I know about the 1% for public art, which I’ve always thought is crazy. Most of the stuff we see around town
that’s been paid for under this law is ugly and we’d be better off without it. But that’s just my opinion and art
is very personal.
That said, we shouldn’t demand it of developers and we shouldn’t spend taxpayer $$ on it.
Developers are already complaining about impact fees for schools, roads, etc., and yet we ask them to pay for
“art.” Time to change the law. There are far more important needs.
Pat Marriott
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Hilary Glann <hglann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 1:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Disposable Foodware Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you for your support of the disposable foodware ordinance. I’m very happy to see the Council being a leader in
moving our city away from single use plastics, including produce bags, forks, knives, clamshell food containers, etc,
especially given the magnitude of the plastics pollution problem we currently face..
Critically, however, we need to focus our residents on reducing single use items overall, even those that are
compostable. Compostable items typically take more energy to produce than the plastic items they replace, plus they
need to be transported to compost facilities. So although compostables help reduce plastic pollution, they aren’t helping
us save energy. So, for example, we need to help our citizens develop the habit of bringing reusable produce bags to the
store or Farmer’s Market – not simply filling 10 single use compostable bags or paper bags and feeling virtuous because
they are using compostable materials. Our partners at grocery stores and Farmers Markets can be part of this solution.
It would be very powerful if we make clear in this ordinance that the objective is getting away from single use over a
reasonable time horizon, rather than focusing solely on the plastics that we have to get rid of.
Thank you ‐‐
Hilary Glann
946 Ilima Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gosewinus Salvadori <gosewinus.salvadori@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 5:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter to the city
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I write to you as I have some concerns about single‐use plastics. Below have attached a letter detailing what my
concerns are. All I ask is that you read the letter and see if there is anything that the city could consider doing about this
issue. Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Sincerely
Gose Salvadori
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Letter to city
Dear Palo alto city council,
I would like to bring the following news article to your attention
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48477087. I bring this up as I would like to know
your position on implementing similar regulations that ban single use plastics in the city
Palo Alto and possibly California. Though California does have a ban on plastic straws,
I feel that the current measure does not go far enough as it does not enforce the ban on
fast food restaurants and could be expanded to ban all single use plastics. The EU has
passed such a measure already and as this article details, Canada is following the EU
showing how far behind the USA is in environmental protection measures. I propose
looking into how much plastic the city of Palo Alto recycles and then implementing
regulations based on the findings. Even if it is only for a small city like Palo Alto, I feel it
would at least help us do more to save our very important planet.
Sincerely,
Gose Salvadori
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Friday, June 21, 2019 10:54 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jenny Zhang; Kimberly Eng Lee; Jeff Greenfield; Pflasterer, Jim; Stefan Rosner; Ellson, Penny
Subject:Agenda Item 29: Contract Crosstown Shuttle Route
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Thank you for continuing the crosstown shuttle for another 6 months. My mother uses it often.
I write as Public Transit Coordinator for Gunn High School. It appears that the long delayed extension of BART to
Berryessa will be opening late 2019. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/BART‐ready‐to‐test‐Silicon‐Valley‐
extension‐13953201.php Coinciding with the BART extension, Palo Alto will lose the hourly VTA 88 bus service that Gunn
High School and other Palo Alto residents rely on. https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/05/19/palo‐alto‐residents‐
oppose‐vta‐bus‐plan Each of the bus riders represents another car not driving on the crowded Charleston‐Arastradero
corridor during the morning rush hour. Those who participate in after school extra curricular activities and take the bus
to school need a reliable ride home.
Please ask about the status of extending the Palo Alto to serve the students who need a ride home after hours. I
understand the contract bids have been received and awaiting evaluation. Please work with the VTA to provide a
seamless transition between the VTA 88 cuts and the expanded Palo Alto
shuttle. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/17/palo‐alto‐approves‐new‐shuttle‐line‐but‐worries‐about‐price/
You may recall that the Palo Alto Shuttle previously served Gunn High
School. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&t=1452 Because demand was overwhelming capacity,
we worked with the VTA to add the school tripper buses. The VTA considers these a success, and will continue this
service as the renamed VTA 288, 288L, and 288M lines. We may have the potential to add an additional school tripper
route or run. We can poll students in the fall about potential demand and routing for this service.
The Palo Alto Shuttle should be considered as part of the mix for a transit operations funding from a potential business
tax measure along with the Transportation Management Association.
Best regards,
Arthur Keller
Public Transit Coordinator
Gunn High School PTSA
(in my official capacity)
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2019 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC
Subject:06-24-19 Council mtg, Item 36 -- FTTN / sunsetting CAC
Council members,
On 06-24-19, you'll consider (as Item 36 of 36 on the agenda)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=41658.37&BlobID=72070 a staff proposal regarding restarting FTTN and sunsetting CAC.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72075
Below the "######" line, please find a copy of the staff report, to which I have added my comments (paragraphs in red beginning with "###").
HIGH-LEVEL COMMENTS:
* "FTTN" is staff's way of using up $15 million that's currently in the Fiber Fund without getting any of the benefits of
FTTP. I'd rather see the City spend what it takes to design citywide municipal FTTP, so that anything that gets built in the future according to that design is really going to be for the purpose of FTTP.
* I'm fine with staff's bringing FTTP-related items to UAC. UAC's charter (as of 10-18-10) includes overseeing the fiber
utility. Staff should never have stopped bringing FTTP-related items to UAC. I just don't think that that means that CAC should be sunsetted. There could be a role for both UAC and CAC.
* The 01-09-19 staff report said that staff could just sunset CAC on its own authority, but staff found out that Council had
to approve. However, there have been no CAC meetings since 01-17-19. Staff apparently did have the authority not to have CAC meetings. Is that what Council wanted?
* I'm still a CAC member. If CAC is not sunsetted, I'd be happy to continue to serve. But I'd like Council to consider how
to make CAC more effective.
* The 06-24-19 staff report to Council is a lot different from the 01-09-19 staff report to UAC. That means that UAC has not been able to give Council its advice about the content of the 06-24-19 staff report.
* By agendizing FTTN/CAC as the 36th of 36 items on Council's last agenda before its summer break, staff seems to have
made it difficult for Council to consider the issues with alert minds, and for the public to participate. I think it would be great if Council continued the item to a date when this topic could be the first (and possibly only) action item on the
agenda.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
###############################################################################################
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72075
2
--- page 1 ---
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9620)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/24/2019
Summary Title: Authorize issuance of new RFP for phased fiber expansion with the UAC as a public input forum
Title: Approval of: (1) the Re-issuance of the Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) Request for Proposals to Begin a Multi-phase Fiber Network Expansion to Support Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) Systems, and Wireless Communication Technologies for City Staff; and (2) the Sunsetting of the Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and Assignment of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to Assume the
Sole Advisory Role as the Public Input Forum for Fiber and Wireless Expansion for Proposed Phases 1 and 2
From: City Manager
Lead Department: IT Department
### This document doesn't have a signatures page, to identify the people who are responsible for it.
Recommendation
Staff Recommends that Council approve:
1. The reissuance of a Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) Request for Proposals (RFP) to begin a multiphase fiber network expansion to support Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
systems, and wireless communication technologies for City operations. Additional tasks in the reissued RFP (to address AMI, SCADA, and FTTN) will include
detailed engineering designs, construction cost estimates and construction bid support services.
2. The assignment of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to assume the sole advisory role and serve as the public input forum for fiber and wireless expansion initiatives, and the sunsetting of the Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC).
Background
On August 21, 2017, Council directed staff to engage a management consultant to develop a business case, prepare a high-level network design, evaluate financial models for alternative use cases, and identify potential partners and/or
service providers for a municipal-provided FTTN network for fiber and broadband expansion. The motion also included an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network (Staff Report 7616).
### Staff Report 7616: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61084
### I commented on this staff report here (pages 32-42): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61019
I created a transcript of the item and commented on it here (pages 57-96): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61264
--- page 2 ---
Staff issued the original FTTN RFP in June 2018.
### Not exactly. See below (RFP 171422).
The City received six responses and interviewed five of the proposers. The proposed cost quotes ranged from a low of
$75,000 to a high of $5.5 million.
3
### Is staff saying that none of the proposals met the requirements of what RFP 171422 asked for? Or that none of the proposals met the requirements of what staff now wishes it had asked for?
On November 19, 2018, Council approved the City of Palo Alto Utilities Smart Grid Assessment and Technology
Implementation plan, including advanced metering infrastructure-based smart grid systems to serve electricity, water and natural gas utility customers (Staff Report 9780).
### Staff Report 9780:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67639
### I commented on this staff report here (pages 49-51): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67916
I created a transcript of the item and commented on it here (pages 52-63): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67916
Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) is a foundational technology that is becoming a standard in the utilities industry
and will improve customer experience while enabling City of Palo Alto Utilities to operate more efficiently.
### I'm really irked by this claim. In places like Chattanooga, TN, FTTP is the foundational technology that enables smart grid (including AMI). But the consultant staff chose for AMI didn't have any expertise in FTTP.
The Council encouraged staff to align the FTTN business case and leverage the dark fiber network with the AMI
deployment.
### The basis for this claim seems to Council Member DuBois' remarks between 3:00:37 and 3:02:45 on the video (page 62).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67916 I think Council Member DuBois was trying to get AMI to help pay for fiber-related projects like FTTN (and FTTP). I think
he was NOT trying to get AMI to drive decisions about what fiber-related projects like FTTN (and FTTP) should accomplish. Note that Council Member DuBois (at 2:50:13) wanted to postpone hearing this item, because it was nearly
11:00 pm, and he thought it was a substantial item. But Mayor Kniss denied that request (unilaterally).
On January 9, 2019, staff submitted a report to the UAC with the above-noted Staff recommendations, given the new direction stemming from AMI-FTTN alignment, and requested feedback.
### I don't know why the staff report didn't provide a URL, but here it is:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314 I commented on the staff report here (pages 4-9):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43180.18&BlobID=68441 I created a transcript of the item and commented on it here (pages 68-94):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=49119.3&BlobID=68671
### Note that this 01-09-19 item was agendized as a DISCUSSION item, so UAC couldn't vote on it.
### At the 10-16-18 Finance Committee meeting, during the discussion of a FTTN item, Chair Scharff got into an argument with UAC Commissioner Schwartz about how UAC should advise Council. At one point, he seemed to say that
UAC should advise Council by voting on things. See this transcript with my comments, at 2:47:00 (page 36). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67916
### Perhaps at the next "annual" joint meeting between Council and UAC (which is overdue), there can be a discussion about how UAC should advise Council.
Commissioners asked questions about the scope of the RFP reissuance and role of the CAC and whether their mission
has been completed.
