Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20190211plCC2
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: 02/11/2019 Document dates: 01/30/2019 – 02/06/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. Dear Fellow Council Members, I regret I can not join you at the retreat Saturday - I have business travel and will be on a plane. While a letter is a poor substitute for being present all day, I do want to provide a few comments on the recent survey of our citizens, our priorities for 2019, the 2019 Work Plan for non-priority items, and Council Protocols. CITIZENS SURVEY There remains a treasure trove of insights in this statistically representative survey, the highest quality data we have each year. We also continue to see negative trends over several years including distrust of local government Several issues arise repeatedly - traffic flow, signal timing, ability to park, affordable housing and workplace housing. Residents support preserving our single family neighborhoods and increasing below market affordable housing. I believe we must also take steps this year to address RV parking and create a managed program to help people get off the streets. 2019 PRIORITIES In terms of priorities, our own rules encourage us to have a single priority for only 3 years in a row and to limit ourselves to 3 priorities. This discipline is good and doesn’t mean we don’t work on other things - simply that three areas receive special focus from Council. Two of 2018 Priorities have been on the list for more than 3 years - parking and housing. With our recent actions, I believe we have laid the policy groundwork to implement the housing goals set in the Comp Plan and staff knows they need to refine our parking programs. believe we should remove both of them from our Council priorities for 2019. I would support making housing an Emeritus Priority if you all feel it need to remain. My priorities for 2019 are: 1. Traffic flow and Grade Separations, with an eye to congestion relief 2. Groundwork for a Business Tax for the General Fund on the ballot in 2020 3. Holistic focus on Ventura Neighborhood 4. Cubberley Community Center design and funding plan 1. Traffic flow and Grade Separations, with an eye to congestion relief Transportation issues remain a very clear issue in the Citizens Survey. Transportation concerns center around mobility, congestion, circulation. I don’t believe people are necessarily saying we should eliminate cars. I strongly disagree with prescribing that solution as the priority. I do support minimizing single occupancy commuter traffic. Instead, I think it’s high time that added some explicit focus on vehicle circulation - improving the flow of our arterials by prioritizing vehicle flow on these key routes through our street network. Doing so will improve on of the largest problems as confirmed by years of data from our citizens. We need to stop narrowing and slowing these key arterials, which simply pushes traffic on to local streets. Instead of traffic calming we are road enraging. 2. Groundwork for a Business Tax for the General Fund on the ballot in 2020 We need to start now to do the work to place a significant business tax on the ballot in 2020. Other parts of the state and the country provide examples for us on a significant tax that could be used for Transportation, housing and the general fund. We need to determine the form of the tax, do polling, and reach out to the community. With San Francisco taxing business at 20X peninsula cities (Palo Alto is currently at $0 business tax) and New York at 40X the peninsula average, we need to ensure that everyone in a democratic community is supporting that community. 3. Holistic focus on Ventura Neighborhood As one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city, Ventura is facing a lot of change in the North Ventura Plan and changes along El Camino. We have the possibility of expanding park land and the threat of wide scale displacement of our residents. Making Ventura a Council priority will let make sure we are striking the right policy balance for this important neighborhood. 4. Cubberley Community Center design and funding plan In a similar vein to the opportunity the large Fry’s site presents for housing, Cubberley represents the last large community space. Our planning process is proceeding well, but the Cubberley lease expiration is fast approaching. Cubberley deserves extra Council attention this year to make sure we complete the planning, get agreement with the School district, and get a funding plan in place. 2019 Work Plan In 2015 and 2016, Council received a detailed City Work plan for the year which was reviewed at the retreat. This was incredibly useful and is a practice we should bring back! In 2016, we had a mid-year retreat and check-in on the work plan. This helped Council understand the vast majority of work, including everyday processes that takes up the bulk of staff’s time. It enabled the Council to discuss relative priorities with the City Manager and to understand overloads on particular departments. This is in no way a suggestion that Council delve into the details of Administration or Management. I believe the chart above is very useful for all of us to keep in mind. But discussing the workplan does help Council and Staff work together with better shared understanding of everything being worked on. I strongly urge Ed and his team to revisit this process and reinstitute during 2019. I’ve attached the 2015 and 2016 Workplans as examples. Council Protocols Each year at the retreat there are many suggestions at making Council more efficient. I strongly urge the Policy and Service Committee to take up suggestions starting with the discussion at P&S at the end of 2018 and that we try some of these ideas. I do believe as elected officials we have an obligation to do the people’s work, and that one of us may be more expert in some areas than the others so I do not think we should have strict time limits on Council. But suggestions such as displaying the amount of time each of us has talked would be useful as a feedback mechanism. In terms of supporting the Council workload with fewer Council members - we should consider formalizing the Council Comments portion of the agenda to have quick status updates on activities from these boards so all Council members can be more aware of issues, enabling us to ensure coverage at critical meetings if an assigned Councilmember can not attend a particular regional or local meeting. With fewer of us on Council, I also think we should insure the additional boards and commissions we serve on need are evenly distributed amongst all Council members to spread the workload. Recognizing that the Mayor and Vice Mayor have additional time obligations from those offices, the workload among the remaining Councilmembers for 2019 is NOT equitably distributed with 4 members on nine(9) or more committees and one member only supporting four(4). I hope this is discussed. Conclusion Please consider my comments throughout your discussions. To quote many (but surprisingly, not Mark Twain to whom it's often attributed - Google it), “I would have made this shorter, but I didn’t have the time.” I hope you have a productive day and I look forward to reviewing the output of your efforts. Best, Tom DuBois Palo Alto City Council 1/30/2019 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Individual Review (IR) Program Review Conduct an impartial review of the IR process and recommend any necessary changes. Gather input from stakeholders Retain impartial expert to conduct a peer review Work with stakeholders to develop suggested updates to the guidelines and implementing ordinance Review guidelines with the PTC & City Council Prepare and draft ordinance for review with the PTC and City Council P&CE Amy BE Build to Line Eliminate the Build to Line requirement in some areas and adjust in others. Bring forward recommendations of the ARB and PTC to the City Council for consideration P&CE Amy IN Public Safety Building Project Create a new facility built to Essential Services standards to house Police,911 Dispatch,Emergency Services,Fire Admin, and the Emergency Operations Center Create CIP and funding from Infrastructure Plan. Evaluate potential sites. Selection and Council approval of site location. Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. PW Brad IN Cubberley Community Center Begin maintenance and planning in accordance with new city/school district lease Begin Master Plan study in collaboration with school district. Complete deferred roof replacements at Wings M and P. Assess other maintenance needs and begin addressing short term items. PW Brad BE PC Zoning Reform Support City Council Consideration of Reforms to the PC Zoning Process. Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the PTC and City Council. Concurrently revise prescreening procedures. P&CE Consuelo IN Foothills Park 7.7 Acres Dedicated as Parkland - August 18, 2014 Tours and Public Meetings - October 2014. Parks and Recreation Commission Discussion - Jan/Feb 2015. Next Steps: - See Commission recommendation February 2015 - Bring recommendation to Council April 2015 Daren IN Utility Meter Replacement Program Install meters to serve new customers. Replace end-of-life meters. Evaluate and expand advanced meter program to improve service reliability. UTIL Dean IN Sewer Lateral Cleanout & Replacement Continue to provide sewer connections to serve new customers. Replace existing connections due to: - Redevelopment - Erosion - Tree root intrusion - Ground Movement - Third-party excavation damage UTIL Dean/Tomm IN Utility Substation Improvements Continue to provide high level of service reliability by: - Replacing deteriorated equipment. - Repairing storm damaged equipment. - Performing maintenance. UTIL Dean/Tomm IN El Camino Park Project Restoration of El Camino Park following the Emergency Water Reservoir Project with new amenities including athletic fields and lighting,restroom,parking lot,and bike path Construction begins February and scheduled to end October 2015. Park reopens November 2015. PW Elizabeth IN Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Improvements to aging Center including Boardwalk repair feasibility study,and replacement of Center railing, decking, siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors Complete Boardwalk Feasibility Study. Select consultant to begin concept development and design for the building improvements. PW Elizabeth Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicyc le Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Select design concept and begin preliminary design for new, year-round Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Presentation of three designs and design selection - February. Contract with design firm to develop selected bridge concept - Spring. Complete environmental assessment. PW Elizabeth CP Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Develop world class goals and strategy to guide next generation sustainability efforts for City and community. Produce comprehensive plan and implementation roadmaps to achieve basic and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions - with measures that are technically, financially, legally and socially feasible. Provide findings and recommendations to Council and community. Align City policies and operating practices with sustainability goals. Launch visual dashboard of timely sustainability performance data for staff, Council and community. Develop Mobility as a Service pilot to evaluate impacts of "car-free" services on congestion, parking demand and emissions. CTYMGR Gil CP Comp. Plan Update Prepare an update to the City’s governing land use plan based on significant public input and conduct concurrent environmental review of cumulative impacts to the Year 2030. U se the summit to recruit volunteers for work sessions needed to finalize draft goals, policies and programs. Work with the Leadership group to plan and convene a "summit" for a community discussion of issues and choices. P&CE Hillary CP Coordinated Area Plan for Fry's Site Prepare a detailed plan for the 15-acre Fry’s site through a community-based planning process. City Council review of a draft scope of work & discussion of grant funding. Selection of consultant. Formation of an Advisory Committee. Initiation of data collection and analysis task. P&CE Hillary CP Annual Limit on Office/R&D or Alternate Growth Management Support a discussion by the City Council regarding ways to meter the pace of office/R&D development and gather input as part of the Comp. Plan Update. Seek Council direction - February 9, 2015. Define and analyze approaches for consideration with the Comp. Plan Update. Develop interim actions for stakeholder input and Council consideration. P&CE Hillary BE CPI – Related Zoning Ordinance Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the City Council regarding siting and risks associated with plating shops of similar uses. Return to the City Council for amendment of the consultant contract and further direction Neighborhood Outreach Amortization Study Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council P&CE Hillary BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Downtown) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in Downtown. Data collection and analysis of retail trends Outreach to stakeholders Return to City Council for direction Draft one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and the City Council Hillary BE Sidewalk Repairs Project Continue sidewalk repairs to complete 30 year district cycle leveraging budget doubled per IBRC recommendations Complete sidewalk program assessment to set new program goals and standards. Complete sidewalk repairs in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 32,33 and 34. PW Holly Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 2 