HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190715plCC 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: 7/15/2019
Document dates: 06/26/2019 – 07/03/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Perron, Zachary
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 11:01 AM
To:rkellerman@me.com; 'Marshalljd@aol.com'
Cc:Police; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:Re: 1100 Emerson Street - Please Restore Police Traffic Restrictions and Monitoring During Stanford
Stadium Events
Good morning Mr. and Mrs. Kellerman, and Mr. Deitsch,
My name is Zach Perron. I work in the Police Department and manage our Special Operations unit (which
handles staffing special events). I received your messages below this morning. I’m very sorry for what happened on
Saturday afternoon and evening – how exceedingly frustrating for you and your neighbors!
I want to assure you that come Stanford football season later this summer, your street will be barricaded in the
same manner it has been for the past several seasons. We’re still looking into what occurred Saturday night that caused
those barricades not to be placed, but our intent was for them to be there as per our normal standard operating
procedures for game day events. We are acutely aware of the impact 50,000 visitors in a small amount of time can have
on our neighborhoods, and we do our best to minimize the impact to residential streets. That clearly did not happen
Saturday night, and I’m sorry.
To complicate things this weekend, some new roadway configurations on the Stanford campus added to the
congestion, making traffic this weekend far worse than a typical game day in the past. Our staff has been in
communication with the Stanford Department of Public Safety and the Stanford Athletics Department already this
morning to ensure that the traffic management plan for football season properly takes these new roadway
configurations into account and speeds the ingress and egress of vehicles to the stadium (which will cut down on the
amount of people turning off Embarcadero out of frustration and hunting for parking in our neighborhoods).
While I trust that we will be able to improve the situation before football season, if you should ever observe this
kind of congestion in the future (or notice that, despite my pledge above, the barricades are not set up for some reason
or have been moved), please feel free to call our 24‐hour dispatch center at 650‐329‐2413 and ask to speak with the
PAPD supervisor of the game day special event. If there’s immediate action we can take to remedy the situation, they’ll
be able to make it happen.
Again, I apologize for the inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Zach
Captain Zach Perron
Investigative Services Division (Detectives, Traffic, Special Operations)
Palo Alto Police Department
275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Office: 650-329-2115
Twitter I Nextdoor I Instagram I Facebook I YouTube I Flickr I Nixle
Download our free mobile app for iOS or Android today!
2
From: Marshall Deitsch <marshalljd@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 1:18 PM
To: Rachel Kellerman <rkellerman@me.com>
Cc: Police <pd@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: 1100 Emerson Street ‐ Please Restore Police Traffic Restrictions and Monitoring During Stanford Stadium
Events
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Rachel, here are a few more photos of the traffic on our block taken about 45 minutes after your photo (it got much
worse).
Our block needs help from the city!!!
Marshall Deitsch
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Marshall Deitsch <marshalljd@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 30, 2019 1:18 PM
To:Rachel Kellerman
Cc:Police; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:Re: 1100 Emerson Street - Please Restore Police Traffic Restrictions and Monitoring During Stanford
Stadium Events
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Rachel, here are a few more photos of the traffic on our block taken about 45 minutes after your photo (it got much
worse).
Our block needs help from the city!!!
Marshall Deitsch
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 9:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: 3241 South Court, Palo Alto and Plumbing issues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
Please see below email chain. I requested a contact from palo alto utilities and it took over 1 week to
receive a call back. Then I filed the claim with the City's attorneys office and they told me that my
claim was denied for a totally outrageous reason. I will forward you my completed claim form and
also their response. I would like the City Council to look into this and possibly revise the mandates
and requirements for the City to reimburse for work that was clearly the City's responsibility as they
seen unfair and unjust. One reason for the denial of the claim is that I did not request the City's utility
to look into the blockage issue first before I cleared the blockage myself. Well, it took the City's utility
over 1 week to get back to me when I had an issue and how can they possibly expect me to wait one
week for their response if the toilet is not working?
I will send three additional emails for your review. My correspondence with Eric Talley once I finally
received a response and my claim, and the response to my claim.
Clearly the city is responsibly for the blockage in the lower lateral which is were the tree roots were
growing into the old city clay pipes from what the plumber told me. I believe my claim was denied for
no good reason.
I formally request the City Council to review the policies and procedures for reimbursement for work
that is the City's responsibility. And to review the denial of my claim to the city for which I believe I
paid for services that the City is responsible for.
Thank you.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Cc: PWD <pwd@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019, 3:05:13 PM PDT
Subject: RE: 3241 South Court, Palo Alto and Plumbing issues
Hello Holly,
I have forwarded your email to Eric Talley who has reached out to you via email. He will be able to assist you
further.
2
Kind regards,
Cassie Nowels
From: Holly Kim [mailto:kimhol@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 11:41 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service
Cc: PWD
Subject: Re: 3241 South Court, Palo Alto and Plumbing issues
I did. I left them a VM weeks ago. No return phone call.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 9:17 AM, UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Holly,
Please contact Water Gas Wastewater Operations to discuss your issue. They can be reached
at 650-496-6982.
<image001.png> Kind regards,
Utilities Customer Service Center
250 Hamilton Avenue, Ground Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2161
F: 650 326‐4941
M‐TH 8:00 am‐5:30 pm; F 8:00 am‐4:30 pm; excluding holidays
E: utilitiescustomerservice@cityofpaloalto.org
W: www.cityofpaloalto.org/utilities
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
3
To access or create your utilities account online, go to our website
https://myutilitiesaccount.cityofpaloalto.org
Refuse & Recycling: www.greenwasteofpaloalto.com
From: holly kim [mailto:kimhol@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2019 8:06 PM
To: UTL-Customer Service; PWD
Subject: Re: 3241 South Court, Palo Alto and Plumbing issues
I am still waiting for a call.
On Monday, March 25, 2019, 7:21:15 AM PDT, PWD <pwd@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi,
Public Works received this email over the weekend. Can someone assist with this issue?
Thanks,
<image002.jpg>
Public Works Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: (650) 329‐2151 E: pwd.@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you
From: holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 7:32 PM
4
To: PWD <pwd@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: S. J. Ben Yoo <sjbyoo@gmail.com>
Subject: 3241 South Court, Palo Alto and Plumbing issues
Hello,
We recently had to have the cleanout replaced that connects to the city pipe.
It was a big job and cost $6500. A plumber told me that sometimes the City will handle this type of work
depending upon what kind of joint is used to connect to the city pipe.
Does this sound familiar to you?
The problem is this is the 2nd time in about 12 or so years we have done this same job. And I am
wondering if this can be the fault of the city?
The plumber said it was a clay pipe at the connection which does not hold up well to tree roots etc.
Also I am concerned the plumber we hired did not pull a permit for this work.
I have pictures too, Please see attached.
Please respond when you are able. Thank you.
Best,
Holly and Ben Yoo
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 9:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems
Attachments:23.JPG
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Email correspondence with City of Palo Alto Utilities once they finally got back to me.
Thank you,
Holly
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Cc: Silva, Jorge <Jorge.Silva@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019, 9:02:10 AM PDT
Subject: RE: 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems
Hi Holly,
I cannot advise you to file a claim, or not to file a claim. I provided a claim form because you insisted that the problem
originated from a City of Palo Alto asset. I recommend that refer to Rules and Regulation Title 23, page five as I had
mentioned in our prior conversations, and emails.
Sincerely,
Eric Talley
From: holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 2:38 PM
To: Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Silva, Jorge <Jorge.Silva@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems
2
Eric.
Do I really need to file the claim? The paid in full invoice is very clear that the work included replacing
the joint at the City cleanout.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Please see attached the paid in full Invoice for verification.
Thanks,
On Monday, May 13, 2019, 7:35:34 AM PDT, Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hi Mrs. Kim,
I have attached a claim form for your convenience. If you have any further questions please contact myself, or the City
Attorney Office.
Thank you,
Eric Talley
From: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 12:59 AM
3
To: Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems
Hi Eric,
To me it looks like part is in your area of responsibility. The pipe coming down in your picture is exposed in my picture.
So that joint is where your responsibility starts. I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly.