### It's not up to staff to decide whether CAC's mission has been completed.
The UAC was supportive of reissuing the RFP to align with AMI, including a detailed engineering design, but had mixed opinions on whether the CAC should sunset.
Discussion
4
Reissuance of the FTTN RFP to Align Fiber with AMI
As noted above, the original FTTN RFP was issued on June 28, 2018,
### RFP 171422, "Fiber-to-the-Node Network," https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/RFP-171422-FTTN-B1.pdf
was issued on 05-24-18. Proposals were due by 06-28-18.
### Incidentally, I think that, in general, RFPs should be posted on the City's website, so that the public can find out what they say. In this case, RFP 171422 is available online at a different website.
to retain a management consultant for professional services to develop a business case, financial model and design
options to build an FTTN network to multiple neighborhood nodes, assess local market conditions, identify potential public-private partnerships, and develop City ordinances that could lower fiber construction costs and incentivize fiber
development.
### On 07-21-17, Council directed staff to return to Council "expediently" with four fiber-related ordinances: 1) dig-once, 2) string-once, 3) multi-unit housing, and 4) microtrenching. See here (page 5):
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61197 That hasn't happened yet.
### "Expedient" sometimes means "convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/expedient Maybe Council should have said "expeditiously."
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/expedient-expeditious/
### Actually, on 09-28-15, Council directed staff to bring a dig-once ordinance "as soon as possible." http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49302
That hasn't happened either.
The RFP noted that subject to the positive outcome of the above-mentioned tasks, the City would issue a second RFP for preparation of detailed designs and cost estimates for a FTTN network as first phase toward a citywide FTTP network.
Considering Council’s acceptance of the Smart Grid and Technology Implementation Plan and direction to staff to align
FTTN with the AMI implementation plan, staff now recommends that future fiber network planning employ a fundamental design principle of fully leveraging and expanding the fiber network to support a communications platform for AMI, SCADA
systems, emerging Smart City initiatives (e.g. traffic management, smart streetlights, parking garage sensors, data collection) and deployment of City operations wireless technologies dependent on fiber to support Public Safety and
Utilities staff working in the field to enhance the delivery of essential City services.
### This is way too complicated to be a "fundamental design principle."
For SCADA in particular, fiber is the optimal communication medium because of information security, reliability, transmission speed, and bandwidth capacity (e.g. security cameras). With remote circuit recloser and switchgear, the City
will be able to provide maximum continuity of electric services to our customers by reducing the number of homes and businesses impacted by outages.
### Chattanooga, TN, has pioneered the use of FTTP to support smart grid features, such as intellirupters (circuit
reclosers). https://epb.com/home-store/power/smart-grid
But up to now, staff has refused to consider learning anything from Chattanooga.
--- page 3 ---
In addition to AMI and SCADA, the City wants to pursue a comprehensive fiber expansion strategy from an integrated cross-utility perspective. The overall objective of this strategy is to evaluate the feasibility of integrating fiber network
expansion into other ongoing utility capital improvement projects and programs, if practical, to fully leverage the City’s fiber asset.
### Who decides what's "practical"?
5
This proposed approach can become a springboard for FTTP because the City is adding new telecommunication infrastructure which may reduce the incremental cost to extend fiber to the premises.
### I don't like the sound of "may".
With a larger and more geographically spread out fiber network, this could incentivize ISPs to form a public-private
partnership with the City to deliver broadband and other services.
### Staff seems to be saying that if the City installs fiber for a lot of random purposes, the result might turn out to make FTTP easier. That's crazy. Design citywide municipal FTTP infrastruture. And then see what other purposes can use it.
### I have no faith whatever that a public-private partnership would make things more feasible. Palo Alto wasted four
years (2005-2009) pursuing this. Fort Collins, CO, wasted some time on this. So did Loveland, CO. (But both Fort Collins and Loveland recovered from this PPP madness and are deploying citywide FTTP networks.)
While potentially adding complexity to the path forward, the recommended approach presents a significant and
groundbreaking opportunity to integrate FTTP implementation with Palo Alto’s other environmental sustainability goals.
### I suspect that the "complexity" would be actual, not potential.
As described below, coordination of FTTP with electric and natural gas utility planning enables an integrated approach to strategies such as building electrification and electric vehicle support infrastructure at the scale of neighborhood blocks
and potentially entire neighborhoods. Utility planning at this scale enables consideration of viable transitions to all-electric services and potentially termination of natural gas services, should neighborhood-level agreement to pursue conversion
be achievable.
Potential integrated utilities planning scenarios include:
• Electric system underground district conversion projects: As the conversion of overhead utility systems to underground systems occurs, projects may include the installation of new fiber infrastructure, including Fiber-to-the-Premises (“FTTP”).
### Why not say "must" rather than "may"? Underground District 41 (2008) (surrounded by Oregon Expressway,
Middlefield, Colorado, and Cowper, more or less) installed conduit for fiber (FTTP) running down the street, and gave homeowners the opportunity to install conduit for fiber (FTTP) from the street to the home. (It would have been smarter to
have made the conduit for fiber from the street to the home non-optional.) It should have been City policy that every underground district since then did the same. But is that what happened? Council should find out!
### Here's a map of underground districts (January 2019).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/12071/ It doesn't show which ones have conduit for fiber (FTTP). Maybe it should.
This approach would accelerate CPAU’s underground conversion program by integrating fiber network expansion.
### How do you figure? As far as I'm concerned, the City should have included conduit for FTTP with every underground
district done since 2008. Did that happen? And did it accelerate electric undergrounding?
### Since the 06-24-19 staff report is about fiber, shouldn't the question be whether integrating fiber network expansion with electrical undergrounding would accelerate the fiber deployment?
### On 03-06-19, UAC considered an Item IX.1 about electric undergrounding. (It was a DISCUSSION item, so UAC
couldn't vote.) The staff report was, I thought, very pessimistic about how much undergrounding would actually occur between 2020 and 2050.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69596
### Over the last year or two, Greg Scharff has been saying that the City's electric undergrounding program is essentially dead. For example, at the last "annual" joint study session between Council and UAC, on 11-27-17, in answer to Council
Member Fine's question about when utility poles were going underground, Scharff said, "The answer to the question when are we going to underground is never. The answer is that it's just far too expensive."
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64102 (Please click on the link to see the rest of what he said. Or listen to the video at 0:41:56.)
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-148/
6
I don't think Scharff was saying that Council had decided this by vote. I think Council should consider the issue formally and decide by vote.
### In his 04-29-19 interview as a candidate for UAC, Schaff responded to Council Member Kniss' question about
undergrounding (at 1:23:47 on this video) https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-4292019/
by saying, "I always thought we should put it to a vote of the people, frankly, whether or not we want to underground the utilities. And we should at least have a sense of what that would cost. Because, right now, there is no plan to do such a
thing." (Please click on the link to hear the rest of what he said.)
• Electric system rebuild projects: The ongoing replacement of underground cables and equipment with new facilities would include the installation of new fiber infrastructure, including FTTP, if feasible.
### What would make it not feasible?
This provides an opportunity for FTTP integration with electrification initiatives at the block and neighborhood scale.
### This needs more explanation. Aren't electric system rebuild projects done at the scale of the underground district?
For example, this could enable the coordinated installation of fiber with the infrastructure retrofits needed to support in-
home electric vehicle charging, kitchen appliances, and water and space heating.
### This could and probably should be a whole staff report by itself. Is staff talking about replacing transformers with larger transformers? Or is it talking about replacing wire with thicker wire? Or both?
• Electric system overhead rebuild: The ongoing replacement of undersized overhead conductors; replacement of wood
utility poles, and a combination of both during overhead line rebuilds, include increasing space on the pole for new fiber optic attachments.
### The City doesn't need a FTTN consultant to tell it that every time you replace a utility pole, that's an opportunity to
make sure it's tall enough to support fiber for FTTP, and to make sure there's room on the pole to install fiber for FTTP (so that the City doesn't have to pay for make-ready work in the future).
As with underground facilities, this provides an opportunity for FTTP integration with electrification initiatives at the block
and neighborhood scale.
• Fiber optics system rebuild: The installation of new aerial duct or substructures (conduit and boxes) and additional fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the dark fiber ring that are at or near capacity.
### In 2015, when staff proposed a capital improvement project FO-16000 to do a dark fiber network rebuild, I asked
Council to demand that staff provide the equivalent of a staff report to say what the project would do. (See, for example, here, page 73.)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47531 But ultimately, staff got the funds for the project without providing the staff report. It's not too late for Council to demand a
staff report.
• Natural gas pipeline replacement: The installation of new natural gas pipelines and the potential abandonment of existing lines will result in the availability of abandoned gas pipe
--- page 4 ---
mains and laterals that can be repurposed for expanded fiber infrastructure, including FTTP.
### At the 06-05-19 UAC meeting, Dean Batchelor said (in this video -- at 3:02:50)
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-652019/ that the City normally puts conduit for electric/fiber on one side of the street and conduit for water/gas/wastewater on the
other side of the street. I infer from this that using an abandoned gas pipe as conduit for fiber would put it on the wrong side of the street. Staff might propose a new scheme in a staff report, where people could think about it.
7
For example, if electrification (complete elimination of natural gas appliances) is accepted by specific neighborhood(s) or area(s), this could result in the abandonment of some gas mains and laterals that can be repurposed for fiber
infrastructure.
### What fraction of neighborhoods might do this anytime soon? I wouldn't want FTTP deployment to be paced by electrification this way.
As a practical matter, the integration scenarios described above would result in some neighborhoods being more readily
furnished with FTTP than others.
### I think the City should be thinking about deploying FTTP citywide, not just where it seems to be convenient.
While this is the case today and may represent the most cost-effective approach, the results of this work may ultimately require policy decisions by the City Council to pursue incremental buildout with variations based on neighborhood
priorities and funding. This may include development of consumer-facing financing options.
### I'm not sure I understand what staff means by "consumer-facing financing options."
### On 06-06-12, staff brought an item to UAC that presented a business model for a "user-financed" FTTP network. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30112
Staff recommended not taking this approach, and giving up on FTTP for now. Unfortunately, UAC, on a 4-3 vote, agreed. Staff then failed to bring the item to either the Finance Committee or Council, even though the Finance
Committee requested it multiple times.
### I commented on the staff report here (pages 49-57): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41950
### Ammon, ID, and UTOPIA have made user-financed models for FTTP work.
After discussion with procurement and legal staff, in order to make AMI, SCADA, and City operations wireless
communication technologies a primary focus of the fiber optic network expansion strategy, staff recommends reissuing the RFP to combine fiber with the above elements and to contain an expanded scope, including detailed engineering
designs, construction cost estimates, and construction bid services. This recommendation is expected to encourage more vendors to bid on the project
### Would more bidders be better?
and may eliminate the need to issue subsequent RFPs for engineering design and construction bid services in the future.