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Street Resurfacing Program Continue resurfacing streets to meet average citywide pavement condition index (PCI) score of 85 by 2019 Complete paving of 50 city blocks - includes first 14 blocks to finish paving Middlefield and Alma with additional funding over 3 years Complete preventive maintenance of 80 city blocks Continue frequent community outreach Raise citywide PCI score to 80 PW Holly BE Charleston/Aras tradero Corridor Project Preliminary design and environmental assessment for the corridor project from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue Community Outreach. Finalize concept plan line. Coordinate with Caltrans and JPB/Caltrain. Complete environmental assessment. PW Holly IN Cal Ave Streetscape Completion in March 2015.P&CE Jaime BE Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation Finalize Concept Plan Line work for 23 ongoing bicycle boulevard projects Conduct community outreach and obtain PTC recommendations and City Council approval. Complete design of Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway project. Complete construction of Matadero Ave Bicycle Blvd Phase 1 Improvements Complete construction of Maybell Ave Bicycle Blvd Phase 1 Improvements P&CE Jaime BE Traffic Signal Modernization Upgrade the City’s traffic signals to improve their reliability and functionality. Project Implementation Improve organizational capacity for ongoing operation and adjustments as needed P&CE Jaime BE Embarcadero Road Improve traffic operations on the segment of Embarcadero Road between Alma and El Camino Real. Award bid for Phase One construction (signal consolidation at Town and Country) Complete Phase One construction Initiate planning and design of Phase Two including agency consultation and community input P&CE Jaime BE Parking Capacity Projects Increase the off street parking spaces available to serve employees and visitors. Complete preliminary design and of analysis of satellite parking concept Assist Public Works with development of a scope of work for garage design Support contract award for design P&CE Jaime IN Organics Facilities Plan Replace incinerators with new biosolids handling system Sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility - Commence work on final design - Commence and complete CEQA - Apply for low-interest rate state construction loan Complete preliminary design of anaerobic digester facility Jamie BE Parking Guidance System and Garage Access/Revenue Controls Implement garage technologies that make it easier for drivers to access parking garages. Contract with vendors Complete design Stakeholder outreach ARB review and approvals Bid construction P&CE Jessica BE Parking Garage “Wayfinding” Replace and enhance signage so that drivers can find parking, building in capacity for changeable messages where appropriate (i.e. parking guidance systems). Complete preliminary design Community outreach ARB review and approvals Bid construction P&CE Jessica Major Effort Modest EffortAlmost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High MediumLow High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 3 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Downtown Parking Management Study Analyze the issues and opportunities associated with establishing paid parking Downtown. Engage an expert to analyze potential impacts and revenue, needed infrastructure, and effects on parking demand and traffic patterns P&CE Jessica BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Cal Ave) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in the Cal. Ave. area. Outreach to stakeholders and data collection regarding existing uses Return to City Council for direction Draft one or more ordinances for consideration by the PTC and the City Council P&CE Jonathan BE Annual Code Clean-Up Undertake an annual review of code interpretations and needed zoning code (clean-up) changes. Work with the City Attorney to identify needed technical corrections and clarifications Present an ordinance for consideration by the PTC and the City Council P&CE Jonathan BE Telecom Ordinance Support the City Attorney’s office project to update the City’s Telecom Ordinance to reflect recent Federal rule making. Work with the City Attorney to develop a memo summarizing the new federal wireless law and recommending that the wireless facilities co-location initiative be abandoned for now. Prepare a staff report and draft ordinance for consideration by the City Council P&CE Jonathan Lait / Cara Silver IN Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Rebuild Fire Station No.3 at Embarcadero Road and Newell Road Create CIP and funding from Infrastructure Plan. Hire Construction Management firm. Hire Architect. Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design. PW Matt IN Lucie Stern Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Rehabilitate and improve the existing building systems including fire/life safety components for Lucie Stern Community Center,the Children’s Theater and the Community Theater Obtain building permits. Issue invitation for bids to construct the project. Construct the upgrades while coordinating with existing building users. Begin Fire Station and temporary facility design. PW Matt BE Downtown Parking Garage Finalize location,select design concept,begin preliminary design Return to Council with draft Scope of Work for RFP. Create CIP with funding from Infrastructure Plan and hire architect to begin design process. PW Matt BE Professorville Design Guidelines Complete neighborhood specific guidelines.Reach out to stakeholders in Professorville regarding the objectives and scope of the work. Finalize recommendations and agendize for review by the PTC and City Council. Matt? BE Vacation Rental Ordinance (also Home Occupations) Support the City Council’s consideration of an ordinance regulating vacation rentals in residential zoning districts. Study Session in March 2015 Prepare a summary of options and seek public input Draft an ordinance for the PTC and Council’s consideration Molly BE Parking Exemption Ordinance Support City Council consideration of changes to the list of available parking exemptions in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Prepare a Draft Ordinance for review and discussion Consideration by the PTC and the City Council Molly? CP Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations, expansions and improvements Complete the community based master planning process. Develop Master Plan report and present to community. Adoption of the Master Plan in Winter 2015. PW Peter Jensen Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 4 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Seismically Vulnerable Building Ordinance Update the inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings and support City Council consideration of an ordinance with priorities and incentives and requirements for addressing hazards. Update inventory of vulnerable buildings and categorize by construction type and occupancy Research best practices related to prioritization and model ordinances City Council check-in Outreach to property owners and stakeholders Begin drafting ordinance for review by the City Council DSC Peter Pirnejad IN Junior Museum & Zoo Project LOI - Approved by Council 11/14. City initiating EIR. Negotiations on a P/P Partnership between the City and Friends begin in February (inc. CSD, PSO, ASD, CAO Staff). Friends have pledges of $15M of a $30+M for capital campaign. Return to Council with draft agreement between JMZ Friends and City by December 2015. Rhy IN Byxbee Park – Landfill Capping and Trail Construction Completion of landfill capping and new trail construction in advance of larger Council Infrastructure Plan Byxbee Park project First 29 acres capped to be opened in early 2015. Final 22 acres to be capped during 2015 and opened to the public soon afterward. Trails constructed along with the cap. Other features (signage, benches, vegetative islands) to be constructed in late 2015/early 2016. Ron BE Shuttle Expansion Expand shuttle service and implement other strategies to increase shuttle ridership. Obtain private sector support and launch 4th Shuttle Route in PA Increase frequency of service on the Crosstown route Bring Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) technology to the existing fleet; Develop and implement a coordinated design and marketing program to include schedules, stops, vehicles, and the web site Initiate discussion of alternatives to the shuttle for the future P&CE Ruchika BE Speed Survey Updates Develop new speed surveys along residential arterial streets to allow for traffic enforcement. Conduct speed surveys Adjust posted speed limits as needed Consider concurrent safety improvements as needed P&CE Ruchika BE Midtown Connector Project Phase 1 study to evaluate East-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection through Midtown. Form New Citizens Advisory Committee CAC to develop project content to be shared with the public regarding project alignment options P&CE Shahla BE Business Registry Implement an easy to use, online business registry tool and deliver key data about businesses in Palo Alto Build/ integrate/ test tool Launch tool Inform/educate Business Community Deliver reports Plan for phase 2 CTYMGR Thomas BE NOFA Make the city’s affordable housing funds available for the renovation or construction of deed-restricted affordable housing. Issue an updated notice of funding availability. Review proposals. Recommend tentative awards to the City Council. Analyze proposed projects submitted for City review and funding. Support project approvals and funding commitment by the City Council. P&CE Tim BE Housing Impact Fee Update Support the City Council’s review and adjustment of the City’s impact fee program for affordable housing. Receive and review Draft Nexus study Presentation to Finance Committee for direction on desired fee changes Consideration of ordinance changes and updated fees by the City Council P&CE Tim Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 5 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION 2015 TASKS DEPT PROJECT MANAGER SCALE*URGENCY*Rank (By Staff Person) BE Lot Consolidation Ordinance for Small Housing Sites Begin implementation of the City’s adopted housing element by initiating discussion of a lot consolidation ordinance. Planning and Transportation Commission study session Data collections and Analysis of Options Outreach to Stakeholders in preparation for ordinance development in 2016 P&CE Tim BE Fiber-to-the- Premise Master Plan Assessment Perform assessment to evaluate the feasibility of building out a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) Network in Palo Alto. Obtain Council approval to award contract to telecom consulting firm to work with staff to develop plan Assess City infrastructure (e.g. PROW, poles and conduit) and conduct engineering study to support citywide FTTP network deployment Define network build costs, network technical requirements and design, assess potential business models and evaluate prospective service offerings Provide findings and recommendations to Council for citywide FTTP deployment and ask for direction ITS Todd BE Wireless Network Master Plan Assessment Perform assessment to evaluate the feasibility of building out a citywide Wireless Network in Palo Alto. Obtain Council approval to award contract to telecom consulting firm to work with staff to develop plan Evaluate Wi-Fi connectivity for general public and businesses Conduct assessment to determine need for wireless solutions for public safety, field-based City staff and other mobile government applications. Provide findings and recommendation to Council for Wi-Fi and/or other wireless solutions and ask for direction ITS Todd IN Utilities Infrastructure Replacement & Improvement Continue replacement of aging infrastructure on Water, Gas, Wastewater and Electric Utilities Electric Undergrounding. Gas Main Replacement. Water Main Replacement. Seismic Water System Improvement. Wastewater Collection System Augmentation. UTIL Tomm IN Electric Utility System Improvements Continue to increase system capacity for load growth Continue to increase system capacity for load growth by: - Replacing deteriorated equipment. - Repairing storm damaged equipment. - Performing maintenance. UTIL Tomm Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major Effort Modest Effort Almost Done Major EffortModest EffortAlmost Done High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low HighMediumLow Original Doc: Feb 17 2015 BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other Page 6 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Stansbury <stansburysusan@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Make dealing with climate change a priority for 2019 Dear Honorable City Council Members, Thank you for your service and dedication to our community. I am writing to you today to urge you to make responding to climate change a top priority. While the city has done a lot to address climate change, there is always more that we can do. Climate change is upon us, and we are feeling and seeing the effects already. We recently had a long drought, breathed the smoke from the fires, and watch hurricanes and floods inflict damage on other parts of the country. We must all do more. Some examples are invest our city's money in non‐polluting industries. A group of people are working with the County of Santa Clara on creating a local public bank. If we create a local public bank, we can invest locally and keep our money out of the fossil fuel industry. We can also look at many city decisions through the lens of how it impacts our carbon footprint. I urge you to keep our response to climate change at the forefront of your decision making process. Thank you, ‐‐ Susan Stansbury 741 Josina Ave, Palo Alto ‐‐ Susan