Thanks,
Holly
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Mrs. Kim,
Using your pictures as a reference I would say that this repair would be considered the owners
responsibility. The City’s responsibility is from the city clean out to the sewer main in the street as shown
on the diagram I provided yesterday. What your pictures depict is a replacement of private pipe from the
City Clean out back to the structure. If you have any further questions give me a call or send another
email.
Sincerely,
Eric Talley
From: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:54 PM
To: Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems
4
Thank you for your time. Please see the pictures below.
If we can get reimbursed for part of the cost that would be great.
Please let me know your thoughts. I think part could be in the covered area.
<image001.jpg>
<image002.jpg>
<image003.jpg>
<image004.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
<image006.jpg>
<image007.jpg>
<image008.jpg>
<image009.jpg>
<image010.jpg>
<image011.jpg>
5
<image012.jpg>
<image013.jpg>
Best,
Holly
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
From: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems
I have already paid. if I had waited for a response from Palo Alto the situation could have
become dire by now.
I do want a call to understand this situation better.
Thank you.
Holly. 530 902 9047.
6
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2019, at 2:57 PM, Talley, Eric <Eric.Talley@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Kim,
I am the Waste Water Supervisor for the City of Palo Alto. I will assign a
Technician to your address tomorrow, what time will be good for you? I
do advise that you avoid signing any contracts until we meet with you,
and discuss your options.
<image001.jpg>
<Eric Talley.vcf>
<3421 South Court.JPG>
<3421 South Court.JPG>
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 9:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Palo alto city claim for 3241 south Court
Attachments:City Responsibility Full page photo.pdf; Claim form Completed.pdf; GSM Full page photo.pdf; GSM
Yahoo Mail - Re_ 3241 South Court Plumbing Problems.pdf; OnTimePlumbing_Invoice.pdf; Paid In
Full Invoice #38035 with CC Receipt and Tenant Refund CC Receipt.pdf; Sewer Video Camera Report
for 3241 South Court, Palo Alto, CA.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please see the claim that was submitted to the city's attorney's office.
The attorneys office also requests that all claims be filed in duplicate and they refuse to accept online
claims. This is a waste of paper and there is no good reason for it in this digital age. There is also no
legal basis for requesting duplicate copies of claims and it is an un due burden on the claimant
especially since they request color photos.
Thank you,
Holly
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
To: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019, 7:59:30 PM PDT
Subject: Palo alto city claim
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:holly kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 9:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: City of Palo Alto response for claim at 3241 South Court.
Attachments:IMG_6644.JPG; IMG_6645.JPG
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please see response from the City's attorneys' office for my claim.
I requested a partial refund form the City for the work down on the lower Sewer Lateral which is the
City's responsibility. I did not request a refund of the work done on the Upper sewer later which is my
responsibility. But that is what is referenced in their response. Their response is wholly unacceptable
and actually offensive to a tax paying citizen of this city. Please review and advise. No where in their
explanation is there a good reason to deny my claim. The regulation say the citizen "shall" not
"must". Plus when I did request help, it took multiple emails and phone calls to get a response. How
can anyone wait that long for the utility to respond when the toilet does not flush?
Thank you,
Holly
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
To: Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019, 9:19:26 PM PDT
Subject: City of Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:g kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:48 PM
To:City Mgr; w. kerber; Eggleston, Brad; Raschke, Matt; MPH Michael Cantwell MD; Council, City
Subject:construction project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City council and staff
From the beginning of the 250 sherman project until the present with the 350 sherman project i have senn a serious
exacerbation of my disabilities and other health challenges. This is especially true for the respiratory difficulties i have.
The levels of toxic pollution, including diesel exhaust, which i have indicated to the staff is listed as a carcinogen on the
state of calif prop 65 list, but which does not seem to concern either the staff or the contractor or trucking companies, and
includes overwhelming levels of particulate matter from the dirt dust and debris coming from the work site and the trucks
exiting the site.
Today was the first day that i observed any type of mitigation effort made at the site and this consisted of someone using
what looked like a garden hose attempting to water the huge mounds of dirt at the site and many of the truck using tarps?
to cover the dirt they were exiting with.
I have a hard time understanding why the contractor and trucking co. have not been making any attempt to mitigate the
problems i have mentioned. However, this is consistent with the concerns i have addressed to the staff about what i
believe have been a serious issues involving other aspects of the construction and noise ordinances as well as concerns i
have expressed about the truck routing which exposes myself and my neighbors to high levels of pollution and the hazard
and risks this poses for those of us living across the street from the project. It is ironic to say the least that a diesel
powered street sweeper is being used to try and clean up the layers of dirt left by trucks leaving the site.
i have other issues i want to bring to the attention of the council and staff about the project which i will do in subsequent
emails
greg kerber
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, July 2, 2019 12:00 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:dan.pitt@mac.com
Subject:Fiber everywhere except PA-to ponder
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I’m in Poipu Beach on Kauai and the city is laying fiber under their sidewalks (seen here today).
Two years ago I was visiting my family in a Michigan township which had also voted to deploy fiber to every home in
that township.
Why can’t that policy be accomplished in the Birthplace of Silicon Valley?
Richard Brand
Ex member fiber to the home CAC.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Abby Boyd <abby650@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 1:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fiberoptics and utilities underground
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I would like fiber optics and utilities underground in Meadow Park Neighborhood.
Abby Boyd
3998 Bibbits Dr.
650 207 5958
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 30, 2019 4:41 PM
Subject:Friends of Buena Vista - Update
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Friends ~
I wanted to write to you sooner, but waited until more complete information was released so I could have all the
information to date regarding this weeks sad events at Buena Vista. I know that many of you must have followed the
story, but for those of you who haven’t I will sum it up as I think we all could benefit from being equally informed about
this unfortunate event.
Last Monday, longtime BV resident Tim Woods, 63, was found in his home suffering from a knife wound. The Palo Alto
Police responded and Tim was rushed to the hospital where he died. His family was notified and an investigation ensued
over the course of the next several days with most of Posada Lane taped off.
Two hours after the initial 911 call, a resident was hit and kicked for no reason by another resident whom the victim
didn’t know, causing minor injuries. The attacker ran off but was arrested and charged with battery and being under the
influence of a controlled substance, then released. He had lived at BV a short time with his grandmother. By last
Thursday, police had enough evidence to arrest him for Tim’s murder. No motive or other information has been released.
Those are the facts, but facts only go so far ‐ what of the residents and their community? It was of course a terrible shock.
You know how close folks live to each other there, yet, no one heard or saw anything ‐ so many were at work, coming
home to more police than anyone could imagine Palo Alto even having. And their so‐safe community had been horribly
violated with the terrible loss of one of their own, with no way of knowing at the time, who did it. Can you imagine
taking all that in, especially the children?
I got a call early Tuesday morning from Caritas, the wonderful managers, asking if I knew of any grief/crises counseling
services for residents in the area that could help. My first thought was ‐ thank goodness we live here, because of Kara.
Five minutes later I was talking with them, and Wednesday night a two‐person English/Spanish team was meeting with a
circle of many residents, listening, supporting, giving advise as to what to say to children, as Buena Vistans grieved
together.
Everyone knew Tim. Whenever he could he sat outside his modest home. He was the “town greeter” of people, cats and
dogs, and often friends sat with him. I bet many of you have read John Steinbeck’s Cannery Row. In the book, you may
remember there’s a group of men who mainly hang out on the Row. Their “leader” is Mac, and the other guys are known
as “the boys” ‐ “Mac and the boys”. I always thought of Tim and his friends as Mac and the boys, adding color
commentary on the general happenings of the BV community.
But this is hard, not just for residents, but for Caritas and Housing Authority. There are always those who are quick to
blame blameless people, especially if they are low income, live in a mobile home park, and are brown ‐ we saw that in
some comments to online news stories.
But Buena Vistans will be OK. They are strong and resilient as we know from working side by side with them over the
years. They will always have our support as Friends of Buena Vista ‐ let them always be able to count on us. Caritas and
2
Housing Authority deserve our thanks for managing and championing BV. Before long we will see the improvements to
the park needed there, and the future will be bright.