Table 1 below summarizes the scope of work of the original FTTN only RFP and the potential tasks for the proposed
combined fiber AMI, SCADA, and wireless communications RFP.
--- page 5 ---
Table 1: Comparison of the Scope of Work of the two RFP’s, Original and Proposed (Draft) to be requested from qualified consultants.
Phase Original FTTN RFP Proposed (Draft) AMI/SCADA/Wireless RFP
### I apologize for reformatting the content of Table 1, to make it easier for me to comment.
### Nowhere in the "Original FTTN RFP" column of Table 1 is "FTTP" even mentioned. That's misleading. To me, the
only worthwhile part of the Original RFP was the FTTP part.
[Phase] 1
[Original]
• Prepare a business case and financial model for an FTTN model for the city
• Prepare an overview of local, state, and federal legal and regulatory issues
8
[Proposed]
• Prepare a high level design and cost estimate of a fiber optic communication system for AMI, SCADA, and wireless
communications for Public Safety and Utilities
[Phase] 2
[Original]
• Conduct research and analysis, and provide a plan with regards to public-private partnership models
• Provide a high-level scalable FTTN network design
### It's unclear to me what "scalable" means in this context. "Scalable" from what to what?
• Provide guidance on the approach to a phased buildout of proposed design
[Proposed]
• Prepare a detailed design and cost estimate for a fiber network as determined after Phase 1
• Prepare bid ready construction drawings and bid package
• Assist with the construction bid evaluation
• Develop construction standards and methods, and local ordinances
• Prepare an overview of local, state, and federal legal and regulatory issues
[Phase] 3
[Original]
• Perform and provide a local market assessment of service providers including their proposed service upgrades
• Evaluate the impact to the City’s fiber plans due to market assessment
• Evaluate emerging technologies
• Perform a community survey on current satisfaction levels and future interests
[Proposed] • Prepare a business case and high level design for future City and community services, and expansion opportunities for commercial dark fiber
• Conduct a community survey for FTTP and potentially concurrent buildout of undergrounding and electrification
• Conduct market assessment of third party providers • Explore public-private partnerships for FTTP service [Phase] 4
[Original]
• Prepare a report addressing: potential City ordinances and impact on broadband expansion and impact on existing Municipal Codes [Proposed]
9
• Prepare a detailed engineering design and construction cost estimate for FTTP
• Prepare bid ready construction drawings and bid package
• Assist with the construction bid evaluation
Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee
Staff has worked constructively with the Fiber and Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) since its appointment by
the City Manager in 2014. Notable accomplishments of the CAC include working with staff and a consultant to prepare the 2015 Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan; preparing a Request for Information (RFI) in 2016 for
a public-private partnership to build a citywide FTTP network; providing input for the 2018 FTTN RFP, in addition to providing feedback related to Google Fiber.
--- page 6 ---
The Committee’s valuable guidance has been much appreciated. At this time, given the City’s fundamental design
principle of fully leveraging and expanding the fiber network to support a communications platform for AMI, SCADA, and wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities,
### To me, this is not a "given." At present, "the fiber network" must refer to the City's dark fiber network. The best way
to create a citywide municipal FTTP network is to design it for that purpose, not to "expand" the dark fiber network for all kinds of purposes other than FTTP, and then hope that FTTP can benefit from the "expansion."
staff recommends the UAC assume the sole role of advising staff. The original mission of the CAC was to explore the
possibilities of citywide FTTP and wireless communications. In contrast to this mission, the City will research potential integrated utilities planning scenarios as noted above, which requires a broader utilities knowledgebase.
### I believe CAC members weren't chosen for their lack of knowledge of the broader utilities.
### UAC's list of duties (Section 2.23.050 here)
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
mentions fiber but doesn't mention wireless.
### On 10-18-10, Council amended UAC's list of duties to include fiber, but not to include wireless. Maybe Council knew what it was doing.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25435 Since 10-18-10, there has never been an excuse for staff to fail to bring fiber-related things to UAC. CAC was never a
substitute for UAC.
The overall objective is to evaluate the feasibility of integrating fiber network expansion into other ongoing utility capital improvement projects and programs, if practical, to fully leverage the City’s fiber optic asset.
### I suppose that, in this context, "the City's fiber optic asset" means not only the existing dark fiber network but also
any other fiber infrastructure that the City deploys in the future.
This integrated cross-utility perspective creates a practical rationale for an incremental fiber expansion approach and presents an opportunity for the UAC and City Council to discuss cross-utility funding policies and transition strategies as
CPAU deploys AMI smart grid systems to serve electricity, natural gas and water utility customers. The UAC has a wider area of review that covers long range planning of multiple utilities: electric, fiber, gas, wastewater collection and water
including AMI deployment, and is best suited to provide recommendations to the Council on the overall aspects of the integrated-utility fiber network expansion. The UAC also provides a forum for wider community participation, outreach and
oversight for electric undergrounding, electric system rebuilds, fiber system rebuild, gas main replacement, electrification, fiber, and wireless planning. With the new focus and structure, staff believes the UAC can help accelerate the pace of
analysis and decision making on fiber.
If the City advances to the broadband market assessment, community survey and analysis of public-private partnership opportunities described above, the City has the option to recommission the CAC to assist. For now, the UAC will
effectively facilitate
10
recommendations to the Council and create the best opportunity to efficiently leverage the City’s fiber network with other ongoing utility capital improvement projects and programs such as the AMI implementation plan to expedite fiber network
planning, design and construction.
Resource Impact
Depending on direction from the Council for issuing a Request for Proposal to expedite network planning, design and construction, and to better integrate the fiber network expansion with AMI, SCADA, and City operations wireless
communications, staff will work to issue the RFP, evaluate vendor responses and conduct interviews, and return to the Council with recommendations for a contract award.
Timeline
The estimated timeline for the business case and high-level design is to provide the Utilities Advisory Commission (“UAC”)
with some preliminary findings in the 1st quarter of 2020, and a final report with recommendations by the 2nd quarter of 2020. The final report will include presentations before the UAC and City Council at a public meeting.
### It would be more traditional to bring the "final report' first to UAC and then to Council. (Or maybe first to CAC, and
then UAC, and then Council.) That way, Council will have been able to think about UAC's advice first.
### Would it be a good idea to let UAC and Council (and maybe CAC) take a look at the RFP before it's issued?
--- page 7 ---
Policy Implications
The fiber and wireless activities are consistent with the Telecommunications Policy adopted by the Council in 1997, to facilitate advanced telecommunications services in Palo Alto in an environmentally sound manner (Reference CMR:
369:97- Proposed Telecommunications Policy Statements).
### This policy is so old, it isn't even published on the City's website anymore, except for the copy that is included in my message to Council of 09-16-13. (See here, pages 21-28.)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35933 (Please see also my comments about it, pages 14-20.) Telecommunications has changed a lot in the the nearly 22 years
since CMR:369:97 was written. Council should update it.
Environmental Review
The recommended actions in this staff report are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies for possible future action). Environmental review will be conducted, if
required, prior to implementation of subsequent projects.
Attachments:
### These attachments are actually not included in the staff report. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72075
The Brown Act requires that if Council gets to see these attachments, then so does the public.
• Attachment A: Fiber and Wireless Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) • Attachment B: Fiber and Wireless Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) 2
• Attachment C: Request to disband Fiber and Wireless CAC
### Again, the staff report has no signatures page, to identify the people who are responsible for it.
--- page 8 ---
### Pages 8-10 of the staff report are messages from citizens.
Brettle, Jessica
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Malcolm Slaney <malcolmslaney@gmail.com> on behalf of Malcolm Slaney <malcolm@slaney.org>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2019 8:12 PM
To:Council, City; UAC
Subject:Municipal Fiber
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council and the Utilities Advisory Committee.
I really like our Palo Alto utilities. Why can’t they also provide internet “pipes” to our homes?
Our utilities already provide all our services. Very nicely done, I wish to add. Internet should be part of that. I believe
the city can deliver basic internet better and more cheaply than a multitude of outside companies. We already own the
poles and the right of way.
I don’t know if fiber to the node is good enough. That will certainly help people who want to provide radio services for
the last bit. But then we are at the mercy of whoever wants to support us. Going all the way to the home would be a
win.
Thank you.
‐ Malcolm Slaney (College Terrace)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>
Sent:Friday, June 21, 2019 6:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:June 24 Council mtg, Item 36 -- FTTN / sunsetting CAC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Council:
Jeff Hoel's comments are comprehensive, so rather than repeating many of them, I'll just state that I support his
analysis.
I do want to emphasize that FTTP is another tool for reducing traffic congestion, particularly traffic resulting from the
high percentage of Palo Alto residents who commute to jobs elsewhere. And it has the potential to benefit residents
throughout the city, not just those living in transit corridors.
Best Regards,
Allen Akin
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 21, 2019 11:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Fiber & Wireless Citizens Advisory Committee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto City Council:
I am writing to urge you not to disband the Fiber and Wireless Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC), as the City Staff will be asking you to do at your Monday, June 24th meeting. Why
would you do this? Disbanding this group seems wasteful and does not make good
sense! These knowledgeable residents have been advising Staff on establishing a city-wide
municipal Fiber-optics to the Premises (FTTP) network. Now is not the time to ignore citizens
you represent and reduce citizen involvement in the City's decisions. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kelly
444 Washington Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:William Xuan <wx27225@pausd.us>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fiber
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi Council,
Today at the meeting, the staff will try to convince you to vote for FTTN. They will try to convince you that it is a step in
the right direction that will be used to decide the viability of FTTP.
But make no mistake, this is a step forward on the surface, that takes two steps backward. Look no further than the
efforts by staff.
If they truly cared about the viability of the plan, they would not scrap the CAC, and instead dump the responsibility of
fiber to the UAC, where it is more likely to be placed in the back burner. FTTN does not and is not engineered to offer
FTTP. Meaning that even if FTTP is indeed found as viable under the current plan, the foundation that it is built on just
won’t be able to support it.
Bringing fiber to the people is a must.
This would involve rejecting staff’s proposal to implement FTTN, reimplementing the CAC that advises the council,
instead of the staff.
288 residents have signed to petition for these changes (tinyurl.com/fiberpetition).
Just look at the reviews for the incumbents: Comcast and AT&T. Residents are fed up with what is being done by the
cable companies, and more specifically what is not done.
It is FTTP or bust. Choose wisely.