Stansbury (650) 353‐1994 2 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Neff <nrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 6:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Priority: Climate Crisis Dear City Council members, I would like the City of Palo Alto, as its first priority and backdrop of every decision made, to do everything in its power to mitigate the ever‐worsening climate crisis. Most of you know I am dedicated to volunteering for California Clean Money Campaign which works to reduce the influence of big money in politics. That is my way of working on climate change. Thank you for your service! Nancy Neff 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Salzman <jsalzman3@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 10:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Gail letter on council priorities 2019: climate change Attachments:gail price city priorities letter.pdf Sent on behalf of Gail Price. Gail A. Price 4082 Orme Street, Barron Park, Palo Alto January 31, 2019 Re: City Council Priorities for 2019: Addressing Climate Change and Framework of the S/CAP Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Councilmembers: I believe it is important to address climate change by making it a critical focus area for the Palo Alto City Council in 2019. By seriously aligning the work plan to climate change policies, projects, and initiatives, there will be many opportunities for coordinated, comprehensive, and meaningful results. The importance of focusing on climate change is paramount and using GHG emissions as one measure is a way to measure our outcomes. I strongly agree with David Coale’s recent opinion piece (1/25/19) in The Palo Alto Weekly, “Palo Alto Needs to Step Up Its Green New Deal.” He outlines the critical climate change issues and the various options we have as a community to measure steps and take actions. Many of the goals and actions are already well articulated in the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, previously prepared and adopted by the Palo Alto City Council. Why not use these adopted documents as the framework for measuring our success as a community? Both programs and capital projects have elements that address climate change. The vast majority of these items are presented for review or action by the City Council. One way would be to explicitly outline our 2030 CAP goals, and establish annual goals to enable Palo Alto to reach the mid and longer-term outcomes. Without a more explicit structure and measurable outcomes, we will simply continue our rhetoric without conducting coherent evaluations of our progress towards seriously addressing climate change impacts. Establishing goals will drive outcomes. As has been reiterated by others, using the GHG impacts is one measure and having a specific section of the staff report identifying the goals and noting our steps to meet them will keep this focus (Climate Change) at the forefront of our thinking. This is a practical approach and a straightforward way to measure and demonstrate progress (and challenges). The proposed approach (having a section of their staff reports to address impacts)) was introduced by former Supervisor Liz Kniss to the Board of Supervisors and subsequently staff reports always noted “Impact on Seniors” Gail A. Price Page 2 and “ Impact on Children and Youth.” This is an important way to highlight issues of importance such as climate change. Using climate change as a strong focus area would enable the City Council and community to address related topics of concern: • Developing compact affordable housing near transit stations and corridors • Expanding electrification of our homes • Improving infrastructure to promote higher use of electric vehicles • Improving all types of non-polluting transit • Prioritizing Caltrain grade-separations to address operational efficiency and safety • Emphasizing the health and well-being of our community both now and in the future. As an example, it is my understanding that the City of San Francisco’s CIP process includes discussion of how the capital project is designed with performance technology to ascertain how the project will be capable of adapting to climate change over time. This practice has been in place for a few years and this approach is appealing. The City of Palo Alto and the City Council have been committed to reducing our greenhouse gasses through our climate action plan. Now is the chance to realize the policies and goals previously created and adopted. Now we can align our actions with our goals and honestly and directly make a difference. Decisions should incorporate GHG implications and be measured against annual goals. Seriously considering these systematic and meaningful recommendations, which are shared by many in the community, will benefit us all. Please take actions to demonstrate how a responsible and innovative local government, such as Palo Alto, can make a difference. Thank you. Sincerely, Gail A. Price Palo Alto, CA 1 Carnahan, David From:Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net> Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 2:59 AM To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert Subject:Re: Item 2, Definition of 2019 Council Priorities : Transportation Honorable Mayor Filseth and Council Members, Please consider these brief comments when considering any changes regarding Transportation as a key Council priority in 2019. Your guidance indeed can make a real difference to solving problems and moving forward! 1.Climate change is a reality that is already affecting Palo Altans. It's not fake news ‐‐ it's human activity that is causing extremes in weather and threatens us with both devastating sea level rise and the irreversible loss of the natural cooling via ocean and air currents that the Bay Area has enjoyed for many millenia. 2. Therefore, today it's critical that you reaffirm the City's commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 80% before 2030 with realistic action and considering all road users today. Leadership is needed ‐‐ definitely not not pandering to the base who fantasizes that the 1950 ideology of driving everywhere on wider and faster roads will produce the best outcome to today's dilemmas. 3. What we need is not more of the same ‐‐ drivers militantly against sharing the road with bicyclists, pedestrians, scooter users or even buses and vice versa. Winning is not about a "cars vs bikes" war, and no one is calling for an end to driving. This is about encouraging alternatives and managing change so that more people feel they do have choices about how to get from point to point, choices other than driving solo. Where to start? No place better for you to start than by affirming the two top goals of the 2020 Comp Plan under transportation and bringing people together on specifics to make them happen: GOAL T‐1 Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single‐occupancy motor vehicles. GOAL T‐2 Decrease delay, congestion and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. . . . The key to a sustainable transportation system lies in providing more options and more convenience so that people will more readily choose not to drive. Palo Altans recognize that, at times, driving is necessary, but to address congestion, climate change and improve overall quality of life, the policies and programs in this Element must focus on providing convenient, affordable alternatives to the automobile. (source: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63470) Let's work together to reach the 80% reduction by 2030 goal, and inspire others to do the same. And let's be sure to fill the vacant positions in the Office of Transportation with people whose toolkits are balanced, not just focusing on managing existing congestion but on the safety, comfort and mobility of all users. It's our only hope for moving forward in Palo Alto, and for the planet. Thank you for considering my comments. Kathy Durham, College Terrace 3 Carnahan, David From:jay whaley <whaley_jay@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:A major continuing priority Dear Palo Alto City Council member, We urge you to continue to actively insist and be actively involved in alleviating the negative impact of low flying jet aircraft landing at SFO. Hundreds of Palo Alto residents continue daily to report our complaints via stop.jetnoise.net. Over 2 million complaints per year have been sent. Nothing has improved, even with the input and recommendations from the select committee of elected officials. Palo Alto must continue to engage and expand our involvement with the South Bay Roundtable, our elected congressional representatives and especially the FAA to reduce this environmental negative impact that was created 4 years ago. Sincerely, Sallie and Jay Whaley 24 Crescent Drive 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 12:54 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle Cc:Planning Commission; Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; Allison Levitsky Subject:Feb 2 Agenda Item #3 Attachments:181009 Millbrae Council Agenda Regional Activity reporting Oct 9 2018.pdf Please accept the attached Millbrae Council agenda item as an example to expedite and improve reporting from local/regional authorities and agencies which now have profound impact upon Palo Alto. This level of detail in an agenda will assure that delegated responsibilities to Councilpersons are noted by the entire Council, press and the general public Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com CITY COUNCIL Oct. 9, 2018 7:35 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARING will be heard when the presiding officer calls for comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After oral testimony has been given, the hearing is closed unless continued to another time, and brought to Council level for discussion and action. Normally no further oral testimony is permitted unless requested and allowed by the Council. NONE EXISTING BUSINESS NONE 7:35 NEW BUSINESS NONE COUNCIL COMMENTS Committee Reports: Councilmembers serve as representatives to various committees listed below. They will report by exception on matters affecting Millbrae. • Mayor Papan • Vice Mayor Lee • Councilmember Schneider • Councilmember Oliva • Councilmember Holober CLOSED SESSION NONE C/CAG Board of Directors, C/CAG Legislative Committee, Mayor's Civic Coordinating Council, Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Board of Directors, San Mateo County Council of Cities, San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services JPA, Bike Sharing Program Sub-Committee, Budget/Finance Sub-Committee, Cannabis Further Study Sub-Committee, Community Center Sub-Committee, Downtown Enhancement Sub-Committee Association of Bay Area Governments General Assemblies, Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Board, Congestion Management/Environmental Quality Committee, Millbrae Youth Advisory Committee Liaison, Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors, San Mateo County Joint Committee on El Camino Real (Grand Boulevard), Adopted Military Unit Sub-Committee, Commission/Committee Interview Sub-Committee, Fire Shared Services Sub-Committee, Sewer Modernization Sub-Committee, Technology/Data Center Sub-Committee C/CAG Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Millbrae Community Enhancement Advisory Committee Liaison, Millbrae Cultural Arts Advisory Committee Liaison, San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services Council, SeaChange SMC, Bike Sharing Program Sub-Committee, Budget/Finance Sub-Committee, Fire Shared Services Sub- committee Airport Community Roundtable, Airport Land Use Committee, HEART Board of Directors, HEART Member Agency Committee, Millbrae Chamber of Commerce Liaison, Millbrae Senior Advisory Committee Liaison, Adopted Military Unit Sub-Committee, Commission/Committee Interview Sub-Committee, Downtown Enhancements Sub- Committee, Technology/Data Center Sub-Committee Caltrain Local Policymakers Group, Millbrae Community Television Liaison, Millbrae Economic Vitality Advisory Committee Liaison, Millbrae Parks and Recreation Commission Liaison, Millbrae Sister Cities Commission Liaison, San Mateo County Library JP A Governing Board, Cannabis Further Study Sub-Committee, Community Center Sub-Committee, Sewer Modernization Sub-Committee 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 5:27 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Nose, Kiely; Guagliardo, Steven Subject:2/4 Council Agenda Question for Item 4 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff response to an inquiry made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the February 4, 2019 council meeting agenda. Item 4: FY 2019 Mid‐Year Budget Report & Budget Amendments – CM Tanaka Item 4: FY 2019 Mid‐Year Budget Report & Budget Amendments – CM Tanaka 1. Why is the number of firefighters on workers’ comp double from last year? The number of workers’ compensation cases increased from eight to fourteen due to an uptick in minor injuries. Any injury, even minor injuries, that occur during work must be reported. The number of cases therefore includes both cases which resulted in ‘lost‐time’ as well as those requiring only minimal medical treatment. Seven of the fourteen cases were minor injuries requiring only minimal medical treatment. Thank you, Judy Ng Judy Ng City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2105 Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Carnahan, David From:Rachel Croft <croftr@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Response letter to Stanford GUP Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As a citizen of Palo Alto who spends a lot of time in traffic in Palo Alto, I find your response lacking in the demands for transportation assistance far beyond Palo Alto and Charleston crossings. The