In the meantime, keep the faith,
Winter Dellenbach
Friends of Buena Vista
fobv.org
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 30, 2019 11:37 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:editor@paweekly.com
Subject:Los Altos analysis new SB 50/ SB 592
Attachments:Los Altos Analysis of SB 592.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Please note this SB 592 analysis from Los Altos.
Please likewise register opposition to SB 592 as a City Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
Background and Analysis
The original SB 592 was introduced by Senator Wiener on February 22, 2019, as a
simple amendment to change the due date for HCD to deliver its annual report
to the Governor and both houses of the Legislature per Health & Safety Code sec.
50408 from December 31 to June 30.
On March 27, Sen. Wiener amended the bill by fully replacing the title and text so
that the bill amended Business & Professions Code sec. 7400 to require the Board
of Barbering and Cosmetology to update the public profile of a licensee if
notified of a licensee’s address change. The revised bill – one sentence – was
noncontroversial. It went through the Business Professions and Economic
Development Committee (April 8) and the Senate Appropriations Committees
(May 16) with unanimous approval and was also approved with a unanimous
vote on the Senate Floor (May 23).
Separately, SB 50 had been held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May
16. On June 4, Sen. Wiener substantially amended SB 50. On June 13, he then
amended SB 592, replacing it in its entirety with some of the text from SB 50 as
amended on June 4.
SB 592 is now titled “Housing Accountability Act” and carries the first part but,
as of yet, not the second of SB 50 and amends Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5 (AB 3194,
passed in the last session and effective January 1, 2019). SB 592 also includes
some language in proposed SB 330.
Some of its provisions:
Definitions
The bill expands the definition of a “housing development project” to include
single-family houses, additions to single-family houses, and ADUs.
Affordability
• Paragraph (d) requires the approval of any project for “very-low, low-, or
moderate-income households or any emergency shelter” unless the project fails on
narrowly defined grounds related to public heath and safety, no matter how
inconsistent the project may be with local zoning.
•Paragraph (i) restricts conditions and lower density “that have a substantial
adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low,
low-, or moderate-income households.”
These are the only provisions that actually have to do with “affordable housing.”
Market Rate Housing
A city cannot disapprove any project (not just low or moderate, but including
low or moderate) based on density unless the city finds (within 30 days) that
ALL 3 of the following apply.
1. The density proposed is inconsistent with MANDATORY provisions of the
general plan and zoning that CANNOT be varied by the appropriate city
authority (e.g. staff, Planning Commission, City Council). Sec. (j)(1)(B)
(B) For purposes of this section, a general plan, zoning, or subdivision standard or criterion
is not “applicable” if its applicability to a housing development project is discretionary or if
the project could be approved without the standard or criterion being met.
Note: Because most provisions of our General Plan and Code can be
excepted via variance, the practical effect is that this clause could not be
used to disapprove a project.
Also, because a city has discretion, under the Density Bonus Law, to
approve density greater than that to which an applicant is entitled by right
under that law, it is likely than any application which includes greater
density than the formula in the Density Bonus Law would have to be
approved, unless the provisions of 2 and 3 below could be met. In essence,
the city can no longer control the density of any project under the Density
Bonus Law, and nothing in SB 592 requires the additional density to
increase the amount of affordable units.
2. The project has “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.”
Note: This is nearly identical to language in the Density Bonus Law – a
standard that is very difficult to meet.
3. There is no “feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact”
except disapproval or lower density for the project.
Note: As #2 is unlikely to be applied, this clause is also unlikely to be
applied. If it could be, the bill does not indicate who is financially
responsible for doing so.
Elimination of Use and Density Restrictions
SB 592 goes further than SB 330 by expressly defining a “housing development
project” (covered under these provisions) by adding two new elements:
(B) A “housing development project” may solely be, or may include, a single unit, including
an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.2.
(C) A “housing development project” may solely be, or may include, the addition of one or
more bedrooms to an existing residential unit.
The bill adds a new definition ((h)(6) for “Conditions that have the same effect or
impact on the ability of the housing development project to provide housing” to include,
but are not limited to:
(A) Reduction in the number of bedrooms or other normal residential features, such as a
living room or kitchen.
(B) The substantial impairment of the housing development project’s economic viability.
Taken together, these allow developments with dense, dorm-style or communal-
living and home-sharing type arrangements, in single-family (and other) zones
with no affordability requirements.
Summary of some effects:
The Housing Accountability Act, including required timeframes for review and
the potential for prospective residents to claim penalties for $10,000 per day, will
now apply to single-family, ADU, or other low-density zones (new construction
or additions).
All housing development projects – including single-family homes, an addition
to that home, or and ADU – can no longer be required to meet General Plan or
zoning code requirements, if they provide higher density and if the project could
be approved via a variance (e.g. setbacks, height). This will include allowing
dorm-style development in single-family zones and greater density above the
“by right” provisions of the Density Bonus Law.
Architectural, design, historic, or other aesthetic standards can no long be
imposed. Much of the work of the Design Review Commission and Planning
Commission becomes voluntary or disappears.
Draft Letter
Assemblymember Berman, Senator Jerry Hill, Assembly Committee on Housing
and Community Development (submit via portal), Assembly Committee on
Local Govern,ent (submit via portal), Supervisor Joe Simitian, League of
California Cities, Cities Association of Santa Clara County
The City Council of Los Altos opposes SB 592 for the following reasons:
1.Although the bill seems to limit local decisions to “objective standards,” it
gives housing development projects “by right” approval of variances and other
discretionary factors. This effectively eliminates regulations related to zoning,
planning, design, and subdivision.
A core principle of land-use planning is that no plan or code can account for all
circumstances. Our code recognizes this challenge with the following language
for single-family, multi-family, office, public facilities, and commercial zones.
Such language is essential to assure that application of the General Plan and
zoning codes to specific projects meet the stated objectives. This authority would
be removed by SB 592.
In order to avoid such practical difficulties, unnecessary physical hardships and results inconsistent with
the objectives of the zoning plans stated in Article 1 of Chapter 14.02, as would result from a strict or
literal application of the provisions of this chapter, the planning and transportation commission may
approve or recommend variances to the regulations controlling site area, width, depth and coverage,
yards, and other open spaces, parking spaces, loading spaces, height of structures, allowable building
floor area and fences. (LAMC 14.76 and 14.78)
2. The current Density Bonus Law (Calif. Gov. Code sec. 65915 et seq) gives local
jurisdictions the authority to approve density greater than the “by right” limit
available from the bonuses under that law. By giving development projects
under SB 592 the right to any density that could be granted, SB 592 effectively
negates 65915 (n). Because we have such language in our municipal code, the city
would have no control, absent a health and safety finding, over the density of a
proposed development that otherwise meets the requirements of 65915.
65915.(n) If permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city,
county, or city and county from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a
development that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density
bonus than what is required by this section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this
section.
3. By eliminating use clauses for residential zones, commercial uses such as bars,
hotels, medical clinics, car repair, pet grooming, office space and other “non-
residential use” is available “by right” in residential areas, provided it does not
occupy more than 1/3 of the development space. This violates the long-standing
planning principle that commercial uses must be compatible with shared and
adjacent residential uses.
4.Voiding limits on the number of bedrooms in residential zones allows for
dorm-style developments in lower density zones, including single-family areas.
This may be the intent of the author, but it is opposed vigorously by this council.
5.Other than paragraphs (d) and (i), nothing in this bill promotes affordable
housing. Its effect, rather, is to abolish sound planning principles and remove the
ability of the city to execute the approved General Plan and related Housing
Element.
For these reasons, we oppose SB 592. We also note that the process by which this
bill is before the Assembly allowed it to bypass all Senate Committee review,
where its problematic provisions might well have been identified. That process,
in our view, is also completely antithetical to transparency and open
government.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Banc Nuvopt Ltd <gestiondetalentos@avad.com.py>
Sent:Friday, June 28, 2019 4:53 PM
Subject:Mail Sent: Today
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Sir/Madam.
Banc Nuvopt Ltd is ready to loan and partner with any investment plan with great prospects.