Thanks,
William
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Bobbie Hill <bhill@concordia.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:32 PM
To:Ellson, Penny; O'Kane, Kristen; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Golton, Bob
Cc:Connor McManus; Ali Rex; Steven Bingler
Subject:Re: Cubberley Fellows Debrief
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We missed you on the call last week, Penny. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the questions and your
commitment to your community.
Best,
Bobbie
Bobbie Provosty Hill
concordia
O: 504.569.1818
D: 304.541.2653
From: Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:35 PM
To: Bobbie Hill <bhill@concordia.com>, Kristen OʻKane <Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Shikada, Ed"
<Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Cubberley Fellows Debrief
To: Bobbie Hill, Concordia
In response to your debrief questions on the CoDesign Process:
What are 3 positive outcomes?
1). I met many good people, and we exchanged ideas about Cubberley's future.
2). It was exciting to see consensus emerging around the concepts in Meeting 3...and then painful to see that consensus
destroyed by options that seemed to come out of nowhere in Meeting 4.
Interesting to note that four of fifteen speakers organized by Palo Alto Forward (a regional advocacy group) spoke at the
Council meeting on Monday identified themselves as coming from other cities. Though 160 online signatures were
gathered over three weeks by PA Forward, their signatures were posted without addresses.) 24 Palo Alto residents
spoke at this meeting to question the wisdom of using PF‐zoned space this way given the amount of housing the city has
zoned for everywhere else, plus the recent unplanned housing proposals in the immediate San Antonio area. Will we
have votes to get a ballot funding measure passed now? Before Meeting 4, I might have guessed that we had a fighting
chance, but we lost a lot of supporters in Meeting 4.
2
3). It was good to see new people turning out and engaging with government. Then participants' vision was cast aside
and their hopes that they were being heard were dashed in Meeting 4. I wonder what the effect of that will be.
Question: The final master plan adds 80ksf for affordable senior housing and only 7,000 new square feet for child care
which also has long waiting lists. How did Concordia decide how much new square footage to assign to each of these
uses? What about other program uses? The Needs Assessment that the 2012 CCAC recommended would have included
estimates of needed program size changes related to projected population growth and demographic shifts. If it had
been prepared, this data could have informed decisions about space needs in various programming categories now and
in the future. The 2012 CCAC understood that we needed and did not have data to evaluate trade‐offs related to
space allocation. Concordia's Needs Assessment does not fill this critical information gap. Did anyone consider
additional demand that will be generated by housing growth that is projected in the city's Comprehensive Plan and
recent zoning changes? What about the recently proposed projects on San Antonio (118 housing units in the project
area that were not included in the adopted Comp Plan?
We are headed toward a much more urbanized community design. Cubberley is Palo Alto's last, large PF‐zoned parcel,
perfectly located on bike routes near homes and schools, in an accessible location. When some say that "the addition of
housing will not diminish the ability of Cubberley to provide community services," does that include serving the
community into the future? What data informs this assertion?
Do you have suggestions for improvements?
Do a comprehensive, data‐based Community Needs Assessment as the 2012 Cubberley Community Advisory
Committee recommended to inform decision‐making about trade‐offs related to community services space allocation.
Concordia's Needs Assessment does not do this. It would have been nice if this had been done before the CoDesign
process so participants could have considered the data in their own decision‐making. Before we give away our precious,
limited PF‐zoned land (even for something as important as affordable housing), let's make sure we really do have the
public space we need to support the housing that recent unplanned projects, the new ordinances and Comp Plan
envision and enable. Without data, Council Members and the people rely on personal preferences and prejudices to
make decisions.
Palo Alto must grow, but that growth must be carefully balanced in order to maintain a high quality of life. 230 housing
units have been proposed on San Antonio and Cubberley in the last three months and they seem to be supported by
Council though none of this was projected in the recently adopted Comp Plan. We need to earn back destroyed trust
and consensus by committing to thoughtful, comprehensive land use planning.
Meeting 4 included a lot of brand new information. No one expected that. The boards were hard to read and poorly
organized to help people understand how site organization, circulation, housing and building placement, and phasing
relate. (As a Community Fellow, I arrived an hour early and walked back and forth between boards multiple times to
understand this, and I am very practiced at reading plans). Multiple people complained that they couldn't get close
enough to the boards to read them and that they couldn't move back and forth in the groups.
Finally...$800M is a magnificent sum...and will be hard to pass (even in phases) without strong consensus in the face of
impending grade separation costs that may exceed 1 Billion.
Penny
On 6/12/2019 1:40 PM, Bobbie Hill wrote:
Bobbie Hill has invited you to Cubberley Fellows Debrief
Title: Cubberley Fellows Debrief
3
Location: Zoom link below
When: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
Organizer: Bobbie Hill <bhill@concordia.com>
Description:
Questions for our debrief: Please list 3 positive outcomes of your role as a Cubberley Fellow.
What are your concerns? Do you have suggestions for improvements? Concordia is inviting you
to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Cubberley Fellows Debrief Time: Jun 14, 2019 2:00 PM
Central Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/505713185 One tap mobile
+16465588656,,505713185# US (New York) +16699006833,,505713185# US (San Jose) Dial by
your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 505 713
185 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adGrwC8hMv
Attachments:
Comment:
Attendees:
loren.m.smith2016@gmail.com <loren.m.smith2016@gmail.com>
iriskorol@gmail.com <iriskorol@gmail.com>
shagorica@gmail.com <shagorica@gmail.com>
jjxu99@gmail.com <jjxu99@gmail.com>
davidlhirsch@gmail.com <davidlhirsch@gmail.com>
hocken1@sbcglobal.net <hocken1@sbcglobal.net>
pellson@pacbell.net <pellson@pacbell.net>
elizabethg15@gmail.com <elizabethg15@gmail.com>
boone.cathy@gmail.com <boone.cathy@gmail.com>
enjolito@gmail.com <enjolito@gmail.com>
louise@valentes.net <louise@valentes.net>
bengordon2020@gmail.com <bengordon2020@gmail.com>
annette.tsui@gmail.com <annette.tsui@gmail.com>
alik.dudin@gmail.com <alik.dudin@gmail.com>
Ashu.sb.27@gmail.com <Ashu.sb.27@gmail.com>
yttehsjar@gmail.com <yttehsjar@gmail.com>
vardaan.shah@gmail.com <vardaan.shah@gmail.com>
Ali Rex <arex@concordia.com>
Connor McManus <cmcmanus@concordia.com>
Kristen OʻKane <Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Bob Golton <rgolton@pausd.org>
Related Link:
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dr. Margaret Owens <infosafelifesfoudation2024@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:19 PM
To:carole.groom@coastal.ca.gov
Subject:Donations Request. From The Safe Life's Foundation International
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Donations Request. From The Safe Life's Foundation International
USA office
Derrick Street Boston Ma
Tel : 1‐800‐942‐0821
E‐mail:: infosafelifesfoundations@gmail.com
Ivory Coast office.
Avenue 16 rue 22 Greenville
Abidjan middle africa.
E‐mail:: Infosafelifesfoudation2024@gmail.com
Dear Blessed Executive . Greetings. Peace Joy and Happiness.
I am Dr. Margaret Owens writing on behalf of the Safe life's foundation the Children's Center. Over the past years we
have been providing children with free care, counselling, tutoring, and mentoring.
Many of these Children come from broken or abusive homes and our centres is a haven for them,whenever they need it.
This is only made possible though the generous funding we have received from members and the citizens like you.
Specifically seeking donations to fund the building of our library and the purchasing of books in mali lake chad ivory
coast Northern Nigerian to mention but a few,
As an educated person like you would understand, the access to books is of extreme importance to the development of
our kids to help their intellectual property.
We hope that you will be able to join us in funding the development of our much needed library's. Any support will be
highly appreciated by us and the kids that we provide a service to. Yours own children in the likes of lifes
Sincerely
Dr, Margaret Owens .
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:37 PM
To:Council, City; "pkphillips@gmail.com; jimpf\""@sbcglobal.net; gmca-discuss;
safercommutepta@googlegroups.com
Subject:INQUIRY INTO THE GOVERNANCE OF THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
We know VTA's governance is a problem. Over many years mobilizing Palo Alto residents (and sometimes electeds) to
caravan to San Jose to advocate for maintained or improved bus service in Palo Alto, the PTA Safe Routes to School team
repeatedly encountered disinterested VTA staff and governing VTA Board. This report documents some of the problems
we have seen and offers an opportunity to make things better.
http://www.scscourt.org/documents/CGJ%20VTA%20Final%20Report%20‐%2006.18.19.pdf
INQUIRY INTO THE GOVERNANCE OF THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
60 page Civil Grand Jury Report on VTA released on 6‐18‐2019
Please note that a response is requested from City of Palo Alto on page 47 of 60. Our city sends a lot of tax dollars to
VTA. Let's make sure they work for us. This is an opportunity to make positive change at VTA.
Also, please note (page 22 of 60) this statement, "To address its revenue shortfall, VTA has begun to tap Measure A
and Measure B sales tax receipts, originally earmarked for capital improvements, to help fund transit operations."
Let's not miss this opportunity to support efforts to improve how our regional transit agency serves the region and our
city. I hope that CoPA staff will provide information this report requests to move VTA toward better governance that will
serve Palo Alto more fairly in the future.
Thank you and city staff for your good work.
Penny Ellson
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:pol1@rosenblums.us
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 1:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please consider a resolution to sign a letter to Governor Newsom
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Council members:
Many elected officials across the state of California have signed the letter to Governor Newson described at the link
below to take very aggressive action to eliminate the production and use of fossil fuels to forestall climate catastrophe.
Mayor
Filseth has already signed the letter and I urge the entire council to do so as a group representing the official position of
the City of Palo Alto. Thank you for acting in the interests of a viable future for humankind on our planet.
http://californiaelectedofficials.org/
Sincerely,
Dr. Stephen Rosenblum
Santa Rita Ave
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Eric Raymond <ericraymond@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 12:46 PM
To:bpa-issues@googlegroups.com
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Re: [bpa-issues: 1799] Mid-block, non-intersection pedestrian crossings on El Camino ... now with
lights?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Was there any discussion as to why there were uncontrolled crossings mid‐block adjacent to controlled crossings at
intersections? We're talking very short distances (often less than the width of El Camino). Why not simply remove the
crossings which are poorly utilized and superfluous?
I agree the crossings are unsafe. I just don't see the point of these crossings in South Palo. Removing them only has a
benefit (and I say this as a pedestrian).
‐Eric
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:30 PM Mike Alexander <malemike@earthlink.net> wrote:
Locally, this effort started on ECR in Atherton, where there had been pedestrian deaths in crosswalks. The Palo Alto project includes 6 crossings. Details, including a video of how the new signals operate, is
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4345. Although the web pages don't say how the locations were chosen, the project flyer includes contact info for the local Caltrans Public Information Officer, who may
be able to answer the question.