traffic in Palo Alto is gridlock during commute times, and is already a or the major concern of Palo Alto residents. Addition of this academic space for workers and families will clearly bring more people into the area each day and cause more people to dwell in the area, which will impact ALL traffic throughout Palo Alto. Caltrain crossings are particularly painful and grade separation is necessary and moving forward, thankfully. But to assume that this Stanford expansion will not affect ALL separations is simplistic. Stanford should assist financially both in all grade separation projects and transportation assistance through all of the areas of Palo Alto that will be impacted by increased flow of traffic. Furthermore, the impact on Palo Alto schools and lack of tax revenue from rental units is simply unacceptable. I urge you to speak strongly for the PAUSD as well in advocating for funding so that Stanford residents do not have a free ride to Palo Alto schools. Thank you for your consideration. Rachel Croft resident of Southgate 2 Carnahan, David From:Chandru Venkataraman <vchandru@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding City response to Stanford GUP Distinguished City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As a citizen following the rail grade separation project, I am deeply concerned that this response letter barely mentions Stanford's participation and aid in our grade separation efforts, along with participation and aid in all bike/pedestrian/vehicular traffic matters across Palo Alto. It appears as though this letter merely responds to their recent EIR. If this EIR were to be believed, the addition of 2 million+ square feet of academic space and 3150 homes will not impact traffic in Palo Alto. This simply is unrealistic and untrue. Any resident or employee of Stanford lands will undoubtedly venture forth outside of campus, either by car, bike, or on foot. Of the intersections in the grade separation project, this letter only mentions Palo Alto Ave intersection as part of the proposed Downtown Coordinated Area Plan and specifically asks for help with Charleston Road. Why aren't Churchill Ave and Meadow Drive not in this ask? What about other roads that lead to Stanford, including Embarcadero Road and University Ave among a myriad of others? What about the improvements we want to make in our bike and pedestrian access across the tracks, either new or improving existing construction? I would like to ask that the City amend their response letter to include the following: Stanford should pay their fair share on all rail grade separation projects, and related projects such as the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Stanford should pay their fair share on all transportation projects across Palo Alto, including regular maintenance, new construction, and personnel to support. Thank you for your kind consideration. ‐Chandru 3 Carnahan, David From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:David Shen Subject:Regarding the City response to the Stanford GUP this Monday Distinguished City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As a citizen following the rail grade separation project, I am deeply concerned that this response letter barely mentions Stanford's participation and aid in our grade separation efforts, along with participation and aid in all bike/pedestrian/vehicular traffic matters across Palo Alto. It appears as though this letter merely responds to their recent EIR. If this EIR were to be believed, the addition of 2 million+ square feet of academic space and 3150 homes will not impact traffic in Palo Alto. This simply is unrealistic and untrue. Any resident or employee of Stanford lands will undoubtedly venture forth outside of campus, either by car, bike, or on foot. Of the intersections in the grade separation project, this letter only mentions Palo Alto Ave intersection as part of the proposed Downtown Coordinated Area Plan and specifically asks for help with Charleston Road. Why aren't Churchill Ave and Meadow Drive not in this ask? What about other roads that lead to Stanford, including Embarcadero Road and University Ave among a myriad of others? What about the improvements we want to make in our bike and pedestrian access across the tracks, either new or improving existing construction? I would like to ask that the City amend their response letter to include the following: Stanford should pay their fair share on all rail grade separation projects, and related projects such as the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Stanford should pay their fair share on all transportation projects across Palo Alto, including regular maintenance, new construction, and personnel to support. Thank you for your kind consideration. David Shen North Old Palo Alto Group 4 Carnahan, David From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 3:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stanford GUP, Agenda Item 6 Agenda Item 6, Stanford GUP Comments Jan. 30, 2019 Palo Alto City Council Dear Mayor Filseth and Council Members; The staff suggestions for consideration of the Stanford GUP, ID9901, may not be clear enough in addressing traffic issues. On Page 8, Item 3, No Net New Commute Modifications refers to direct and reverse peak hour trips. However peak hour trips are only part of the Stanford traffic impact. Non-peak trips also are significant, and based on my experience can be diverted from peak to non-peak hours. To be sure that traffic impacts are not worsening and that Stanford development additions do not negatively impact Palo Alto and our traffic, all trips during normal commute and working hours should be counted and restrained. My personal experience was about 14 years ago. I had a consulting contract with a department at Stanford that required much of my work to be done at home, but we needed to meet regularly in person on the Stanford campus to discuss program status and any issues. I was directed not to arrive on campus before 10 AM, and to leave by 3 PM on days when we had meetings. Thus my trips were not during peak hours, but they were to and from campus. Those trips also are important and should be included in total traffic impacts, and more importantly, in whether or not Stanford is limiting or preventing increases in traffic to campus. I suggest that daily traffic counts include the time from 6 AM to 8 PM so that trips during any likely working or meeting times are all counted and change in total trips tracked over time. There are occasional meetings in the evening that is why I suggest extending the time for traffic counts to 8 PM. Yours sincerely, Bob Moss 1 Carnahan, David From:Sally Keyes <keyesmom@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Grade Separation Project Distinguished City Council Members, We are long time residents of Palo Alto and responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As citizens following the rail grade separation project, we are deeply concerned that this response letter barely mentions Stanford's participation and aid in our grade separation efforts, along with participation and aid in all bike/pedestrian/vehicular traffic matters across Palo Alto. It appears as though this letter merely responds to their recent EIR. If this EIR were to be believed, the addition of 2 million+ square feet of academic space and 3150 homes will not impact traffic in Palo Alto. This simply is unrealistic and untrue. Any resident or employee of Stanford lands will undoubtedly venture forth outside of campus, either by car, bike, or on foot. Of the intersections in the grade separation project, this letter only mentions Palo Alto Ave intersection as part of the proposed Downtown Coordinated Area Plan and specifically asks for help with Charleston Road. Why aren't Churchill Ave and Meadow Drive not in this ask? What about other roads that lead to Stanford, including Embarcadero Road and University Ave among a myriad of others? What about the improvements we want to make in our bike and pedestrian access across the tracks, either new or improving existing construction? We would like to ask that the City amend their response letter to include the following: Stanford should pay their fair share on all rail grade separation projects, and related projects such as the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Stanford should pay their fair share on all transportation projects across Palo Alto, including regular maintenance, new construction, and personnel to support. Thank you for your kind consideration. Richard and Sally Keyes 1573 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Julie Yoon <yoon.julie@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stanford GUP Distinguished City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto at 1591 Castilleja Avenue and am responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As a citizen following the rail grade separation project, I am deeply concerned that this response letter barely mentions Stanford's participation and aid in our grade separation efforts, along with participation and aid in all bike/pedestrian/vehicular traffic matters across Palo Alto. It appears as though this letter merely responds to their recent EIR. If this EIR were to be believed, the addition of 2 million+ square feet of academic space and 3150 homes will not impact traffic in Palo Alto. This simply is unrealistic and untrue. Any resident or employee of Stanford lands will undoubtedly venture forth outside of campus, either by car, bike, or on foot. Of the intersections in the grade separation project, this letter only mentions Palo Alto Ave intersection as part of the proposed Downtown Coordinated Area Plan and specifically asks for help with Charleston Road. Why aren't Churchill Ave and Meadow Drive not in this ask? What about other roads that lead to Stanford, including Embarcadero Road and University Ave among a myriad of others? What about the improvements we want to make in our bike and pedestrian access across the tracks, either new or improving existing construction? I would like to ask that the City amend their response letter to include the following: Stanford should pay their fair share on all rail grade separation projects, and related projects such as the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Stanford should pay their fair share on all transportation projects across Palo Alto, including regular maintenance, new construction, and personnel to support. Thank you for your kind consideration. Julie Yoon Sent from my iPhone 2 Carnahan, David From:Maurizio Gianola <maurizio.gianola@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 6:22 AM To:Council, City Cc:A0 Maurizio Gianola Subject:City response to Stanford GUP Distinguished City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As a citizen following the rail grade separation project, I am deeply concerned that this response letter barely mentions Stanford's participation and aid in our grade separation efforts, along with participation and aid in all bike/pedestrian/vehicular traffic matters across Palo Alto. It appears as though this letter merely responds to their recent EIR. If this EIR were to be believed, the addition of 2 million+ square feet of academic space and 3150 homes will not impact traffic in Palo Alto. This simply is unrealistic and untrue. Any resident or employee of Stanford lands will undoubtedly venture forth outside of campus, either by car, bike, or on foot. Of the intersections in the grade separation project, this letter only mentions Palo Alto Ave intersection as part of the proposed Downtown Coordinated Area Plan and specifically asks for help with Charleston Road. Why aren't Churchill Ave and Meadow Drive not in this ask? What about other roads that lead to Stanford, including Embarcadero Road and University Ave among a myriad of others? What about the improvements we want to make in our bike and pedestrian access across the tracks, either new or improving existing construction? I would like to ask that the City amend their response letter to include the following: Stanford should pay their fair share on all rail grade separation projects, and related projects such as the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Stanford should pay their fair share on all transportation projects across Palo Alto, including regular maintenance, new construction, and personnel to support. Thank you for your kind consideration. Maurizio A. Gianola email: maurizio.gianola@gmail.com ________________________________________________ This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. Questo messaggio puo' contenere informazioni di carattere estremamente riservato e confidenziale. Qualora non foste i destinatari, vogliate immediatamente informarmi con lo stesso mezzo ed eliminare il messaggio, con gli eventuali allegati, senza trattenerne copia. Qualsivoglia utilizzo non autorizzato del contenuto di questo messaggio costituisce violazione dell'obbligo di non prendere cognizione della corrispondenza tra altri soggetti, salvo piu' grave illecito, ed espone il responsabile alle relative conseguenze civili e penali. ________________________________________________ 1 Carnahan, David From:Sabrina Corvo <sabrina.corvo@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 8:37 PM To:Council, City Cc:Maurizio A2Gianola Subject:City response to Stanford GUP Distinguished City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and responding to the proposed response letter written by the City to the Stanford GUP. As a citizen following the rail grade separation project, I am deeply concerned that this response letter barely mentions Stanford's participation and aid in our grade separation efforts, along with participation and aid in all bike/pedestrian/vehicular traffic matters across Palo Alto. It appears as though this letter merely responds to their recent EIR. If this EIR were to be believed, the addition of 2 million+ square feet of academic space and 3150 homes will not impact traffic in Palo Alto. This simply is unrealistic and untrue. Any resident or employee of Stanford lands will undoubtedly venture forth outside of campus, either by car, bike, or on foot. Of the intersections in the grade separation project, this letter only mentions Palo Alto Ave intersection as part of the proposed Downtown Coordinated Area Plan and specifically asks for help with Charleston Road. Why aren't Churchill Ave and Meadow Drive not in this ask? What about other roads that lead to Stanford, including Embarcadero Road and University Ave among a myriad of others? What about the improvements we want to make in our bike and pedestrian access across the tracks, either new or improving existing construction? I would like to ask that the City amend their response letter to include the following: Stanford should pay their fair share on all rail grade separation projects, and related projects such as the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Stanford should pay their fair share on all transportation projects across Palo Alto, including regular maintenance, new construction, and personnel to support. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sabrina Corvo email: sabrina.corvo@gmail.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 11:50 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Subject:Public Comment for Item #6 Stanford Development Agreement Attachments:FINAL CARRD public comment for City Council - Stanford GUP Feb 4 2019.pdf Attached please find CARRD's public comment for tonight's City Council Meeting. Thanks, Nadia Naik To: City Council From: CARRD (Nadia Naik – nadianaik@gmail.com) Date: February 2, 2019 Re: Public Comment on Staff Report ID # 9901- Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter We appreciate the detailed report on this issue. We would reiterate Supervisor Simitian’s position that Stanford development should proceed as long as the impacts are fully mitigated. As such, we would encourage the City to enumerate ALL of the impacts to the City and what would constitute full mitigation and not artificially limit the list of impacts based on what Stanford perceive to be their obligation. The Staff Report has laid out some foundational elements for items that should be considered for funding in the Development Agreement. We would add the following items for consideration: Funding for California Ave Station Improvements Caltrain is going through the process of developing a Business Plan to plan for expected growth and capacity improvements necessary for 2040. In April, the Caltrain Board is expected to give guidance to on whether the planning process should proceed with assumptions for either a “moderate” or “high growth” scenario. Latest version of Business Plan growth scenarios can be viewed here: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/Government+Affairs/pdf/12.20.18.LPMG .Business.Plan.Presentation.pdf ) The “Baseline” scenarios studied in the Caltrain and High Speed Rail environmental reviews assumed a schedule with up to 6 Caltrain trains per direction per hour (tph), along with up to 4 High Speed trains (20 total tph). Station Baseline Moderate High Growth Palo Alto 6tph 12tph 16tph Cal Ave 2tph 4tph 4tph Note that both the Moderate and High Growth scenarios call for doubling the number of trains for the Cal Ave station. Cal Ave daily weekday boardings currently average 1,628 CARRD Comment on Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter 2 people1, and in the future could have at least more than 3,256 daily boarding (with 4 trains per hour). In addition, the goal of the plan is to provide consistent, all day service (similar to BART) which means the ridership of the station is expected to significantly increase the number of people at the station and change the flow of all multimodal access. Stanford has large, dense housing development on the Southern border of it’s Academic campus that will be served by the additional Cal Ave Caltrain service. In fact, Palo Alto and Stanford should advocate for more Caltrain service at Cal Ave (since current Caltrain assumptions show both moderate and high growth scenarios capped at 4 tph). Stanford should be financially responsible for a portion of the funding of the upgrades needed for that station. Downtown Coordinated Area Plan should consider University Ave grade separation and street grid: The chart above shows University Avenue station will see significant growth and, therefore, supports Staff’s recommendation that Stanford contribute to the planning and development of a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. In 2017, average weekday ridership was 7,424 boardings DAILY2, and under the high growth scenario could reach 19,797 boardings DAILY. Today, over 900 buses access the station, in the future, that number could double. Significant infrastructure improvements to the station and the surrounding area will be needed to plan for the impacts of having such a large increase in the need for multi-modal access (parking, bikes, pedestrians, etc.). These changes might include the need to significantly alter the existing University Avenue grade separation and/or the surrounding street grid. In 2007, Palo Alto and Stanford worked on the “Project Implementation Plan for the Palo Alto Intermodal Station” which was a joint effort by the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Stanford University that “identified alternatives to improve station access, modal transfers, and open space connections at the Palo Alto Caltrain Station.” It is important to note that over the last 20 years, the relationship with Caltrain and the Stanford Hospital Project, Stanford Research Park and the University has changed as growth has ballooned and as Stanford developed it’s Transit Demand Management program which relies on Caltrain as a backbone. We would recommend that any language about the Downtown Coordinated Area Plan in the City’s letter to the County, include that changes may be needed to the University Avenue grade separation and the surrounding street grid. The language in the Staff Report does not seem to cover that concept and, instead, seems to present a narrower scope than seems appropriate. 1http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2017/2017-06- 01+Annual+Passenger+Counts.pdf 2http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2017/2017-06- 01+Annual+Passenger+Counts.pdf CARRD Comment on Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter 3 Funding for Churchill/Embarcadero grade crossings/separations Embarcadero Road is a critical gateway onto the Stanford Academic Campus and the Embarcadero grade separation is also the temporary “Stanford Station” when Caltrain makes a special stop for the University’s events. The City of Palo Alto is currently contemplating closing Churchill rather than build a grade separation. Traffic studies are under way to determine if such a closure might cause traffic impacts that may require mitigations to both Embarcadero road and possibly modification to the Embarcadero grade separation/Stanford Station. Any improvements or changes that need to be made at Churchill/Embarcadero should be cost shared between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. Consequently, Stanford should be fully involved in the planning process. Tri-Party Agreement (1985 Land Use Policy Agreement) should be revisited The Staff report cautions against having too many requests for the Development Agreement and warns “the more requests made of Stanford, both the University and the Supervisors may be unwilling to accept or advance those interests. Furthermore, many jurisdictions are monitoring this project and will likely prepare their own recommendations for inclusion in the DA.” The staff report and discussions to date have not recognized the existence and importance of an additional agreement developed in 1985 that governs the unique relationship between Stanford, the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. This agreement is ongoing and guides Stanford’s responsibilities within each GUP and extends outside of the GUP agreements. The 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement (or Tri-Party agreement)3 lays out the “specific policies governing academic use of Stanford lands.” This agreement states (bolding mine): ((2.d.) “Stanford intends to continue to provide all municipal services to its academic facilities in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. Provision of services may include construction and operation of on-site facilities, purchase from public or private entities, or membership in regional facilities. For mutual benefit, Stanford and Palo Alto, or Stanford and Santa Clara County, may contract with each other for the provision of certain services.” The above excerpt indicates that Stanford: 1) “intends to provide all municipal services” 3 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/1985Policy.aspx CARRD Comment on Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter 4 2) Stanford’s stated intent implies Stanford accepts financial liability for providing these services 3) The services may be provided through a range of alternatives including Stanford constructing their own “on-site facilities” to “purchase from public or private entities” to “membership in regional facilities” 4) For mutual benefit, PA, Stanford and Santa Clara County may “contract with each other for the provision of certain services” This agreement highlights that the relationship with Stanford, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County is fundamentally different from all other surrounding areas and jurisdictions. The 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement hasn’t been updated and the Stanford GUP application and subsequent negotiation of the Development Agreement provide a reasonable inflection point to assess whether Stanford is meeting their financial commitments as agreed. Municipal Services: In order to analyze whether Stanford is meeting their financial commitments, what is included in “municipal services” must be clarified. According to a study of California by the Institute for Local Government4 which surveyed local governments across California: Incorporated cities are responsible for a broad array of essential frontline services tailored to the needs of their communities. These include: • Law enforcement and crime prevention • Fire suppression and prevention, natural disaster planning and response, emergency medical response and transport, • Land use planning and zoning, building safety, • Local parks and open spaces, recreation, • Water supply, treatment and delivery, • Sewage collection, treatment and disposal, • Storm water collection and drainage, • Solid waste collection, recycling and disposal, • Local streets, sidewalks, bikeways, street lighting and traffic controls, and • Public transit According to this definition, Stanford should be financially responsible for their full fair share of public transit service, in this case, Caltrain. In addition, it covers vital local roadways that are immediately adjacent to Stanford and which Stanford’s is vitally dependent on for vehicular access to campus. These roadways include direct access from University Ave, Embarcadero, and Churchill, as well as indirectly from Oregon Expressway and Palo Alto Ave. 4 Source: https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/basics_of_municipal_revenue_2016_0.pdf CARRD Comment on Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter 5 Caltrain Funding: Transportation funding in the Bay Area is a notoriously difficult thing to understand because of a variety of complex funding mechanisms. However, at a high level, there are two buckets of Caltrain funding: operational and capital expenses: Operational Funding: Caltrain operations are funded by the three counties (Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco) through the Peninsula Joint Powers Board Agreement. The agreement states that each Member Agency subsidizes Caltrain based on a “boarding formula which is predicated upon county of origin A.M. peak hour boardings of passengers as adjusted annually.”5 This means the more people boarding Caltrain in Santa Clara County in the AM, the more Santa Clara VTA has to pay for this public transit service. It is worth noting that Stanford’s commitment to the concept of “No Net New Trips” means that they rely heavily on Caltrain. Stanford has tried to make the argument that Caltrain is simply one tool in their toolbox, and if Caltrain doesn’t expand, they could run more Margueritte shuttles or van pools, but this would simply cause more road congestion. Caltrain is their principle transit resource for north/south commuters. This will become even more so after Caltrain electrification and expansion. Stanford has even provided $1 million to Caltrain to help develop its business plan and they are providing key technical resources for the plan because of its importance to the University and their large commercial properties to the north and south of campus. Capital Funding: Historically, large capital expenditures like the Caltrain grade separations (University Avenue -1940, Embarcadero -1936, and Page Mill/Oregon Expressway - 1958) were funded through Federal stimulus funding sources, primarily after the Great Depression during a time when there was a significant push throughout the State to eliminate grade crossings.6 Today, however, cities are passing County tax measures and raising local funds to help pay for grade separations. For example, the City of San Mateo provided $12 million to fund the 25th Street grade separation currently under construction.7 Santa Clara County residents passed Measure B in 2016 which is a 1/8 of a cent sales tax measure, of which $750 million is earmarked for grade separations in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, but in order to access those fund, cities must provide 10% non-Measure B matching funds8. 