Regrds,
Francesco Ricci (Asst. Portfolio Manager) Banc Nuvopt Ltd.
Email: f.ricci@bancnuvopt.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 30, 2019 3:25 PM
To:Council, City; UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external)
Subject:Muni Fiber Palo Alto – How and Why
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council members and UAC commissioners,
Please attend Christopher Mitchell's talk, "Muni Fiber Palo Alto -- How and Why," on Tuesday, July 9th, at Mitchell Park
Community Center.
Thanks very much.
Jeff
PS: Here's Christopher's bio:
https://muninetworks.org/users/christopher
The MuniNetworks website, which he runs, is a great resource for those who believe in the local self-reliance of
municipalities regarding telecommunications. Check it out.
https://muninetworks.org
=========================================================================
Muni Fiber Palo Alto – How and Why
July 9, 2019 at 7PM
Mitchell Park Community Center, 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA
El Palo Alto Room West
All are welcome to join a discussion on July 9th about municipal broadband and the implications for Palo Alto. Palo Alto
has long considered the potential of a publicly owned fiber-optic network, which would offer better connectivity to residents
at competitive rates, and local support is growing. Christopher Mitchell, Director of the Community Broadband Networks
program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, will give a short presentation about municipal broadband projects around
the nation and what lessons are relevant for Palo Alto. A screening of the short documentary Do Not Pass Go, which
explores the potential of community owned networks to improve connectivity, will follow. There will be ample time
reserved for Q&A at the end of the session.
https://munifiberpaloalto.org/events/
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:30 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Council, City; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
Ombudsman@dao.sccgov.org; pbains7@projectwehope.com; Bains, Paul; Villaescusa, Marianna;
Lum, Patty
Cc:LBuchen@aclunc.org; vtalla@aclunc.org; YHaile@aclunc.org
Subject:Officer Fino violation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EJHO0LCn9o&t=8s
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Fino 1 - YouTube
Unlawful Unconstitutional detainment search and seizure
committed by Palo Alto Police Officer Daniel Fino
www.youtube.com
Third unlawful detention upon one citizen by Palo Alto Police in less than a year.
Unlawful, Unconstitutional detainment, search and seizure, and assault and battery by Palo Alto Police Officer
Daniel Fino. Officer Fino was attempting to initiate a physical altercation by which he could arrest me just as
Officer Burgio attempted to a couple of years ago and has eerily similarities in a case in which Fino was
involved in at Stanford with Officer Burgio in which a law abiding citizen had his eye socket broken. See Below
for Info:
Fact one: I was not looking into any cars. That accusation is a bold face lie as I had just arrived at my vehicle
from the other side of town which can be documented several ways when Officer Fino and Officer Joy
approached me after being there for no more than a minute.
Fact two: Officer Joy demanded my identification to determine if my car was my car after seeing me
open the door to my car with a key.
Fact three: The Police do not stop citizens and demand their identification to determine if they are the
owners of their vehicles upon seeing citizens approach and enter their vehicles, because that is illegal.
Fact four: The vehicle was not in violation of the 72 hour code as no warning had been issued. Additionally
there is no lawful justification to demand identification for a parking violation as thousands of parking tickets
2
are issued every day and placed on vehicles without the owner being present especially vehicles that have
been deemed to have not been moved for several days.
Fact Five: The cracked windshield was only discovered after Officer Fino had unlawfully detained me;
assaulted and battered me and illegally obtained my license. This is verified by the fact that when I asked
Officers Fino and Officer Joy why they needed to see my identification they refused to provide an answer
other than they needed to find out who I was. Had Officer Fino stated that the windshield was cracked and
that that was a violation that required my identification I would have readily provided it to him. But even then
I would not legally be required to as since the vehicle was parked it was not a moving violation but just a fix‐it
ticket.
Instead of informing me of that violation Officer Fino grabbed my arm forcefully and then pushed me into the
front of my vehicle pressing upon me with significant force even though I had not resisted in any manner at
any time. He did this in hopes of eliciting the slightest physical response like, tensed arm muscle, as
justification to use significantly more force upon me and then arrest me for resisting arrest just as what
happened at Stanford with another citizen. Officer Fino illegally and egregiously unnecessarily escalated a
non physical and non‐violent situation into a physical and violent one.
Palo Alto officers acted 'reasonably' after punching man they thought was shoplifting, superiors say
A security guard at Macy’s came up to the officers and told …… a group of black men were acting “boisterous" and
"loitering in the area……." She said she never accused this man in particular of stealing but she did say the entire group
was acting suspiciously…….
Sgt. Brian Philip and Officer Daniel Fino, ……… Neither of them had turned on their recording microphones
It was at this point that Burgio "delivered one blow to the suspect's head." He told his superiors that he feared the man
may have been reaching for his police gun. Reifschneider then hit the man with his fist "several times in the hip."
The officers decided to "detain and speak with the suspect," according the police reports. They were in plain
clothes but they said they identified themselves as police, although he later said they didn't. The man didn't
stop and told them he did nothing wrong, the reports state.
Both officers applied control holds on his wrists to keep him from leaving. The man began to tense his arms
and tried to walk away. In order to prevent him from doing that, police pinned him against a parked car. Philip
called for emergency assistance and they struggled with him.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2‐investigates/palo‐alto‐officers‐acted‐reasonably‐after‐punching‐man‐they‐thought‐was‐
shoplifting‐superiors‐say
Newly released police records detail violent takedown of shoplifting suspect
3
In May 2016, Assistant Chief Patty Lum recommended that Philip be given a “documented oral counseling
memo” on the requirement that he use his mobile audio‐video (MAV) recording device. Lum also recommended
that Fino receive training on the same subject.
Neither Philip nor Fino was wearing the device.
It’s unclear whether Burgio broke the man’s eye socket because a witness said he was also scraping his face
on the pavement while resisting police.
Reifschneider delivered several blows to the man’s hip area to try to get his hands. Burgio said he thought the
man was reaching for his gun, so he punched the man in the head.
He also claimed that Philip and Fino didn’t identify themselves as police at first, contrary to what they said.
https://padailypost.com/2019/04/11/newly‐released‐police‐records‐detail‐violent‐takedown‐of‐shoplifting‐
suspect/
4
6
Two years ago Burgio attempted to initiate an altercation by falsely arresting me in Starbucks
as a justification to arrest me for resisting arrest.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/false‐arrest.html
Last August Ofc. Christopher Conde illegally detained me and last February Ofc. Daniel Cuevas illegally detained me.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/
7
When is going to stop?
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
Tony Ciampi
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 1:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please oppose AB 516 --- Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council:
Per today's Post article about AB 516, which proposes to prohibit the towing of parked cars with five or more unpaid
parking tickets, and delay the towing of cars that haven't been moved, among other provisions, I write to ask the City of
Palo Alto to register its opposition to this bill.
The City of Palo Alto has a plan for parking in place already, downtown and in its neighborhoods, which while a work in
progress, is designed to address our City's specific needs and those of its residents and visitors.
AB 516 would dictate its own centralized state planning for parking in Palo Alto and every community in the state of
California. The bill's dictates involve ignoring rather than enforcing certain parking code violations and instead
substituting the state's own regimen, despite differences between cities and communities throughout the state.
While local cities may already be offering payment plans to low‐income parking code offenders to address undue
hardship, the state chooses to dictate (lack of) enforcement of parking code violations from above, ensuring chaos. All
of us in this community depend upon the city to mediate and enforce lawful access to parking in downtown and other
areas in Palo Alto with parking scarcity.
Please reject this state usurpation of local control over our community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Hon Wah Chin <chin.honwah@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Police Station Art
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I saw in the Wednesday June 26, 2019 Daily Post that
other residents are also upset and sent emails. I am
adding to that. The whole one percent for art movement
is pretty silly, especially as projects get bigger.
[Art? / Decoration? ‐ It's not like "ART" would necessarily
make a development more pleasant to look at.]
In any case, tax‐payer funded utilitarian developments
should not have the requirement at the same level if at
all. The ordinance should be changed.