/Mike Alexander
-----Original Message----- From: "'Soroor Ebnesajjad' via Barron Park Association: Issues"
Sent: Jun 24, 2019 7:23 AM To: bpa-issues@googlegroups.com, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Re: [bpa-issues: 1796] Mid-block, non-intersection pedestrian crossings on El Camino ... now with lights?
Hi, Eric.
I have used similar mid-block crossings on other streets and have in general had good experience.
The one that is installed on Vista and El Camino is particularly useful for the members of congregation
Emek Beraka and those of us who walk/bike through Vista to E. Meadow, etc. Many people cross there
anyways now and the flashing light will be a welcome addition.
I think I might understand what you mean about the risks, in that just because the light is flashing it
doesn't mean cars will stop. One has to wait until it is clear it is safe before starting to cross the street. It
seems similar to crossing at a regular traffic light. Sometimes cars go through the red light, as well.
Regards
Soroor
2
On Monday, June 24, 2019, 12:57:01 AM PDT, Eric Raymond <ericraymond@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone must have recognized the mid-block pedestrian crossings on El Camino were an unsafe and
unexpected form of traffic on a congested six lane state highway. They recently added some overhead lights tied to the crossing, a horrible bandaid that could easily increase the number of pedestrian collisions.
These crossings are unnecessary. These mid-block crossings are a very short distance from normal corner
crossings. For example, the crossing by the Driftwood Market is small number of steps from the Matadero Ave intersection crossing.
I realize this ship has sailed, and it's probably too late to change course. Perhaps this was planned by someone
in Sacramento without any local involvement or input. Perhaps someone can explain the goal of these crossing and their incremental value. Seems an unsafe waste of tax dollars.
I frequently walk, bike, and drive in the local area ... support all efforts to have more of the former. As a parent, i
would tell my kids to avoid these crossings. --
This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association. Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.
Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com. Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the
Barron Park Association or the BPA Board. ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association: Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa-issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpa-issues@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpa-
issues/CAJpaWt4_gtJoToyWuQ9Egi2dwxieNN9pRrVDeR0xYvRydUxKjQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.
Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org. Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board.
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association: Issues"
group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa-
issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpa-issues@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpa-issues/1776423645.994093.1561386216812%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
‐‐
This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.
Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.
Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the Barron
Park Association or the BPA Board.
‐‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association: Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa‐
issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpa‐
3
issues/1629217374.11506.1561404613490%40wamui‐fatboy.atl.sa.earthlink.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2019 11:30 PM
To:Jeremias, Michel
Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; Transportation; Robert Neff
Subject:Newell Bridge DEIR and needed bicycle suitability analysis
Attachments:CommentsNewellBridgeDEIR20190617B.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Michel Jeremias
Thank you for your working presenting the Newell Road Bridge DEIR. See attached comments from myself, and others
interested in quality bicycle routes.
I have cc'ed city council, PTC, and city transportation staff. I think you can collaborate to resolve the issues raised here
and keep the bridge process on track.
Robert Neff
Member, Palo Alto Ped / Bike Advisory Committee.
Emerson Street
Palo Alto
June 18, 2019
City of Palo Alto and CalTrans District 4
Attention: Michel Jeremias, City of Palo Alto
Cc: Palo Alto City Council, Transportation Staff, Planning and Transportation Commission
Re: DEIR for the Newell Road Bridge
Dear Palo Alto and CalTrans Staff,
We find the DEIR for the Newell Road Bridge grossly inadequate for choosing design options,
because it does not address the bicycling suitability and comfort level for cyclists travelling from
Newell Road in Palo Alto to Newell Road in East Palo Alto. While the DEIR shows that the
bridge and intersection may indeed have sharrows, it does not analyze the impact of traffic
congestion and intersection design. This bridge will serve bicyclists and pedestrians connecting
between Palo Alto to East Palo Alto for the next 100 years, and, in conjunction with the new
bike/ped bridge over Highway 101, will be the best, most direct, and most comfortable
connection, so it is essential to consider bicycle circulation in more detail.
We recognize that the original scoping of the EIR only required a vehicular traffic analysis, but,
in the time since this process started, the standards for multi-modal design, and the local
conditions have changed to the point that this omission of bicycle and pedestrian specific
analysis should be rectified before making final design choices.
Planners should do a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis as this project proceeds through the
DEIR acceptance stage, even though it is not required by the original EIR scope. We must
make sure that this bridge will be a great fit for the next 50 years, for all modes.
An excellent bike route should have low “traffic stress”. The “traffic stress” analysis method has
been developed relatively recently, after the creation of Palo Alto’s 2012 Bike/Pedestrian Traffic
Plan, but it was used in developing goals for local bike network improvements since 2015. A
useful reference is here: http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/research/level-of-traffic-stress/
One example of a low traffic stress route is an off-street path, like the Bol Park Path, where
there are no automobiles. Another low stress environment is the Bryant Bike Boulevard, where
bicycles and autos share the lane, but the speed and volume of automobile traffic is very low.
On busier streets, low traffic stress can be achieved by implementing bicycle lanes, such as on
Park Blvd, from California Avenue to Latham. Depending on the volume and speed of traffic,
enhanced bike lanes, with separation or physical barriers can be used to reduce stress, such as
on Middlefield near North California. With lower traffic stress levels along an entire route, a
larger percentage of potential cyclists will consider using a route, while a single high stress
segment can deter many potential users.
In the case of the complete connection from Clarke Ave, in East Palo Alto, across 101 on the
new bike/ped bridge, and across the creek on the new bridge to Newell Road in Palo Alto, all
segments can be considered for traffic stress, and this EIR should make that analysis with
regard to the design alternatives.
The new bridge over 101 has only bicycle and pedestrian traffic so it is low traffic stress (LTS-1:
Suitable for children.). A quick analysis of Newell Road in EPA, based on this traffic study and a
street survey, shows shared lanes, no centerline, 25 mph speed limit, and Average Daily
Volume (ADT) of 1805 -- within the guidelines for LTS-1 if traffic obeys the speed limit. On the
Palo Alto side, Newell road has 25 MPH speed limits, a centerline, much higher traffic volumes
(3600-3900 ADT) and bike lanes. Depending on the width of the bike lanes this could be rated
LTS-1, or LTS-2 (suitable for most adult bicyclists).
This kind of analysis is necessary for evaluating the bridge, and an additional evaluation must
be made for the mixed traffic flow through the proposed offset intersection at Newell and
Woodland, especially considering the distinct flows of bicycle and automobile traffic. Will the
preferred alternative create a high traffic stress bridge crossing and high traffic stress
intersection? With the rush hour traffic densities, the current design may be as poor as LTS-3, a
level of stress discouraging to most potential users. The choice of intersection design in
options 2-4 probably makes a difference as well. What about other, more creative alternatives?,
like reducing lane widths to slow traffic, and adding minimal bike lanes, creating separation?
Should planners consider a larger change, to add 4 feet of width to the bridge to enable full bike
lanes without compromising auto lane width? I am sure that adding bicycle lanes to the bridge
will reduce bicycle/automobile conflicts, and reduce the Level of Traffic Stress.
Without analysis, this is all conjecture.
Note that adding sharrow markings to the road, the only design feature proposed for bicyclists in
the bridge plans, does not change the level of traffic stress, and makes no significant difference.
It is functionally equivalent to adding a “Bike Route” sign. In fact the wider lanes of the new
bridge will probably tend to increase traffic speed, and increase the LTS level versus the current
design.
As we stated at the beginning, this kind of analysis is missing from this EIR, and it is critically
important. This bridge is on the best bicycle/pedestrian route from East Palo Alto to Palo Alto,
and we must evaluate design options with knowledge of the impact of the design choices. I
hope we can make certain that this brand new bridge will be part of the complete low stress
connection, and not have the single worst Level of Traffic Stress along the entire route.
Robert Neff William Robinson Paul Goldstein
Art Liberman Eric Nordman Penny Ellson Elizabeth Greenfield
Palo Alto members Palo Alto Ped/Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto PTA, or SVBC.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:magdalena maese <magdalena_maese@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 22, 2019 1:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking Guidelines
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
6/22/19
To whom it may concern:
I, Maggie Maese, am inquiring about the city wide parking enforcement. I am a property owner
downtown, pay property taxes which support the city and the schools, yet off street parking is
restricted for my family and guests. My condo association fees also pay for the utilities of the office garage
adjacent to Abitare, yet we are ticketed for parking there. I would like to understand why their
is leniency for RV's congesting the streets and neighborhoods? Why won't the city charge permit
fees to RV dwellers who park on the city streets for more than one week at a time. Is the city
conducting a survey of those who are jobless or just benefiting from living free on the streets in the high paying bay area to pay off their home mortgage on the east bay or central valley. I know first
hand that there are Uber/Lyft drivers making a good income, and own a Prius who live on the city
streets. There are also Nurses and others who work in the medical field who park there to supplement
their income. The City of Menlo Park and Redwood City do not allow overnight parking and now
Mountain View is in the process of making changes. Nothing irks me more than the city imposing fees and restrictions on property owners, yet lenient on those who do not support the city yet benefit
financially.
Sincerely
Maggie Maese
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 8:55 PM
To:Citycouncil; Council, City; Larry Klein; Lynette Lee Eng; Ray Mueller; Betsy Nash; Filseth, Eric (Internal)
Cc:Gary Wesley
Subject:Fw: [Livable CA Sharing] SB 330 report from SF Planning Department
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: ZELDA BRONSTEIN <zjb1731@comcast.net>
To: "LivableCaliforniaSharing@googlegroups.com" <LivableCaliforniaSharing@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019, 7:59:48 PM PDT
Subject: [Livable CA Sharing] SB 330 report from SF Planning Department
On the Planning Commission's 6/27 agenda
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/SB 330.pdf
--
To join this group use this link: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/join-us-for-california/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Livable California Sharing" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to livablecaliforniasharing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/livablecaliforniasharing. To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/livablecaliforniasharing/432564016.764127.1561345183429%40connect.xfinity.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2019 9:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB592
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gary Wesley <gary.w
Palo Alto City Council: Before you go on summer break, you might want to consider a new bill from
state Senator Scott Wiener (SB592) that could be signed into law before you return. Below is my
email to Menlo Park councilmembers on the subject. Maybe your City Attorney's Office could generate an analysis of SB592 that could be forwarded to the hundreds of other affected cities and
counties in California. Thanks, Gary Wesley
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
To: cttaylor@menlopark.org <cttaylor@menlopark.org>; bnash@menlopark.org <bnash@menlopark.org>
Cc: Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019, 1:11:30 AM PDT
Subject: SB592
The Los Altos City Council has on its agenda next week consideration of a housing bill sponsored by state Senator Scott
Wiener (SB592). It is a version of a bill (SB 330) previously sponsored by Senator Wiener's "mentor" from Berkeley: state Senator Nancy Skinner.. The bill is next scheduled for consideration on July 3 in the Assembly Housing and Development
Committee chaired by Senator Wiener's friend and fellow San Franciscan David Chiu. You might wish to add consideration of SB592 to your next Council agenda. Best wishes, Gary Wesley
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lou Thompson <lou.thompson@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:19 PM
To:Nadia Naik
Cc:Council, City; Gaines, Chantal; Goodwin Eileen; Litzinger, Millette; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: SCC Civil Grand Jury report on VTA governance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thanks. Depressing -- and they are 1/3 of Caltrain's governance?