5 Pg 9 http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Executive/PDF/Joint+Powers+Agreement.pdf 6 pg 64 http://www.dot.ca.gov/env/cultural/docs/roadway-bridges-ca-2003.pdf 7http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/Projects/Caltrain_Capital_Program/25th_Avenue_Grade_Separation.html 8 Pg 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65114 CARRD Comment on Stanford GUP DA Comment Letter 6 Station improvements have similarly been paid for through tax measures. In 2000, Measure A had money available to upgrade the Palo Alto Center Intermodal Transit Station (PACIT). Recommendations: Based upon Stanford’s obligations under the GUP (Mitigation and Development Agreement) and the Tri-Party Agreement, Stanford bears full fair share financial responsibility for stations and grade separations/crossings. We recommend the DA letter include: ● Funding for California Ave station improvements ● Language about a Downtown Coordinate Area Plan should include the possibility that changes may be needed to the University Avenue grade separation and the surrounding street grid ● Funding for Churchill/Embarcadero grade crossings/separations. ● The City should request that the County lead a negotiation with Stanford and the City relating to Stanford’s transportation and transit related municipal services. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Pflasterer <jimpf@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 3:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Action Item #6 Letter re: Stanford GUP Attachments:PAPTA GUP SRTS 2019 Signed Letter.pdf Honorable City Council Members, We are writing re: tonight’s City Council Action Item #6, the City of Palo Alto letter to the county regarding requested terms for inclusion in a possible development agreement between the county and Stanford related to the GUP. We have attached a letter from the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee on this subject. This letter outlines Safe Routes to School priorities that the Palo Alto Council of PTAs General Assembly (PTAC) voted to approve in January. We hope that you will consider the PTAC comments in this letter as you consider what direction to give staff re: the city’s letter. Further, we agree with staff’s assessment that funding for a NB turn lane on Charleston Road (mitigation measure proposed in the Final EIR) is not consistent with the city’s bicycle-pedestrian transportation plan. These mitigation dollars would be better applied toward fair share funding for grade separation at Charleston/Alma. This would be consistent with transportation policy and would be consistent with the request for fair share grade sep funding that PTAC made in the attached letter. As always, we thank you for your thoughtful partnership and support of Safe Routes to School. Sincerely, Jim Pflasterer Peter Phillips Co-chairs, Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell Tower Procedure Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> On Behalf Of Barbara Kelly Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:45 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Cell Tower Procedure Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka, As a concerned citizen, I am writing in objection to the interim Planning Director’s outrageous disregard both for residents’ rights and for the judgment of the experts on the ARB. I am asking you:: 1) to overturn the interim Planning Director’s University South decision and 2) to send the new cell tower design he approved for University South where it should have gone in the first place: to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing. Thank you for giving this matter your careful and responsible attention. 2 Sincerely yours, Barbara Kelly 444 Washington Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 3 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Appealing the interim Planning Director's decision Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Herc Kwan <herc.kwan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:10 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Appealing the interim Planning Director's decision Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, Looking at the web site for the Planning and Community Environment Department, I see that its main purpose includes providing "the City Council and community with creative guidance and effective implementation of ... environmental policies, plans and programs in order to maintain and enhance the City's safety, vitality, and attractiveness." The Architectural Review Board is a main component of this organization and offers professional opinions to make our city a better place to live. While we are glad to hear that recently the ARB has been making consistent recommendations for the cell tower installations including putting the ancillary equipment for cell equipment underground in the University South neighborhood, we are awed and angered by the decision made by the interim Planning Director, Jonathan Lait, to reject ARB's recommendation. From the information we have seen so far, it seems Mr. Lait has chosen to do that with brute force and disregard the proper rules or laws to help maintain our city's safety and attractiveness, without enough transparency, 4 My wife and I, and our two young daughters, are extremely unhappy about the interim Planning Director's opaque decision. We would like to ask the City Council to overturn Mr. Lait's University South decision. In addition, we would like the ARB to review the new cell tower design approved by the interim Planning Director. It should be the ARB in the first place reviewing the design and not the interim Planning Director. Please help Palo Alto maintain its reputation of law‐abiding and transparency in public policy making and architectural decisions. We trust that the City Council would help us in this matter. Thank you for your attention. Best Regards, Herc Kwan, Ph.D. Residents, 2490 Louis Rd Home: (650) 843‐0852 5 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Palo Alto should not become a real-life monopoly board with large green fake boxes on every other block! Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:08 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Price@padailypost.com; editor@paweekly.com; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; JFLEMING@metricus.net; jerry.fan@gmail.com; jnimkar@gmail.com Subject: Palo Alto should not become a real‐life monopoly board with large green fake boxes on every other block! Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, This message is sent as there is an appeal on the WISE and logical choice of the city to NOT place a fake mail box at 345 Forest/Gilman. Having lived now 3 years at 345 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 and overlooking the lovely 1930s fountain and little courtyard I have seen hundreds of people stop and gaze from various angles at this courtyard and wonderful building. Any type of extension to the current size of the traffic light - small as the Telecom firm will claim it to be - is directly IN THE VIEW of one of the most photographed local landmarks. The role of the ARB has to be to defend the beauty of our city and small or large add-on contraptions have 6 NO PLACE at this location. The Crown Castle/Verizon applicant is proposing a node at Forest/Gilman. Let them know that they can keep their nodes away from blocking/changing the view (be it even slightly) of our town! Further: It would be very helpful for our city that INSTEAD of each time (and there will be hundreds) a small cell is to be placed we have to re-debate the LOGICAL and WISE idea that this material be placed in vaults! It is obvious that we do not want to have endless green boxes all over town! Sincerely, Ardan Michael Blum 7 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 6:25 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Cell towers Following normal procedure through the ARB, recommendations were made regarding cell tower installations in the city. Unfortunately city staff chose to ignore these recommendations and impose their will. Their recommendation, without public input, sets a dangerous precedent. This precedent is clear. It is staff runs the city and public or other input, such as that from other boards or commissions is not needed. My humble suggestion is the staff recommendation regarding current cell tower installation be rejected and the thoughtful recommendation of the ARB be adopted. Thank you. Paul Machado 8 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: University South Cell Towers proposal Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Nancy <nstein@sonic.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:05 PM To: Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: University South Cell Towers proposal Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, I am very concerned that Planning Director Jonathan Lait is taking matters into his own hands and skipping over the due process of public input in regards to the proposed above ground pole mounted cell tower equipment. The Architectural Review Board has made the determination that the telecom companies should install their equipment below ground. Mr. Lait is ignoring this recommendation from the ARB. Worse still, he is not submitting his plan to the ARB for their review and public input. This decision by our Planning Director should not be approved because this undermines our democratic process. Please send the new University South cell tower design to the ARB for review and for a public hearing. That is the least our citizens are due: a fair hearing and vetting of the telecom companies' proposal. Sincerely, Nancy Steinbach 4267 Pomona Ave. 10 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 6:25 PM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:Cell towers Following normal procedure through the ARB, recommendations were made regarding cell tower installations in the city. Unfortunately city staff chose to ignore these recommendations and impose their will. Their recommendation, without public input, sets a dangerous precedent. This precedent is clear. It is staff runs the city and public or other input, such as that from other boards or commissions is not needed. My humble suggestion is the staff recommendation regarding current cell tower installation be rejected and the thoughtful recommendation of the ARB be adopted. Thank you. Paul Machado 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 3:17 PM To:Gavin Newsom; susan.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org Subject:833 studies on EMF and 5G Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 833 Studies Univ. of California, Berkeley public health researcher Joel Moskowitz, PhD * . . .increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. 180 Scientists and Doctors Say Increased Radiation from Cell Towers Poses Potential Risks Sept. 13, 2018 (Örebro, Sweden) Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer. “The wireless industry is trying to deploy technology that may have some very real unintended harmful consequences,” explains one of the organizers of the letter, Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. “Scientific studies from years ago along with many new studies are consistently identifying harmful human health impacts when wireless products are tested properly using conditions that reflect actual exposures. With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.” 5G expansion, which is designed to carry higher loads of data more rapidly through wireless transmission, will require the construction of cell towers every 10-20 houses in urban areas. In their letter to the European Commission, the scientists write: “We, the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 nations, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.” University of California, Berkeley public health researcher Joel Moskowitz, PhD, explains: 2 “Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.” Moskowitz is one of the advisors to an earlier effort, the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition submitted to the United Nations and World Health Organization in 2015. The Appeal has now been signed by more than 230 scientists from 41 nations—all have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic or health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF). Since the Appeal was published, the world’s largest $25 million study, conducted by the National Toxicology Program in the US, shows statistically significant increases in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to cellphone radiation at levels below international guidelines. This supports human studies on cellphone radiation and brain tumour risk, as demonstrated in many peer-reviewed scientific studies. The Appeal and this week’s declaration identify health concerns from exposure to radiofrequency radiation including ... “ … increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” Roll-out of 5G in the US In the US, the wireless industry is promoting legislation in at least 20 states to facilitate the roll-out of 5G in addition to sponsoring legislation at the federal level. In California, city and county governments are opposing SB 649,an industry-sponsored bill which overrides local control over the wireless industry’s access to utility poles and public buildings for 5G deployment. Environmental health advocates fear that exposure to the added radiation from 5G infrastructure will contribute to increased health problems. “If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result. This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.” according to Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine in the medical school at the University of California, San Diego. In her open letter which summarizes the research on the effects of radio frequency radiation, she concludes, ”Let our focus be on safer, wired and well shielded technology – not more wireless.” The declaration and list of signatories can be found here: http://bit.ly/5Gappeal170913a Media Inquiries: Finland: Rainer Nyberg, EdD Sweden: Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD UK: Alasdair Philips, BSc, DAgE, MIEEE USA: Joel Moskowitz, PhD USA: Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD Related Posts: International EMF Scientist Appeal - also see https://emfscientist.org/ 5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health? 