Hon Wah Chin
3281 Greer Rd
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:William Reller <wereller@664gilman.com>
Sent:Friday, June 28, 2019 4:51 PM
To:Council, City; tcr@stanford.edu; Materman Len; jpa@sfcjpa.org
Subject:San Francisquito Creek flood protection
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am in complete support of current efforts to provide creek improvements (in addition to
those completed downstream in 2018) that will replace the Pope‐Chaucer Bridge and widen
the channel downstream. It is remarkable that this complex project has had so much success
to date given at least five governmental jurisdictions working in collaboration. A credit to all!
I live in Palo Alto on Crescent Cr, the land parcel extending to the center of San Francisquito
Creek (only a little flooding in 1998!). It continues as a second parcel across the creek with
frontage on Woodland Ave, Menlo Park. Should there be some advantage in my deeding that
parcel to others I would so consider.
Thank you for all your efforts.
William Reller
wereller@664gilman.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, July 1, 2019 3:28 PM
To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Cathy Lewis; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov;
margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor; huidentalsanmateo; Mark Kreutzer; terry; Joel
Stiner; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; Doug Vagim; vallesR1969@att.net; beachrides;
bearwithme1016@att.net; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg;
Steven Feinstein; Council, City; hennessy; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; yicui@stanford.edu; bballpod;
Irv Weissman; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; popoff
Subject:Fwd: Square SQ gets a PT hike to $100
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, Jul 1, 2019 at 2:49 PM
Subject: Square SQ gets a PT hike to $100
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Mon. July 1, 2019
To all‐ PT on Square SQ now $100 by Nomura. I paid $62 for it four weeks ago today, June 3, and it c. today at
$73.20, up 18% in that time. So seven years of bank interest in a month. It was up 20% at one point.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sq
LH
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 29, 2019 5:56 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 06-24-19 -- Item 36 -- FTTN & CAC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council members,
At your 06-24-19 meeting,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=41658.37&BlobID=72070
you considered an Item 36, about restarting FTTN and sunsetting CAC. Here's the staff report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72075
Here's a transcript of this item (below the "######" line), with my comments (paragraphs in red beginning with "###").
SUMMARY
I think building out ad-hoc fiber for AMI and SCADA, hoping it will be good for FTTP, before having a detailed design of
the citywide municipal FTTP network is asking for trouble.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
###########################################################################################
Video of Council's 06-24-19 meeting, Item 36:
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-6242019/
1:47:30:
Mayor Filseth: So, we're actually going to take up Item 36, here, first. And then move on to Item 35. Is there a staff
discussion on Item 36?
1:47:45:
Dean Batchelor: There is. So, good evening, Mayor Filseth, Council members. Dean Batchelor, Utility Director. Before
you this evening is a staff report with recommendations to authorize the reinsurance
### reissuance
of the new request for proposal of fiber expansion, along with the recommendation to sunset the Fiber & Wireless Citizen
Advisory Committee. Which is the CAC. ** And assign the Utility Advisory Commission to -- or, the Utility Advisor
Commission to assume the sole advisory role to the fiber expansion initiatives. As we've been talking about in this
2
report. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jim Fleming to talk about the first recommendation. And then, I'll talk
about the second recommendation.
1:48:29:
Jim Fleming: Good evening, Mayor Filseth and Council members. My name is Jim Fleming. I'm a Senior Management
Analyst with the Utilities Department.
To provide some background, in August of 2017, the 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 fiber-to-the-node network for fiber and broadband
expansion. Including an option to build a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network. In June of 2018, the City issued a Fiber-
to-the-Node RFP to retain a management consultant to complete these tasks.
### RFP 171422 was issued on 05-24-18. Bids were due 06-28-18.
https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/RFP-171422-FTTN-B1.pdf
Six firms responded to the RFP. And five firms were interviewed. In November 2018, the Council approved the Smart
Grid Assessment and Technology Implementation Plan, including Advanced Metering Infrastructure -- also known as AMI
-- to serve electric, gas, and water utility customers. AMI is a foundational technology that is becoming standard in the
utilities industry, to improve customer service, and facilitate efficient operations. The Council also encouraged staff to
align the Fiber-to-the-Node business case with the AMI implementation, including a detailed engineering design. The
UAC -- the Utilities Advisory Commission -- was updated about the Council's direction in January of 2019, including the
recommendation to reissue the RFP, to retain a consultant to align fiber planning with AMI implementation. The UAC was
supportive of reissuing the RFP to align with AMI, including a detailed engineering design. After discussions with
Purchasing and Legal staff to align AMI implementation as the initial focus of the fiber network expansion, and adding
SCADA communications and City operations wireless communications technologies, staff recommends reissuing the RFP
1:50:47:
The existing fiber optic backbone is a core City asset. This slide represents the existing fiber backbone in its present role,
in supporting the communication requirements of City facilities, critical City infrastructure, and the commercial dark fiber
licensing enterprise. The City's commercial dark fiber offering has a high market share and brand awareness among
organizations that need the quantity and quality of bandwidth provided by direct fiber connections. A commercial dark
fiber offering is a niche service. Stanford Research Park and downtown Palo Alto are two specific areas where customer
acquisition has been particularly successful. The types of private organizations licensing dark fiber are in two distinct
categories. Category one are resellers, also known as wholesalers, which are primarily telecom service providers that
purchase large amounts of transmission capacity from other facilities providers, and resell services to smaller end
users. The second category includes commercial firms involved in mainly technology-related businesses, such as web
hosting, social media, finance, medical, law, pharmaceuticals, research & development, software development, consulting
firms, and e-commerce. Additionally, the Palo Alto Unified School District facilities are connected to the network. Most of
these organizations have the internal IT resources to light the fiber and facilitate the cross-connection to an internet
service provider (ISP) at PAIX, in downtown Palo Alto. PAIX is a carrier-neutral colocation facility that hosts many
ISPs. PAIX is owned by Equinix. Of course, the City's -- or, the network's primary purpose is to support City facilities and
departments, in addition to supporting critical municipal infrastructure, such as electric substations, the traffic signal
system, pump stations, and creek monitoring.
### Is it really necessary to say that the dark fiber network's "primary purpose" is serving the City customer? Does the
City gain anything by classifying commercial dark fiber accounts as of secondary importance?
All infrastructure that is highly dependent on secure, high-bandwidth broadband connectivity.
### Of all these City functions, how many would be at least as well served by municipal FTTP as by dark fiber? (If there
were municipal FTTP.) I'm guessing all of them.
### FTTP can be designed with redundancy, so that if a fiber is cut, the network stays up. (Of the City's dark fiber uses,
how many have redundant connections?)
1:53:02:
3
This next slide represents future expansion of the network for AMI and smart grid implementation, and supporting
communication links for the existing SCADA system, in addition to wireless communications support for Public Safety and
Utilities field staff. By connecting fiber optics to these systems, essential City services will be enhanced, such as outage
restoration, emergency response time, and ensuring resiliency across all utilities.
1:53:33:
This slide represents future, multi-phase expansions of the fiber backbone for Fiber-to-the-Node, as a potential platform
for Fiber-to-the-Premises opportunities, and future smart grid initiatives, dependent on high-bandwidth fiber connectivity.
1:53:51:
The proposed RFP to retain a consultant for this multi-phase fiber network expansion involves the implementation of a
fundamental design principle: to initially leverage and expand the existing fiber backbone for AMI and SCADA systems
communications links, in addition to wireless communications links for Public Safety and Utilities field staff.
### I'm not persuaded by this "fundamental design principle." Why isn't the fundamental design principle to deploy
citywide municipal FTTP, and then treat all non-mobile entities that need communications service as premises?
Subsequent phases include a strategy for cross-utility scenarios that would integrate fiber expansion with ongoing capital
improvement projects, in addition to the support of smart city initiatives, while simultaneously evaluating Fiber-to-the-
Premises opportunities. A larger and more geographically spread-out fiber network may incentivize ISPs to form a public-
private partnership with the City to deliver broadband and other services.
### I'm very, very skeptical that partnering with a private-sector entity is going to make citywide municipal FTTP more
feasible.