Lou
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:41 PM Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI
http://www.scscourt.org/documents/CGJ%20VTA%20Final%20Report%20‐%2006.18.19.pdf
INQUIRY INTO THE GOVERNANCE OF THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
60 page Civil Grand Jury Report on VTA released on 6‐18‐2019
‐‐
Lou Thompson
14684 Stoneridge Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070‐5745
lou.thompson@gmail.com
phone (408) 647‐2104
cell (202) 413‐5603
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 7:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:5 G --Serious problems with 5G
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
5G and
the IOT: Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks - Environmental Health Trust
5G and the IOT: Scientific Overview of Human Health
Risks - Environmenta...
Scientists caution that before rolling out 5G networks research on
human health effects needs to be done to ensu...
Please Read This information which clarifies the scientific evidence
of the health hazards of the 5G. Please note that the European countries
are not permitting the 5G network because of the evidence of negative
health effects.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 3:10 PM
To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; Mayor; Mark Standriff;
info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; popoff; bballpod; Steve Wayte; Mark Kreutzer;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; hennessy;
kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; leager;
huidentalsanmateo; terry; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Council, City; steve.hogg; nick yovino; robert.andersen
Subject:Fwd: Stanford: lithium ion batt. electrode damage seen as never before
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:55 PM
Subject: Stanford: lithium ion batt. electrode damage seen as never before
To: Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>
Mon. June 24, 2019
To all‐ If anyone thinks they have given up on battery research, please see the email below.
Mon. June 24, 2019
Steven Feinstein
Ionic Materials Corp.
Mr. Feinstein‐ Here is an article from Stanford about seeing damage to Li. ion battery electrodes. Have not even
read it yet, but I wanted you to see it:
https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2019‐06‐03‐researchers‐get‐most‐comprehensive‐view‐yet‐lithium‐ion‐
battery‐electrode‐damage
LH
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rice, Danille
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 4:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dauler, Heather; Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly
Subject:Support for SB 5: Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program Letter
Attachments:Support for SB 5 from the City of Palo Alto.pdf
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of Ed Shikada, please find the attached letter sent to California State Senate Members Beall, McGuire, and
Portantino regarding the City’s support for SB 5.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille Rice
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329‐2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org
Office of the Mayor and City Council
June 19, 2019
The Honorable Jim Beall The Honorable Mike McGuire
California State Senate California State Senate
State Capital Building, Room 2082 State Capital Building, Room 5061
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Anthony Portantino
California State Senate
State Capital Building, Room 3086
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Support for SB 5 (Beall/McGuire/Portantino): Affordable Housing and Community
Development Investment Program
Dear Senators Beall, McGuire, and Portantino:
On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I am pleased to express our city’s support for your SB 5. As you know,
this bill will incentivize affordable housing and related infrastructure via a reduction in contributions of
property tax revenue to schools, without affecting school funding levels.
Palo Alto has taken great strides to address affordable housing in our city. For example, this month our
Council allocated $10 million to the building of an apartment complex for low-income residents and
adults with developmental disabilities, a previously-approved project. Last year, we adopted an
Affordable Housing Overlay District, which allows for the development of 100% affordable rental
housing in areas near transit not currently zoned for residential use. And we have amended other
ordinances to relax local regulations related to parking, density, floor area ratio, and more.
As we continue to work towards creating additional housing in our City, we support your efforts in SB 5
to unlock revenue for housing and related infrastructure. This bill would allow the reallocation of funds
to build new affordable housing, create transit-oriented developments, and for protecting communities
from seal-level rise, wildfires, and floods. We are excited about the possibility of doing even more for
our community, and we are happy to join with other cities, non-profit entities, labor groups, and others
to support this bill.
Yours,
Eric Filseth
Mayor, City of Palo Alto
Cc: Members, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee; Senator Jerry Hill;
Assemblyman Marc Berman; Palo Alto City Council; Ed Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager; Cities
Association of Santa Clara County
City of Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 5:02 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Christine Rosche; Paul McKenna; LindaLaCount; Greg Schmid (external); Holzemer/hernandez;
Patricia Meyer
Subject:Fw: Take Action on 5G TODAY
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please take a look at this, 5G is lethal, for all living things. We don't need it, or the risks
it brings to all of us.
Even if it is on towers away from houses, schools etc. it still have huge effects on our
bodies.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306l
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019, 4:26:51 PM PDT
Subject: FW: Take Action on 5G TODAY
We need to take action on this – I made a call to Frank Pallone. Patricia
From: Patricia Kaminski <pkaminski@flowersociety.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:32 PM
To: Patricia Meyer <essences@patsgarden.com>
Subject: Take Action on 5G TODAY
Here's a very clear short video which explains an FCC trick now being created to allow powerful radar‐frequency‐
radiating 5G antennas to be quietly installed on private properties next door to your home, all without any say on
your part. People won't even know it happened until is is done and then it can't be undone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXQ‐K8dYyvU
Click this link: STOP 5G Antenna installations on Private Homes
Then CALL Congressman Frank Pallone, ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee
(that has oversight of the FCC). Tel: (202) 225‐4671
On his committee also sits Anna Eschoo of CA who has sponsored a bill to dismantle the FCC assault on local
government sovereignty. If Pallone gets involved there will be a hearing on this overreach of the FCC.
2
Remember, the FCC is entirely staffed by lobbyists for the wireless industry ‐‐ it's been proven by a Harvard study to
be a complete "captive agency." Local governance has always been, and must remain, involved in emitter location tor
local health. property values, land use planning, and for determining appropriate lease fees for public land use. Both
of these FCC actions undermine this local responsibility in favor of trans‐national corporate gain.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 2:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The Little Red Hen
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members:
Please don’t be guilt‐tripped into opening Foothills Park to non‐residents. Remember the story of The Little
Red Hen.
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks the other farm animals if they will help her plant
it, harvest it, etc. all the way through to baking bread. All reply, “Not I.” To which the hen replies, “Then I’ll do
it myself.”
When it comes time to eat the bread, all the animals offer to help. But once again, the little red hen says, “I’ll
do it myself.”
Political correctness has taken over logic. There are plenty of parks all over the Bay Area open to everyone.
Palo Alto paid for Foothills and it should be kept for residents and wildlife only.
Pat Marriott
Los Altos
Former Palo Alto resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 20, 2019 1:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 06-17-19 Council meeting -- Item 11 -- utilities rates -- dark fiber
network
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council members,
At the 06-17-19 Council meeting,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=38286.48&BlobID=71944 during a discussion of utilities rates (Item 11),
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71892 Council Member Kniss seized the opportunity to talk about dark fiber network rates, wondering whether the City was
getting the maximum return for this service.
Please see my TRANSCRIPT (below the "######" line) and COMMENTS (paragraphs in red, beginning with "###"). Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
############################################################################################## TRANSCRIPT: Item 11: Utilities Rates 4:45:50: Mayor Filseth: Seeing we have a quorum, ... [snip] 5:07:24: Mayor Filseth: Thank you. Now, Council Member Kniss. 5:07:26: Council Member Kniss: So, I'm trying to find information on the dark fiber rate increase of 4.5 percent, and so forth. Help me out. ### The EDF-3 rate has stayed the same since 09-18-06.
2
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8108 The EDF-1 rate is for customers that had dark fiber contracts prior to 09-18-06 that were at a lower rate than the EDF-3
rate. Those contracts gave the City permission to raise rates each year by the Consumer Price Index or 6%, whichever is less, which the City has done. This is the EDF-1 rate as of 07-01-18.
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8106
5:07:35:
Eric Keniston: Ah, yes. So, the dark fiber ...
5:07:37:
Council Member Kniss: Why don't we talk a little about it first. What's the dark fiber? And who wants it? And so forth.
5:07:43:
Eric Keniston: So -- So, the dark fiber project is -- Just in general, we've laid lines throughout Palo Alto, mainly to the business districts. And we don't light it. We don't do any data transmission. All we do is just have the fiber there, in the
ground.
### Some of the dark fiber network is on poles. See the map on page 45 of this document. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930
Underground segments are shown in green; overhead segments are shown in blue. This map is dated January 2013. If staff could publish an updated map in a findable place on the City's website, that would be great.
It's up to the customer to turn on -- provide their own equipment, to send data through, to -- PAIX is our main hub. Right
now, the product that we have is very lucrative compared to what other agencies are offering.
### I'm not sure what Keniston meant by "lucrative." Possibly he meant attractive from the customer's point of view.
And what we have tonight is -- it's for -- we take the one rate schedule that was originally done, and grandfathered, I believe, before 2016.
### 2006. (The City didn't "grandfather" anything. It just continued to honor contracts the City made before 09-18-06.)
And we just increase that rate by CPI every single year for those grandfathered contracts. But in the past, we haven't -
- We used to do -- write up a proposal -- a report -- for it. But several years ago, the determination was made that no one wanted to see it, and just bring it direct to Council as just a -- as just the resolution and rate schedule. We could start
doing another report, as we used to do.
5:09:00:
Council Member Kniss: So, the real question is -- Someone hooks up to it. They pay us a certain amount. I don't know exactly what that is.
### Council members should at least have some idea. A new connection could cost $8,000 or more up-front, depending
on how close the ends are to the dark fiber network's splice points. The monthly rate could be $2,000 (not counting the ISP cost), depending on how long the leased fiber is.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1508
Are we comparable to another city that might be doing the same? Or not? And what is it doing for us? So, in other words, do we maximize our return on the dark fiber?
### I'm going to assume that the reason to maximize return on the dark fiber network is to fund the City's fiber networks,
including both the dark fiber network and FTTP. If it's for anything else, please let the public know.
56:09:28:
Eric Keniston: I'm not the best person to speak as to the operations of the dark fiber system. I will have to pass.
5:09:33:
3
Dean Batchelor: So, yes -- So, Council Member Kniss, yes, we are.