5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects 3 Cell Tower Health Effects Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) 5G Wireless Technology: Major newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills Industry-funded Scientists Undermine Cell Phone Radiation Science Government Failure to Address Wireless Radiation Risks FCC Open Letter: Moratorium on New Commercial Applications of RF Radiation An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates WHO Radiofrequency Radiation Policy 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:23 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Cell towers Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, I'm writing to express my concern about the actions of interim planning director Jonathan Lait with regard to placement of cell phone system equipment in Palo Alto. As you are aware, Mr. Lait overruled the Architectural Review Board, a body comprised of people selected for their demonstrated expertise in such matters. He ignored the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Palo Altans who've expressed preferences regarding this issue. And he made necessary an appeal to you and a demand on your, your staff's, and your constituents' lives which displaces other activities by which all of us might serve our community. Please overturn Mr. Lait's decision with respect to University South, and remand the design he approved to the Architectural Review Board for proper vetting in a public hearing. In addition, though this action might seem to some sufficient to apprise Mr. Lait of your disapproval of his actions, I think 2 all might benefit by your explicitly advising him that you want him to evidence greater respect for residents, ARB members, and you in the future. Thank you for considering these views. David Schrom ********** Magic, 1979‐2019: forty years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐7333 ‐‐—‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** 3 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please vote in favor of United Neighbors' Appeal Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:31 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Please vote in favor of United Neighbors' Appeal Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Kou, Mr. Tanaka, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Cormack and Ms. Kniss, Please support the United Neighbors’ Appeal of the Director of Planning, Jonathan Lait's decision to dispense with required procedure by rejecting the Architectural Review Board’s December recommendation to locate underground the cell towers Crown Castle/Verizon has applied to install in the University South neighborhood and instead approve a Crown Castle street‐light‐pole‐mounted cell tower design, without even seeing what it looks like. Please stop the shot clock so that the Architectural Review Board can hold a public hearing to consider Crown Castle/Verizon’s application to install ancillary cell tower equipment and give the public an opportunity to review the design at a public meeting and/or a mock site. Please do as Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, Capitola, Spokane, Washington, Lebanon, Tennessee, Juneau, Alaska, and many other cities all over the country are doing and declare a moratorium on any further cell nodes in our residential neighborhoods. This would give the city time to write new cell‐tower regulations, which should keep the towers 1,500 4 feet or more away from residential areas or schools, and require liability insurance from all the wireless telecommunication companies. The towers add unsightly equipment, overload poles, devalue property, are noisy and dangerous. Verizon can rent space on rooftops of commercial, industrial and city owned buildings for their equipment, without destroying our neighborhoods. (See photos below) The Palo Alto City Staff should be working for all of its citizens and not just doing what is most convenient or breaking the law. Those of you in favor of the cell towers, please ask yourselves honestly if you would be willing to have one on the telephone pole nearest your home. This is a David and Goliath kind of situation, please be on the correct side of it. Thank you for your consideration, Francesca Kautz Telecommunication nodes at 100 Birch Street, Palo Alto: 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:33 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Sharon Espar' <sharonespar@icloud.com> Subject: FW: Cell towers ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sharon Espar <sharonespar@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:22 PM To: jeanne fleming <JJF@Right‐Thing.net> Subject: Cell towers Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice Mayor Fine, Ms.Cormack, Mr.Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Ms.Kou, Mr. Tanaka‐ We in the community of Palo Alto are shocked that you disregard residents’ rights and the recommendations if the ARB. It is critical that you overturn the Planning Director’s University Avenue South unworthy decision. Please send designs for new cell towers to the correct location: the ARB. They are the ones to oversee the public review. We as members of the Palo Alto community need and expect to be part of the decision making process by employees hired and paid by the citizens of our community to fulfill the needs and wishes of the community. This is core. Please remember this essential aspect of your tenure on the City Counsel. With respectful regards‐ Sharon Espar Sent from my iPhone 1 Carnahan, David From:Ruby Williams <Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Michael W. Shonafelt; Yang, Albert; James, Sharon (Sharon.James@crowncastle.com); Rochelle Swanson; daniel.schweizer@crowncastle.com; joshua.trauner@crowncastle.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:APPEAL of the Director of Planning and Community Environment decision on Seven Pending Applications for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.070(f) - Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) Attachments:Ltr to Palo Alto with Exhibits 1-31-19.pdf Sent on behalf of Michael Shonafelt Ruby Williams Legal Administrative Assistant Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com p 949.854.7000 - d 949.271.7238 Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach • Walnut Creek • Las Vegas 2464.109 / 8022440.1 MICHAEL W.SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD SUITE 600 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 T 925 988 3200 F 925 988 3290 895 DOVE STREET 5TH FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 T 949 854 7000 F 949 854 7099 3800 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 700 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 702 777 7500 F 702 777 7599 January 31, 2019 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND E-MAIL Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council City Hall – Planning Division, Fifth Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: APPEAL of the Director of Planning and Community Environment decision on Seven Pending Applications for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.070(f) – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433). Dear Mayor Filseth, This office represents Crown Castle NG West, LLC (“Crown Castle”) in the above- referenced matter related to seven pending applications for wireless communications facility permits (“Project”). This letter presents Crown Castle’s grounds for its appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (“Director”) decision to conditionally approve five and deny two wireless communication facilities (“Nodes”) pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) section 18.77.070(f) (“Appeal”). This Appeal was timely filed pursuant to the written requirements prescribed by the Director, pursuant to PAMC section 18.77.070(f). A brief summary of the grounds for the appeal follows. 1. INTRODUCTION A. The Project The Project proposes to install seven small wireless communication facilities (“Node” or “Nodes”) on seven separate streetlights, each located entirely within the public right of way (“ROW”) of the City of Palo Alto (“City”). Together, the Nodes integrate with one another (and with pre-existing infrastructure) to provide critical telecommunications services within the City.1 Each Node consists of a canister antenna and two remote 40 watt radio units (“RRUs”). RRUs convert light from fiber optic cables into radio frequencies (“RF”), which is then 1 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has described development of 5G infrastructure as “critical.” See generally Accenture Strategy, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, (2017); attached to Letter from Scott Bergmann, Vice Pres. Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H, Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 16-421 (filed Jan. 13, 2017). January 31, 2019 Page 2 2464.109 / 8022440.1 broadcast from the antenna to provide signal to mobile users. As originally proposed, each Node’s RRUs would either be housed in a ground-level cabinet designed to mimic the shape of a mailbox (or some other acceptable housing) or would be mounted to the side of the pole. The antenna would be mounted at the top of the streetlight, above the luminaire arm. Here is a photo simulation of one of the nodes proposed as part of the Project with an adjacent RRU “faux mailbox” cabinet and pole-top antenna: January 31, 2019 Page 3 2464.109 / 8022440.1 The Nodes would be located at the following locations: Photo-simulations for each Node are included as Exhibit A. Construction drawings for each Node are included as Exhibit B. B. Critical Telecommunication Services for the 21st Century It is often incorrectly assumed that Crown Castle’s networks are intended only to enhance specialized data needs, such as video streaming and online gaming. The Project actually provides essential infrastructure to support critical voice telecommunications and broadband services to residents, visitors, and other mobile users in the City. Networks like Crown Castle’s are replacing traditional wireline telephone service and soon may constitute the only form of telephonic infrastructure.2 Without a reliable wireless telecommunications network, the City could be left without adequate telephone service -- including 911 service. The Project is critical for the following reasons, among others: 2 See, e.g., Robert Channick, Illinois OKs End of Landlines, Chicago Tribune (Jul. 5 2017). <https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-att-landline-end-illinois-0706-biz-20170705-story.html. (as of Jan. 8, 2019). List of Proposed Node Sites Node Number Streetlight Number Adjacent Address Conditionally Approved Permit Applications Node 25 CPAU Streetlight 23 275 Forest Avenue Node 27 CPAU Streetlight 82 248 Homer Avenue Node 29 CPAU Streetlight 76 385 Homer Avenue Node 30 CPAU Streetlight 86 845 Ramona Street Node 31 CPAU Streetlight 16 190 Channing Avenue Denied Permit Applications Node 26 CPAU Streetlight 32 345 Forest Avenue Node 28m1 New Pole Structure 905 Waverley Street January 31, 2019 Page 4 2464.109 / 8022440.1 (a)The world is going wireless. In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in wireless broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, and France.3 (b)Over 50 percent of all homes in the U.S. are now wireless only.4 That trend will continue until the entire nation conducts its telecommunications exclusively through wireless networks. (c)An increasing number of civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite a lack of robust wireless networks as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that more than 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones and that percentage is growing.5 (d)Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven-fold increase by 2021.6 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL Infrastructure development, like the Project, is essential to establishing a seamless national and statewide telecommunications network. Accordingly, the Project arises under a unique confluence of federal, state, and local law. Given the national and state-level interests at work, both federal and state regimes restrict local land use authority to promote the rapid development of advanced telecommunication networks. A. Federal Law (1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) deliberations on the Project are governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) (“Telecom Act”). In enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent “to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” (Telecom Act, Pub. L. 104 (Feb. 8, 1996) 110 Stat. 56.) 