The four fiber expansion phases are as follows:
1:54:57:
Phase 1 involves preparing a high-level design and cost estimate for AMI, SCADA, and wireless communications support
for Public Safety and Utilities staff. Contingent on the findings and recommendations of Phase 1, and Council approval to
proceed, Phase 2 asks the consultant to prepare a detailed network design and cost estimate, including bid-ready
construction drawings and construction standards, a bid-ready package, and bid evaluation assistance. As part of the
fiber expansion, staff will work with the consultant to develop local ordinances, policies, and construction standards, and
ensure they comply with legal and regulatory requirements. The ordinances and policies include dig-once,
microtrenching, one-touch utility pole make-ready, and multi-dwelling access. Contingent on the consultant's findings and
recommendations in Phase 2, and Council approval to proceed, in Phase 3, the consultant would do the following four
tasks. A business case and a high-level design for Fiber-to-the-Node and/or Fiber-to-the-Premises and future
services. The second would be, conduct a community survey, to measure interest and support in Fiber-to-the-Premises,
undergrounding, and electrification. The third would be to prepare a market assessment of existing internet service
providers in Palo Alto, and services offered. And fourth is to evaluate public-private partnership opportunities and funding
models. Contingent on the consultant's findings and recommendations in Phase 3, and Council approval to proceed, in
Phase 4, the consultant would prepare a detailed engineering design and cost estimate for Fiber-to-the-Premises,
including bid-ready construction drawings, bid package, and bid evaluation assistance.
1:56:45:
The following are potential scenarios of capital improvement projects that could be integrated with future fiber expansion
plans. Electric system underground conversion, electric system aerial and underground rebuilds, fiber optic rebuilds,
natural gas line replacement, electrification, electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This integrated utilities approach, with
fiber and undergrounding, may also promote electrification initiatives and new electric vehicle charging infrastructure in
neighborhoods.
1:57:20:
So, at this point, I'm going to turn it back to Dean Batchelor. Thank you.
1:57:24:
4
Dean Batchelor: So, at this point, I'm not sure if you -- Council -- would like to talk about this first recommendation? Or
would you want to have both the recommendations?
1:57:34:
Mayor Filseth: Why don't we go through both of them first.
1:57:36:
Dean Batchelor: OK.
1:57:36:
Mayor Filseth: And then we'll --
1:57:44:
Dean Batchelor: So, the second recommendation is to sunset the CAC. So, back in 2014, the City Manager put together
a team of residents to become the CAC. With the look at, possibly, of the expansion of Fiber-to-the-Home. And the look
at that was to hire a consultant to do a business plan, and then move on, from that standpoint. Then, in 2016, then
Google came into the picture, at that period of time.
### On 05-14-13, Council's TACC subcommittee directed City Manager Keene to appoint a CAC, but it took him until 02-
18-14 to do so. Then, on 02-19-14, Google announced its intention to think about deploying FTTP to 33 more cities,
including Palo Alto.
And so they were working with staff, at that point, to look through the possibility of how we could colocate with
Google. So, the new mission now has kind of changed. So, we're thinking that, from a staff perspective, that the UAC, as
they look at the smart grid system, to look at the electrification aspects of it, looking at the natural gas and water
customers, that they have a larger, wider area to review, and cover larger planning. As well as multiple utilities that they
already did with. As Jim just mentioned, you know, we look at, from a CIP standpoint, we look at from an electric
perspective -- our projects, we look at our gas and our water and our wastewater projects. And so, staff is looking at that,
it's a wider outreach from the UAC. It was chartered in the UAC that they oversee the fiber expansion.
### Utilities Director Fong used to deny that UAC was chartered to "oversee" anything, but I think the term is apt.
So, we think that, at this point -- staff does -- that the CAC that was commended back in 2014 to look at a fiber-to-the-
premise -- that's been completed. At this period of time. Now, we think, also, too, is that this is a turning point, to look at
possibly getting to fiber further into the neighborhoods. Um. And even looking at fiber-to-the-premise. As we rebuild
some of these systems, as we've talked about, is that, if we need to go in and add fiber to an overhead section of the
customers' neighborhoods, then I think that we could look at the possibility of including, then, the fiber-to-the-home-
premise. As we go deeper into the system, as we build out to the nodes, as this plan kind of outlines, at this period of
time, we feel that fiber's getting further into the neighborhoods, at this period to time. As we move forward with the
construction of the AMI system.
2:00:19:
Right now, we just had, recently, a consultant come talk to us, looking at how many collectors that we would actually have
to put throughout the system. And, right now, that consultant looked at seven different areas throughout the City. That
we would have to push fiber further into the neighborhood aspects, to make these connection points. As, also, Jim talked
about, is that, going to our transformers, and looking at our switches. Again, this is the wider portion of it, that we think
that where the UAC has oversight in, and is more familiar with this, than looking at just what the CAC was commended to
do, back in 2014. I think, for now, that the UAC, you know, makes these recommendations onto yourselves as the
Council. And we think that will be more informed of what this plan is actually, as we move forward -- as we look at these
different phases that Jim talked a little bit about. And that how they will support -- the UAC would support that. Plus, also,
too, is, if you remember -- April, I believe it was -- that Council did interviews for UAC members. I think it was in April. Is
that, there were three brand new positions that were put onto the UAC.
### Council interviewed UAC candidates on 04-29-19. Council appointed four candidates to UAC on 05-20-19. Of
these, three (Smith, Jackson, Scharff) had not previously served on UAC.
5
Two of those individuals -- Loren Smith is one of the UAC members who sits on the CAC.
### To be clear, Smith is the only UAC member to have served on CAC.
So, if you're concerned a little bit about -- maybe if the expertise really isn't there so much from a fiber perspective, from a
UAC's perspective, that I think the thing is that, like I said, Loren -- his background, and experience in the telecom industry
-- he's been sitting on the CAC for the last year and a half.
### Smith started serving on CAC on 10-27-16.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/technology_committee.asp
There have been only 11 meetings since then (including 10-27-16).
And he brings a tremendous amount of knowledge. The other gentleman, Donald Jackson, is an engineer from electrical
engineer and a computer science background. And then, also, too, is that he's very familiar with fiber-to-the-home, and
other ideas about looking at some modeling that he has talked about, and how maybe we can partner with some outside
agencies on that third party that Jim was talking about earlier. So, if the concern may be -- is that maybe the UAC doesn't
have the full understanding, what these two gentlemen that just came on board to the UAC, we feel that -- there's a lot
more strength than just to cover that fiber portion of it.
2:02:43:
So, with that, we'll turn it over for questions.
2:02:46:
Mayor Filseth: Uh. Are there any speakers to this item? Seeing two, we will go to the public. And you will have three
minutes. And the first speaker will be Jeff Hoel.
2:03:08:
Jeff Hoel: OK. Um. Two years ago, when you were given the opportunity to think about FTTN, staff told you how much
they thought it would cost eventually. Something like $15 million. Which is more than half of what's in the Fiber Fund
right now. So, once that's spent, it can't be spent on fiber-to-the-premises. That was my main concern about that. This
time around, staff hasn't said how it will cost. But I have to assume that they think it's going to cost something like
that. And so, I have the same concern.
2:03:49:
Fiber-to-the-node, as far as I can tell, isn't planning to install any fiber infrastructure to "pass" premises. And that's exactly
the fiber infrastructure that fiber-to-the-home needs. So, my feeling is, it's spending $15 million to get nothing of value to
fiber-to-the-home.
2:04:01:
This time around, after -- sorry -- that -- What UAC considered in January was the addition of the idea that instead of just
doing fiber-to-the-node, to maybe do fiber-to-the-premises someday, we'll actually choose smart meters as the vehicle to
decide where the fiber goes. Which I think is sort of doubly ridiculous. If we had fiber-to-the-premises, that would be the
fiber infrastructure that went exactly to all of places that smart meters need them. But the reverse is not true. If you install
fiber that goes where smart meters need them, that doesn't put it where fiber-to-the-premises needs it.