5:09:36:
Council Member Kniss: Because you and I have discussed this before.
5:09:39:
Dean Batchelor: Yes, we have. Many times.
### How many times did these discussions take place at public meetings? Can I watch the videos? What has been
accomplished so far as the result of these discussions?
And, so, yes. There -- You know, the ring is -- was set up before -- way back when -- from, just from a SCADA standpoint.
### This is absolutely false. From the beginning, Council wanted the dark fiber network to be able to lease dark fiber to
customers. It was NOT just for SCADA. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1996/19960805.html
It was an electrical fiber
### I suppose Batchelor means that the fiber was used for electric SCADA. But, again, that was not the only use or
intended use.
that ran around the City portion of it. And as we have about 210 customers on this line -- there's some -- ah -- there are some data customers that are on there that have multiples, so -- but it counts as one customer.
### The most recent (04-09-19) Utilities Quarterly Update (for the 1st & 2nd quarters of FY 2019),
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70074 says (page 14, i.e., PDF page 17) that the dark fiber network has 95 "commercial" accounts (plus the City account), and
207 active service connections (including those used by the City).
So, the end-to-end piece is up to the customer. Wherever they want to go. So, we bring it up to a point, wherever their building is located at. It's mostly all for commercial accounts.
### A few of the "commercial" accounts are residential.
At that point. And then it comes down to Bryant Street. And then, they are able, then, to wheel and deal any kind of costs
-- on a monthly charge cost -- with the provider. It could be Sprint. It could be AT&T. It could be any of these different companies that provide the internet services, then, at that period of time. And so, at that point, we are only charging for
them to use the fiber itself. From point A to point B. That's what this charge is set up. And it's set off -- the CIP portion of it -- from, you know, whatever the set point is from -- on a yearly basis. Is the increase, then.
5:10:58:
Council Member Kniss: So, once again, what is the return to us?
5:11:06:
Dean Batchelor: I think the return to us, from a City's perspective, is, is that we offer -- you know, we provide this service,
first of all. And then, the return to it is, is that, I think ...
5:11:16:
Council Member Kniss: The monetary return.
5:11:17:
Dean Batchelor: Return. So, we -- We take in approximately $2 - $2.5 million a year.
4
### That's revenues minus expenses.
### At the 03-06-13 UAC meeting, Commissioner Melton asked (forcefully and persistently) for a 5-year forecast of dark
fiber revenues and expenses. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34474
In response, staff produced this 04-03-13 document. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33583
Note (page 2) that it predicts that revenues minus expenses should grow steadily from $2.089 million in 2013 to $3.197 million in 2018. If Council wants an update, with a new 5-year forecast through 2024 (and they should), please direct staff
to produce it.
We spend about $400,000 -- $500,000 a year just to maintain it. So, there ...
### The 04-03-13 forecast document predicts that overall expenses will grow steadily from $1.789 million in 2013 to $2,015 million in 2018. It predicts that operations and maintenance will grow steadily from $437,000 in 2013 to $528,000
in 2018. (Operations and maintenance is just one of seven expense categories shown in the document.)
5:11:29:
Council Member Kniss: But that -- So, that hasn't changed in years. I think the last time -- which was several years ago -- was $2.5 million. It would seem as though -- there must be a way that we could take advantage of this. Differently. And
I don't want to talk about it tonight. But I would like us to talk about it in the future. Because I don't think every city has this. That they can offer. And I think there are probably more possibilities with this than we have made -- maybe
discussed as a Council. So, let me put that in as a placeholder.
5:12:06:
Dean Batchelor: OK.
5:12:06:
Council Member Kniss: So that we know more about that. And I -- as I recall, we have a number of customers that are on that ring. Am I correct?
5:12:14:
Dean Batchelor: Yes, that's correct.
5:12:16:
Council Member Kniss: Yeah. OK. So, in the future, I would appreciate it if the -- weren't you chair? --
### (Council Member Kniss asks Council Member DuBois.)
if the Chair of Finance would explore this a little further, with his committee. OK?
### Commissioner Loren Smith, In his application to be appointed to UAC, said he'd like UAC to take a look at the dark
fiber operation. See page 134 of 143 here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70649
As of 10-18-10, one of UAC's duties is to advise Council about the fiber optics utility. See Municipal Code section 2.23.050.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
5:12:30:
Dean Batchelor: All right. We can do that.
5:12:32:
5
Council Member Kniss: And the two of us
### Meaning, apparently, Council Members Kniss and DuBois.
really understand what we're talking about. So, we can go into that later.
### Will the public be able to watch and maybe even participate?
### On 06-01-11, UAC considered a staff proposal for how to spiff up the dark fiber network. (It's pages 70-119 of this staff report. The consultant was Tellus Venture Associates.)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27421 I commented on that proposal here (pages 42-52).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41300 Summary: I didn't much like the staff report. The UAC item was a DISCUSSION item, so UAC didn't vote on it.
Agenda: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27423
Minutes: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28290
Most of the UAC discussion was about the FTTP part of the staff report, not the dark fiber network part. A video of the meeting is no longer available online. As far as I remember, staff never brought this item to Council.
So, thanks very much.
5:12:42:
Mayor Filseth: Council Member Kou.
[snip]
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tracy Mallory <tracylists1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2019 6:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Unacceptable.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Housing at Cubberley is unacceptable, and the city council members ignoring virtually all public input should simply
resign. Giving up public resources for housing is a breach of the public trust. Please come talk to residents personally if
you seriously disagree.
Tracy Mallory
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 23, 2019 2:56 PM
To:Lynette Lee Eng; Larry Klein; citycouncil@paloalto.org; Citycouncil; City Council; Council, City
Subject:Update on Bills and Call to Action by Hydee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
This is a great update on Bills and Call to Action by Hydee
From: Hydee
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 1:21 PM
Subject: Wiener Watch and More
Assembly Committee on Housing and Community
Development: https://ahcd.assembly.ca.gov/
1. SB 592: OPPOSE by this Wednesday June 26 at noon. Hearing July 3,
2019 at 9:15 am State Capitol Room 126. This is the first gut and amend
where Wiener gutted the barbershop law and converted it into the 1st part of
SB 50 and a mini-version of some of SB 330's provisions. THIS BILL HAS
JUMPED AHEAD AND IS NECK AND NECK WITH SB 330. Please call,
submit position letter, write and email and do as much as we did with SB
50.
Opposition:
THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE ADDITION OF section
65589.5(j)(1)(B) which MAKES DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND
VARIANCES OBTAINABLE "BY RIGHT" BY A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. By saying that any general plan, zoning or subdivision standard is
inapplicable if the city "could" approve the housing project without meeting the
standard, this language suspends every other regulation related to zoning,
2
planning, design and subdivision standards in favor of density in those
jurisdictions where an applicant can initiate a discretionary process for a
variance or a conditional use permit.
The definition of "housing development project" in SB 592 allows
ALL nonresidential uses in residential neighborhoods, provides a "a
single unit" the benefits of multifamily housing development projects (eg
without a defintion of "density, this could be read as permitting
McMansions statewide) and without explanation or any basis prohibits
the regulation of the number of bedrooms in any project. These issues are
clearly matters for local control and there is no state interest or rational basis for
Sacramento to be legislating what is or is not appropriate in a "single unit"
project.
The new definition prohibiting "conditions that have the same effect or impact
on the ability of the housing development project to provide housing now
specifically includes a prohibition on reducing the number of bedrooms and "the
substantial impairment of the housing development project's economic viability"
is absurd -- good planning and zoning necessarily makes some types of
projects not feasible in some areas (eg a residential hotel with a restaurant/bar
and a cannabis facility in a residential area zone) and Sacramento should not
be in the business of legalizing commercial uses statewide or regulating the
number or size or bedrooms statewide.
SB 592 voids limits on "density" yet fails to include a definition of
"density". The bill requires approval despite increases in density but does not
define density. Needs definition which should be "an increase in the number of
housing units built as part of a multifamily residential housing development
project that otherwise complies with all general plan, zoning ordinances and
regulations, use proscriptions, design critera and subdivision standards."
SB 592 also adds a claim for compensatory damages in favor of
developers against our cities and counties. That is a big deal and really
objectionable.
SB 592 and SB 330 BOTH will impose substantial costs on our cities and
counties in the way of services, infrastructure upgrades and other personnel to
3
handle the increased density mandated.
Assembly Committee on Local Government: https://alcl.assembly.ca.gov/
2. SB 330 - Not yet scheduled for hearing and full amendments are not yet
published but we need to be emailing and calling every day as we did with SB
50 to oppose on at least at least the following grounds:
THERE SHOULD BE NO RETROACTIVE invalidation of local plans and
laws to 1/1/18. Please please object really strongly on this ground. The
retroactive provisions could have all kinds of devastating and unintended
consequences.
Object to concept of "occupied substandard building" still in the bill. In
response to our objection to slumlord tactics, the Senator changed the word
"shall" to the word "may" so that cities and counties are no longer REQUIRED
to tolerate 7 year building code violations. But that is NOT enough. Leaving
a 7 year dereliction in the statute is still condoning even if not requiring
slumlord and shady developer tactics. Sacramento should not be putting its
stamp of approval, whether permissively or mandatorily, on these tactics.
The definition of "housing development project" to pick up nonresidential
uses in residential neighborhoods and homeless shelters and transitional
housing on a statewide basis is unacceptable. Yes we need shelters, no
the state should not be creating a use definition that allows a private for-profit
developer to decide where to put up a shelter or a mixed use project in
residential areas not otherwise zoned locally for these uses.
SB 330 needs to expressly allow for the assessment and imposition of impact
fees, linkage charges and connection fees AFTER the preliminary application
has been filed because that is the ONLY time those fees can be assessed.
SB 330 needs to honor all underlying zoning and regulation by local authorities
PLEASE OBJECT STRONGLY - the amendments did not fix the problems.
Assembly Committee on Elections and
Redistricting: https://aelc.assembly.ca.gov/committeehome
3. SB 268 - OPPOSE by this Wednesday June 26 at noon. Hearing: July 3,
4
2019. This was the second gut and amend courtesy of Senator Wiener. It
reduces transparency of ballot measures and removes language requiring all
bonds issued by any local agency to be voter-approved.
Senate Committee on Government and Finance: https://sgf.senate.ca.gov/
4. AB 1487 (Chiu): PLEASE OPPOSE THIS ONE STRONGLY. This is the
bill that sets up a shadow government of appointees (half appointed by the
transit authority) that can levy taxes and spend the revenue without any
accountability to the electorate in the Bay Area. This not only destroys the Bay
Area Zoning and starves the city and county of revenue, it also is the template
to turn the rest of the state into a zoning version of Soylent Green.