2:04:59:
For tonight, staff has added a couple of more ideas. One is, let's combine fiber-to-the-premises with
undergrounding. The trouble with is, Greg Scharff has said undergrounding is more or less dead. I don't think that
Council necessarily agrees with that opinion. And I'd like to find out that Council DOES think about
undergrounding. Because I think it's an important thing to do. But until they think that undergrounding is a way forward, I
see no reason to combine fiber-to-the-premises with it. Similar idea for electrification. Some people are saying we should
just get rid of our gas lines altogether, because that's how we'll save the planet. I don't disagree with that, in a 20-year or
50-year timeframe. But I don't want to wait 20 or 50 years to do fiber-to-the-premises.
2:05:59:
6
What I think staff ought to be doing with the consultant this time is what the old system was going to do ...
### Timer beeps.
Well -- I think staff should design all of fiber-to-the-premises, and then, if they think they don't have enough money to pay
for it, they should figure out what parts to leave out. But they should make that decision according to the citywide design
for fiber-to-the-premises.
2:06:29:
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. Herb Borock.
2:06:40:
Herb Borock: I don't believe that you should approve the request to reissue the RFP, because these are two different
requests for proposals. This request for proposal is completely different than the one that's currently pending. Because of
the amount, you are the contracting authority on the original RFP. And before you act on another RFP, staff should bring
to you a recommendation to either terminate the previous one or to award the contract to someone. And YOU make that
decision. Instead, what's happened is, staff has been sitting on that proposal. And I believe it's been sitting on it, waiting
to bring you this Advanced Metering Infrastructure proposal. And, by coincidence, waiting for AT&T to begin installing its
fiber throughout the City. So, that's the first thing I think you should do.
2:07:40:
And, in regard to SCADA, I thought it had already used the City's fiber network. And they didn't need to build a fiber
network for SCADA.
2:07:50:
In regard to the Citizens Advisory Committee, it has been, in my judgement, essentially ignored. Most of the meetings last
year were cancelled. And I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that it hasn't served the purpose. Other than waiting
around -- just like with the RFP -- until they're ready to do something else. So, yes, terminate the Citizens Advisory
Committee. But don't make the Utilities Advisory Commission an advisory committee to staff. The municipal code defines
the UAC as advisory to the City Council. And the Council can ask the UAC to foster and facilitate engagement with the
general public. But that's completely different from the way staff has been treating the UAC, as a place to have
discussions. Rather than bring proposals to it, on which it makes recommendations to the City Council.
2:08:50:
So, I think that you should acknowledge the fact that there were two different RFPs, the one that's currently sitting around,
with responses, that you haven't received the recommendation on, and this one that you see tonight, which you haven't --
which staff is asking you to make the SAME RFP. They are not the same RFP.
2:09:10:
And, in fact, since you're next meeting is some time from now,
### Council's next meeting is 08-05-19.
staff can actually bring you the draft RFP, and you, as the Council, can decide if that's something that you want to
approve, or change before approving.
2:09:25:
And, in regards to how to get fiber-to-the-premises, if at all, I believe you need to start with fiber being a service to the
community that is not provided by existing private enterprise. So, ...
### Timer beeps.
... doing things piecemeal, doesn't work.
7
2:09:41:
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. William Xuan.
2:09:48:
William Xuan: All right. Do I start now?
2:09:59:
William Xuan: Hi. My name is William. And this is my presentation. So, basically, what's happening right now? We
have companies like Sonic, offering excellent service to community members. And they really like it. But, you know, if it
was like that, and if they were like -- if they liked it, I think I wouldn't have to be up here and say all these things.
### In Palo Alto, Sonic has no infrastructure of its own, but, as a CLEC, it has been permitted to use AT&T's copper
infrastructure. So, although it has great customer service, performance is limited.
However, things have changed. You know. USTelecom -- all the incumbents -- have come up to the FCC and said, we
need to be able to jack the prices of people like Sonic.
### Soon, FCC will consider (WC Docket No. 18-141) a petition from USTelecom to forbear from enforcing Section 251
(c)(3) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allows CLECs to use ILECs' infrastructures.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358069A1.pdf
It's currently agendized for 07-10-19.
https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2019/07/july-2019-open-commission-meeting
I mean, those businesses -- the ISP -- can't stay in business. And we can't have the competition that we've seen right
now. And it's actually dying quite lot. And, you know, these are companies that are the most hated companies in
America, and provide really bad services for outrageously high prices.
2:10:49:
It's one step for- -- The staff proposal is one step forward, but it's actually two steps backward. Because when you're
looking at FTTP, you need purpose-build infrastructure. It's like building a foundation for a park, and then putting a
skyscraper on that foundation. At that point, you might as well just start from scratch. Because it's a lot simple to build
that way. And I think that's what staff is missing in this proposal.
2:11:12:
Now, why is putting the ball in the UAC flawed? Because UAC has so many other tasks. What's to ensure that fiber will
be front and center, and that they will actually accelerate the pace of decision-making? Nothing. And I've actually talked
to the UAC members. Whether they know about fiber or not. And I think what we've seen is a bit worrying. Because
we've seen UAC members even question the need for fiber. Are these going to be the people who are going to be
spearheading the issue? Or are going to slow us down? I think that's something we should worry about. And, instead,
we should turn the CAC into a commission. Not only could we, you know, gain all these benefits, we can garner all the
same benefits that we gained from the UAC. Plus, it's a much better solution. And it actually comes front and center.
2:11:59:
I think the timeline is also a worrying issue. You know, there's nothing wrong with saving money by bundling these things
-- electrification and natural gas -- but there's no reason why we should turn a two-year project into a 20-year project. I
think that's simply unreasonable. And that we should be reasonable in the way we implement the plan. And that the -
- Another part is, the first phase of the six-phase plan takes one year. And that's the only deadline that they put. I think if
you want something -- We want something now, in order to block the incumbents. Because, if Coun- -- If we wait,
Comcast and AT&T will just come in and provide the same bad service that residents have been talking about for this
entire time. We want something that will actually work. And the FTTN proposal will simply not provide it. Thank you.
2:12:42:
Mayor Filseth: Thank you. We now return to Council for questions, comments, and motions. Council Member Kou.
8
2:12:57:
Council Member Kou: I just have a question. You said, earlier, a "collector." The term -- what does that mean?
2:13:04:
Dean Batchelor: So, when we launched, and we moved forward with the AMI system. So, the AMI meters, themselves,
will have a transponder that will send a signal out. And then these collectors will be actually taking the reads of the
meters. So, it will read the electric meter. It will read the water meter. And it will read the gas meter. There's two ways of
doing that. That is, is that the meters will actually hop to the electric meter. So, the gas meter will push to the electric
meter. And then, the water meter will push to the electric meter. And then it goes to the collectors at that point. Or, the
other type of system is, it's just direct inline. So, the water meter goes to the collector. The gas meter goes to the
collector. And the electric.
### Previously, staff talked about a different way, where electric meters could forward wireless signals from other meters,
but gas and water meters could not (to save battery power), and some electric meters could communicate with collectors.
### If we had citywide municipal FTTP, we could do what Chattanooga has done (PDF page 19 here).
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub74732.pdf
For premises that have FTTP service(s), the electric smart meter is connected by fiber. For other premises, the electric
smart meter is connected wireless to a nearby smart meter that is connected by fiber. There's no need for "collectors."
So, that's one thing that utilities staff is looking at, is, what's the best system for us, as Palo Alto? But these collectors
would be located throughout the City. And -- we just saw the recent design portion of it -- where these collectors that we
saw -- Seven collectors. Four in the lower side of Palo Alto, and three in the upper hill. 96 percent would have
redundancy. So that -- we have problems up in the hills, where we would have to put some type of repeaters. Or we may
have to put another collector up in hills, to be able to collect all the data at a given time. So, it would be real time data,
that a customer could take a look at, if we went to time-of-use meters, or if we decided that they wanted to look at what's
going on on their electric -- what they're using at that period of time. So, it would be real time. That the customer would
be able to go into a portal, and then be able to see their ...
2:14:44:
Council Member Kou: The collector is a box?
2:14:45:
Dean Batchelor: So, yeah, the collector itself is a set of small antennas. That would get put onto a pole, or onto a
streetlight. And then -- It goes into a two by two [foot] square box. And then, that is going to be driven by fiber. That
would come back, then, to a designated location. And then download all that information from a billing perspective. Also,
it would help us in determining outages much quicker. Because what we can do then is -- it's a two-way system. So, we
would be able to look at -- we could bring up your address and see if you have power or no power.