5. AB 587 (Friedland): This would have permitted the sale or conveyance of
an ADU separately from the primary residence. This bill was amended in
committee to remove the state wide mandate and to simply provide that a city
or county may so provide by local ordinance if it wishes to do so. That removed
the primary objection but the full text of the bill as amended in the Senate has
not yet been published so I really do not know what it says. It is supposed to
be scheduled for hearing before this Committee but from the action last week
by the
Committee on Govt Modernization, Efficiency, and Accountability, I am
concerned that it may simply pass as part of the consent calendar and go to the
floor for a vote. It is difficult to oppose if all it says is that a local agency can
enact an ordinance permitting a separate sale. I do not plan to submit anything
on this bill at this time.
6. AB 1763 (Chiu): Not yet set for hearing. This will be before governance
and finance. It has twice been amended in the Senate and STILL
INCREASES THE STATE DENSITY BONUSES JUST EFFECTIVE
1/1/2018. For affordable housing projects (100% affordable at least 80% lower
income and remaining 20% moderate income or less):
NO density maximums
TOP LEVEL DENSITY BONUS JUMPS TO 80% instead of current 35% - THIS
IS REALLY A HUGE SEA CHANGE
5
UP TO 4, instead of 3, "incentives" within 1/2 mile of transit or bus;
The height of an affordable project is now an increase "by right" up to 2 or 3
additional stories. This means height will no longer an "incentive" since it is "by
right" in this bill for increases of up to (a) 2 additional stories or 22 feet within
1/2 mile of "a high quality transit corridor" (without requiring that it be 1/2 mile of
a stop on a transit corridor) or (b) 3 additional stories or up to an additional 33
feet within 1/2 mile of rail or ferry);
The FAR of an affordable project is now an increase "by right" up to 55%
increase in FAR or 4.25 FAR whichever is GREATER. So FAR up to that
size will no longer "count" as an incentive.
THIS BILL NEEDS A COST ANALYSIS for city services and infrastructure.
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality:Position letters are emailed
to both:
Committee Assistant Mimi.Holtkamp@sen.ca.gov
Republican Consultant Scott.Seekatz@sen.ca.gov
7. AB 1279 (Bloom): upzones single family to 4plex. Not yet set for hearing.
OPPOSE
8. AB 68 (Ting) ADU bill referred to Senate Committee on Environmental
Quality not yet set for hearing. OPPOSE
9. PLEASE Support AB 1788 (Bloom). It seems to be having trouble getting
out of committees due to the pesticide lobby. It passed environmental quality
committee last week but was re-referred to the Natural Resources and Water
Committee which has not yet scheduled it for hearing. However since this
committee requires position letters at lease 7 business days in advance, we
should get our support in asap by submitting a position letter
here: https://sntr.senate.ca.gov/content/position-letters . In a nutshell, this bill
should be a no-brainer to ban the rat poisons that (a) have been shown to have
disastrous effects on wildlife (the predators who eat rats (raptors like owls,
falcons, hawks, eagles and condors, mountain lions and bobcats) die from
eating poisoned rats, reducing the number of predators, increasing the number
6
of rats, leading to more poison, you get it; (b) put kids and pets at real risk; and
(c) increasingly have been showing up in our waters -- oceans and rivers and
sea and river wildlife.The pest control industry has seized on recent news
stories about rats in LA to stall the bill as it was about to succeed, which of
course is nonsense. There are rats in every city and on every farm worldwide -
- they are looking for food. Rat control is a question of trash collection, anti-
dumping enforcement, trapping and a healthy ecosystem with predators that
can catch and eat rats without risking their own lives.
Other Bills of Interest:
10. AB 516 (Chiu): This one is new to me. A police officer spoke about it at a
recent neighborhood council meeting. It amends the Vehicle Code to remove
the ability of peace officers to (a) immobilize a vehicle (eg no wheel clamps),
and (b) removes the ability to impound a vehicle that has not moved for 72
hours or more. This bill was amended i the Senate so that now the car can be
impounded but only after ANOTHER 10 business days beyond the date that the
peace officer has left a notice on the windshield that the vehicle will be
impounded if not moved. I just do not have time to do a thorough job on this
one but please know that LAPD officers with lots of experience are dead
against it saying it could turn our streets into car parks.
11. SB 212 (Allen). SB 212's provisions have to do with the creation of a
ranked choice voting system applicable in general law cities and
unincorporated areas. I just note the bill because I know many elected and
appointed officials are interested in the topic but I have not analyzed the bill and
leave that task to someone else.
12. SB 235 (Dodd): For anyone who thought spotzoning for a particular project
was not really in vogue in Sacramento, take a look at SB 235 regarding the
"Napa Pipe" project. I have no idea what it is and whether it is a good project
or a bad project but how can Sacramento ever claim that something like this is
a general law?
7
13. SB 50 (Wiener): Last amended on June 4 and had its second reading that
day. So although this was referred back to Appropriations, it is still very much a
live bill and ready to be voted on the Senate Floor if passed by Appropriations.
The following bills have passed (or effectively passed) out of committee and are
headed to the Senate floor for a third reading and a vote:
14. AB 670 (Friedland): invalidates all covenants, deed restrictions or any
other provisions in planned communities or other common interest
developments that would “effectively prohibit” or “unreasonably restrict the
construction or use” of an ADU or a junior ADU on a single family zoned lot.
Our mailing address is:
Hydee R Feldstein
PO Box 351207
Los Angeles, CA 90035-9607
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
-- To join this group use this link: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/join-us-for-california/
8
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Livable California Sharing" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to livablecaliforniasharing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/livablecaliforniasharing. To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/livablecaliforniasharing/012a01d52a04%24ffb44e20%24ff1cea60%24%40gmail.com.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:34 AM
To:board@pausd.org; Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Allison Levitsky; editor@paweekly.com
Subject:Walters: Why local officials are still fighting bond issue transparency – The Mercury News
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/14/walters‐local‐officials‐still‐trying‐to‐get‐off‐the‐hook‐on‐bond‐issue‐
transparency/
To all:
Please see the above article.
I hope our local officials would favor transparency over secrecy when asking its taxpayers to finance local agency bonds.
What are our council members' position and the council and city's position as a whole on this bill?
What are our school board members' position and the school board and district's position as a whole on this bill?
Thank you so much for your reply.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
2.23.050 Purposes and duties.
(a) The purpose of the utilities advisory commission shall be to advise the city
council on present and prospective long-range planning and policy and major program
and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater
collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters, excluding daily
operations.
(b) The utilities advisory commission shall have the following duties:
( 1 ) Advise the city council on long-range planning and policy matters pertaining to:
(A) Development of the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection
utility, fiber optics utility, and the recycled water resource;
(8) Joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve, affect or
impact the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics
utility, and the recycled water resource;
(C) Environmental aspects and attributes of the electric utility, gas utility, water utility,
wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, and the recycled water resource;
(D) Water and energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand side
management; and
(E) Recycled water matters not otherwise addressed in the preceding subparagraphs
(A) through (D);
(2) Review and make recommendations to the city council on the consistency with
adopted and approved plans, policies, and programs of any major electric utility, gas
utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility, or the recycled water
resource;
(3) Formulate and review legislative proposals regarding the electric utility, gas utility,
water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility and the recycled water
resource, to which the city is a party, in which the city has an interest, or by which the
city may be affected;
(4) Review the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, and
fiber optics utility capital improvement programs, operating budgets and related
reserves, and rates, and the recycled water program, budget, and rate, and thereafter
forward any comments and recommendations to the finance committee or its successor;
(5) Provide advice upon such other matters as the city council may from time to time
assign.
The utilities advisory commission shall not have the power or authority to cause the
expenditure of city funds or to bind the city to any written, oral or implied contract.
(c) The utilities advisory commission may, subject to its city council-approved bylaws
and at the discretion of the city council, foster and facilitate engagement with the
general public, not excluding representatives of commerce and industry, in regard to the
utility matters referred to in subsections (b)(1 )(A) through (E).
(Ord. 5096 § 1, 201 O: Ord. 4938 § 1, 2007: Ord. 4027 § 1 (part), 1991)
The city staff has essentially ignored the CAC and has kept it
in existence while the staff was waiting to make its current
multi-phase fiber project and while the staff was waiting for
AT&T to begin installing its fiber project.
The proposed new project is not a reissuance of the FTTN RFP.
It is a different RFP.
Therefore, the Council as contracting authority should terminate
the FTTN project rather than keep its status in limbo.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
,
• I
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
June 24, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
JUNE 24, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #35
1700 & 1730 EMBARCADERO ROAD [lBPLN-00186]
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because placing
this item on tonight's agenda is a violation of Chapter 18.30(G)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and is a violation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff's suggestion that the City Council interpret the PAMC
regulations for Site and Design Review to allow the Director of
Planning and Community Environment or his designee to replace
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) function as defined by
Chapter 18.30(G) is inappropriate, because the language of
Chapter 18.30(G) is unambiguous.
Courts have given deference to a legislative body's
interpretation of their own Zoning Ordinance when the language
in question is ambiguous.
However, courts have mandated that elected and appointed
officials of a legislative body follow the Zoning Ordinance
language when it is unambiguous as it is here.
Staff relies on the word "shall" in PAMC Section 18.30(G) .055(c)
to claim that the word "shall" "is best understood to provide
for a mandatory referral to the ARB, where the review proceeds
according to the detailed procedures in Section 18.77.070."
2019, which would be too late to publish a public hearing notice
last week, after which another two weeks would have to pass
before the hearing, the decision of which could be appealed to
the City Council, and then only after a final Council decision
on the ARB action could a City Council meeting be schedule on
the project itself.
There is no mention in the staff report for this agenda item (ID
# 10006) of the posting of any notice of the Director's decision
to act in place of the ARB, which provides unobtrusive evidence
that no such posting occurred.
The staff's suggestion that the Council interpret the
unambiguous language of PAMC Section 18.30(G) .055(c)
when followed logically leads to the conclusion that staff is
suggesting that the Council pick and choose which parts of the
PAMC Council should apply to this agenda item based on a prior
decision to approve the project.
Therefore, the decision by staff to place this item on tonight's
agenda would cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with PAMC Chapter 18.30(G), and specifically Section
18. 30 (G) . 055. [CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G "Environmental
Checklist Form", Evaluation of Environmental Impacts XI(b) .]
Leaving this item on tonight's agenda would be a prejudicial
abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA.
Please remove this item from your agenda.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
energY,~~ , ....... AoPL.·
A.11oc-larlon of Oii Pipe L.lnH
..
I I
The INGAA Foundation, Inc.