### As I understand it, staff's plan is for electric smart meters to have no battery backup power. So, if you poll an electric
smart meter and it doesn't answer, it might be because the power is out, but it might be for some other reason.
Or we'd be able to look at a block, to see, how far does that outage really continue to go? Right now, it's all done by
patrolling. We have to go out and patrol the lines. So, if it's overhead, and we see the wire down, or if there was an issue,
then we'd be able to take a look at that. And the same with underground. The same way. So, we could make much more
efficiency if we were able to put this AMI system in place.
2:15:49:
Council Member Kou: Thank you for that.
2:15:52:
Mayor Filseth: Council Member DuBois.
2:15:55:
9
Council Member DuBois: One quick question. So, when you were talking about our existing fiber network, do we also
support our libraries, community centers? And, does the Palo Alto school district use our network?
2:16:11:
Jim Fleming: Yes. We connected all of the schools and the [school] business offices back in roughly 2014-2015. So, ...
2:16:20:
Council Member DuBois: OK. That's what I thought. I just think we should call that out, too.
2:16:22:
Jim Fleming: And all -- almost all City facilities are connected to the network.
2:16:26:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. And our libraries, too, right?
2:16:28:
Jim Fleming: Correct.
2:16:28:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. Um. So, I notice that the previous RFP got a really wide range of responses. From
$75k to $5.5 million. So, it seems like either people interpreted the RFP differently, or it wasn't understood, I guess, what
we were asking for. I mean, was there a reason we had such a wide range of dollar values?
2:16:56:
Jim Fleming: Um. There were, I guess, two different categories of respondents. There were consulting firms. And also
firms that just design and build -- and probably didn't look that closely at what we wanted in the RFP, in terms of providing
consulting services. They could provide a design-and-build, but they were jumping way ahead.
2:17:21:
Council Member DuBois: OK. Um. So, I think it makes sense to me that we'd reissue the RFP, and look for design and,
like, construction experience. I think that's a good step forward. And I like the idea of being to leverage the network for
multiple uses -- for smart grid and AMI. But I do think we still have this goal of trying to make sure the network could be
usable for FTTP. And the previous Council motion was around fiber-to-the-node. And so, I see this as getting closer to
our goal, by extending the network out to the neighborhoods. I mean, I guess, in this kind of Phase 1, Phase 2, do we
really have any idea right now -- like, where we're talking about expanding the network? Would it -- One of the speakers
talked about "passing" houses. What do we envision, really, in Phase 1, Phase 2?
2:18:28:
Dean Batchelor: So, I think, in Phase 1, as we look at, you know, this design, the design was going to look at where these
collectors were going to be. And I think that staff has to make a recommendation about if we go with one system or one
of the other. Meaning that, do we go with the type of collectors where we're going to use the system where they hop to
each meter, and then they have collectors? Or do we go with this other style, where each meter jumps to the
collectors? Because, each system -- if we use the first type of system, we're probably going to put 30 collectors in. To
make the same coverage as if we were going to go to the direct, where each meter runs to 7 collectors.
### I don't buy this explanation. It's too bad that there isn't a staff report to explain. I'm guessing that the plan where all
meters communicate directly with collectors is the plan that needs 30 collectors, and the plan where electric meters can
forward signals from other meters is the plan that needs 7 collectors. Incidentally, for the latter plan, it's not true that each
meter runs to 7 collectors. Each meter communicates with at least one collector, and 96 percent of meters can
communicate with at least two collectors.
10
I think the thing is, is that, as we look at which system is best for us, that will push fiber further into the neighborhoods.
### Pushing fiber further into neighborhoods doesn't necessarily make it more accessible for FTTP. Fiber that "passes"
premises is accessible for FTTP.
Because these collectors are going to have to be in the neighborhood, located so that we can get coverage for -- we want
dual -- um -- um -- redundancy. That these meters would be able to be read by. So, if one collector goes out, this other
collector would be able to pick up the back side of wherever they would be. So, we would then push, like I say, more fiber
into the neighborhoods. And further into, because of the design that we would go with.
2:19:45:
Council Member DuBois: I guess, is there anything -- I guess envisioning anything in the RFP that, in Phase 1 and 2, we
would ask people to be thinking about a fiber-to-the-premise network? Like, as we design kind of the Phase 1, Phase 2,
are they going to be thinking about Phase 3?
2:20:01:
Dean Batchelor: Well, I think the thing is, is that, you know, in the Phase 1 portion of it, we're asking for this high-level
design. And the design would be, then, to look at, you know, where these collectors would be located at. As we build,
then, at that period of time, of overhead, or if we have to build some additional undergrounding portion of it, it will pass
homes.
### If "passing" a home includes the idea providing the vault or on-pole connection point so that the home can connect to
the fiber inexpensively, in order to get FTTP service, then I very much doubt that the fiber identified in Phase 1, for the
sake of connecting to wireless collectors for AMI, will "pass" homes.
At that period of time. I think, at that point, in Phase 2, when we look at doing the business plan, and looking at the
ordinances, and as we do the design portion of it, to get, actually, a full-blown design, that's when we can look at how
many homes we're going to pass, and how the collecting would be, and how the connections would be, then, to each
home.
2:20:41:
Council Member DuBois: Right. Just this idea of, you know, not thinking ahead enough. We don't want to design
ourselves into some kind of corner. So, I also just -- I mean, this has come to Council over the years. It's been a long-
time project. A lot of past Council discussions -- there were some discussions about, kind of, ordinances -- dig-once
ordinance. Those were geared around kind of lowering the cost of constructing a network. Um. And so, I guess, with
AMI and SCADA, those are being used for [Public} Safety and for Utilities. My expectation would be, the Utilities would
bear the cost of those phases. Is that correct?
2:21:26:
Dean Batchelor: Yeah. I think, as we build -- you know, build the system, this cost is not going to be coming 100% out of
the -- you know, out of the Fiber Fund portion of it.
### Good. If this phase doesn't benefit FTTP at all, I'd like zero percent of the cost to come from the Fiber Fund.
And so we would bill all the utility aspects, for water, gas, and electric, because of the AMI system. So, it would be a
shared cost. And then, also, if we're going to go down to neighborhoods, where we could build the node, and then also
build to some of the premises, then fiber would be paying for some of that cost, as well.
### The trouble is, unless you have a detailed design for FTTP, how do you know that the nodes and the fiber
infrastructure are in the right place?
2:21:53:
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. Well, so, I think that's going to be really critical, to understand how that works. I don't
think the Fiber Fund should be used to fund the electric upgrades. If we're putting in, like, extra fibers for future
networks. But I don't think it should be, like, a percentage of the work. It really should be -- This work is happening to do,
you know, a meter upgrade, and it should pay for the costs. And, like, while there's a hole in the ground, if we put in extra
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Forrest Warthman <warthman@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Peter Wegner art
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Shame on those members of the city council who voted to buy Peter Wegner's art! Some of us may agree that the art is
of high quality, but the City has much more important things to spend public money on.
Council members should learn from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation how to furnish walls with art works: solicit
donations of art from wealthy donors, rather than purchase art directly.
Forrest Warthman
forrest@warthman.com
(650) 494‐8555
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 2, 2019 5:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:wireless communication
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you Mr DuBois, Ms Kou, and Mr Tanaka for supporting the desires of the residents of Palo Alto in voting to restrict
where telecommunications can place their ugly and noisy devices.
Ms Mayor Filseth, Mr Cormack, Mr Fine, and Ms Kniss ‐‐ I wish you would listen (and vote) to protect the residents from
intrusive telecommunication devices, as many other cities are doing.
I understand a setback of 300 feet from public schools was approved, and the next day the School Board unanimously
voted for a 1,500 foot setback ‐‐ which is what the residents had requested. I'm glad somebody is doing the right thing.
Hope you decide to hear us at some point. We live here. We care about where we live.
Ann Protter
185 N Calif Ave