3 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, Broadband Statistics (June 2010) <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Releases of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2016 (2017) <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201705.pdf> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 5 Federal Communications Commission, 911 Wireless Service (2018) <http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 6 Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index, Forecast and Trends 2017-2022 (Nov. 18 2018) <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.html> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). January 31, 2019 Page 5 2464.109 / 8022440.1 As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte (D. Kan. 2007) 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47.) One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) [“Section 332” or “§ 332”].) Section 332(c)(7)(B) limits the general authority reserved to state and local governments. These limitations include: (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(I).) (b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the “effective prohibition clause”). (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) (c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(ii).) (d) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii).) (e) No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv).) Additionally, 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) (“Section 253”) states: “No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Section 253(a) preempts local ordinances and regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services. (Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 571, 578.) Implementing regulations and policies to the Telecom Act also guide local governmental actions, including the following. January 31, 2019 Page 6 2464.109 / 8022440.1 (2) The Shot Clock Rule In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued the “Shot Clock Order” to provide a specific timeline for what constitutes a “reasonable period of time” to act on a wireless telecommunications permit application under section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Telecom Act. (Petition for Declaratory Ruling (“Shot Clock Rule”), 24 F.C.C. Rcd. 13994 (2009) (“Shot Clock Rule”.) It did so in light of significant delays caused by local governments in issuing permits for telecommunications facilities: Personal wireless service providers have often faced lengthy and unreasonable delays in the consideration of their facility siting applications, and [ ] the persistence of such delays is impeding the deployment of advanced and emergency services. (Id. at 14004-05; see also id. at 14006 [“[t]his record evidence demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the personal wireless service facility siting applications process have obstructed the provision of wireless services.”].) Under the Shot Clock Rule, a municipality’s failure to allow the construction of a new wireless service facility within 150 days of submission of the application (or 90 days for a collocation site) was presumptively unreasonable and constituted a “failure to act” triggering the right to seek judicial relief (“Shot Clock”). In its most recent Shot Clock order, the FCC refined the previous Shot Clock rulings and shortened the Shot Clock time frame: (1) from 150 days to 90 days for new facilities, and (2) from 90 to 60 days for collocations. (FCC’s September 2018 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in the matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (2018), FCC 18-133 (“September 2018 Order”).)7 The FCC also altered the remedy for violating the Shot Clock. Failure to act within the Shot Clock timeframe now amounts to a presumptive prohibition of service in violation of the Telecom Act. The FCC’s recent ruling underscores the critical impacts of delay on the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure. (3) White House Broadband Initiative On February 10, 2011, the White House called for a National Wireless Initiative (“Initiative”) to make available high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans. The Initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions, spurring innovation, and create a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety with a fiscal goal of catalyzing private investment and innovation and reducing the deficit by $9.6 billion, “help the United States win the future” and successfully compete in the 21st century economy.8 7 The September 2018 Order is comprised of two parts: (1) a declaratory ruling on the appropriate interpretation of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7); and (2) a third report and order. The declaratory ruling portion is the definitive interpretation of the statutory requirements, applying to all pending permit applications, while the third report and order promulgates new regulatory requirements that take effect on January 14, 2019. 8 Remarks by the President on the National Wireless Initiative in Marquette Michigan (Feb. 10, 2011) < https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/10/remarks-president-national-wireless-initiative-marquette-michigan> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). January 31, 2019 Page 7 2464.109 / 8022440.1 (4) Section 6409 On February 17, 2012, Congress passed the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012” (“TRA”). TRA section 6409 (“Section 6409”) is part of a series of provisions commonly referred to as the “Spectrum Act.” Section 6409 allows for ministerial approval of collocated wireless facilities, which is intended to facilitate rapid development of wireless infrastructure on a national basis. (47 U.S.C. § 1455.) Section 6409, codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455, mandates administrative -- not discretionary -- approvals of “modifications” to wireless telecommunications facilities: [A] State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. (Id.) B. State Law In addition to the federal statutes, regulations, and policies, state law also controls the City Council’s deliberation on the Project. Public Utilities Code sections 7901, 7901.1, and Government Code Section 65964.1 are the most pertinent and applicable California statutes. (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and 7901.1 Under state law, Crown Castle is a “competitive local exchange carrier” (“CLEC”). CLECs qualify as a “public utility” and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the California Public Utility Commission’s (“CPUC”) issuance of a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” (“CPCN”), CLECs have authority under state law to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments” in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the “time, place and manner” of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has “the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities.”].) The CPUC issued a CPCN authorizing Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle’s special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to “construct … telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State” and to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]” (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: … “[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. January 31, 2019 Page 8 2464.109 / 8022440.1 [Citations.]” … Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 [quoting County of L.A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit, like those at issue here, constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC’s entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age (2013) 35 Hastings. Comm. & Ent. L.J 371.) Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited “right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,].” Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to “erect poles” in the ROW. That is because “the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair.” (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, “to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment runs afoul of the “equivalent manner” provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle’s status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle’s rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. By enacting AB 57, codified as Government Code section 65964.1, the California Legislature echoed the courts’ oft-repeated declaration that “the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair.” (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Under section 65964.1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964.1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in January 31, 2019 Page 9 2464.109 / 8022440.1 Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) 3.THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION RESULTS IN A VIOLATION OF THE TELECOM ACT’S PROHIBITION OF SERVICE PROVISION. As noted above, section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— *** (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In its September 2018 Order, the FCC reaffirmed the definitive interpretation of the effective prohibition standard, stating: “a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” (September 2018 Order, at ¶¶ 34, pg. 14.) Thus, the FCC resolved the conflicting interpretations and standards issued by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.9 (Ibid.) Accordingly, the two-step prohibition of service analysis developed by the Ninth Circuit in T-Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, does not control. And local review of issues such as “significant gap” and “least intrusive means” are no longer deemed relevant to an analysis of whether a prohibition of service has occurred. 10 9 Consistent with the FCC’s broad mandate, courts have consistently recognized the FCC’s authority to interpret Sections 253 and 332 to “further elucidate what types of state and local legal requirements run afoul of the statutory parameters Congress established.” (September 2018 Order ¶ 21; see also City of Arlington (5th Cir. 2012) 668 F.3d 229, 253-54l, Spring Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 54 F.3d 571, 578, RT Communications, Inc. v. FCC (10th Cir. 2000) 201 F.3d 1264, 1268.) The United States Supreme Court has recognized that definitive FCC interpretations are particularly appropriate when the statutory language is ambiguous or when the subject matter is technical, complex, and dynamic. (Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co. (2002) 534 U.S. 327, 328, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000) 529 U.S. 120 [recognizing “agency’s greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated”]; see also, e.g., Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs. (2005) 545 U.S. 967, 983-986 [FCC’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision overrides earlier court decisions interpreting the same provision].) According, the FCC’s interpretation of Sections 235 and 332 control. 10 The FCC mused that “[d]ecisions that have applied solely a “coverage gap” based approach under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflect both an unduly narrow reading of the statute and an outdated view of the marketplace.” (September 2018 Order ¶ 40.) 1 Carnahan, David From:Ruby Williams <Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Michael W. Shonafelt; Yang, Albert; James, Sharon (Sharon.James@crowncastle.com); Rochelle Swanson; daniel.schweizer@crowncastle.com; joshua.trauner@crowncastle.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:APPEAL of the Director of Planning and Community Environment decision on Seven Pending Applications for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.070(f) - Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433) Attachments:Ltr to Palo Alto with Exhibits 1-31-19.pdf Sent on behalf of Michael Shonafelt Ruby Williams Legal Administrative Assistant Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com p 949.854.7000 - d 949.271.7238 Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach • Walnut Creek • Las Vegas 2464.109 / 8022440.1 MICHAEL W.SHONAFELT Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com 1333 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD SUITE 600 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 T 925 988 3200 F 925 988 3290 895 DOVE STREET 5TH FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 T 949 854 7000 F 949 854 7099 3800 HOWARD HUGHES PKWY SUITE 700 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 T 702 777 7500 F 702 777 7599 January 31, 2019 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY AND E-MAIL Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilmembers of the Palo Alto City Council City Hall – Planning Division, Fifth Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: APPEAL of the Director of Planning and Community Environment decision on Seven Pending Applications for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.77.070(f) – Crown Castle Cluster 2 (17PLN-00433). Dear Mayor Filseth, This office represents Crown Castle NG West, LLC (“Crown Castle”) in the above- referenced matter related to seven pending applications for wireless communications facility permits (“Project”). This letter presents Crown Castle’s grounds for its appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (“Director”) decision to conditionally approve five and deny two wireless communication facilities (“Nodes”) pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) section 18.77.070(f) (“Appeal”). This Appeal was timely filed pursuant to the written requirements prescribed by the Director, pursuant to PAMC section 18.77.070(f). A brief summary of the grounds for the appeal follows. 1.INTRODUCTION A. The Project The Project proposes to install seven small wireless communication facilities (“Node” or “Nodes”) on seven separate streetlights, each located entirely within the public right of way (“ROW”) of the City of Palo Alto (“City”). Together, the Nodes integrate with one another (and with pre-existing infrastructure) to provide critical telecommunications services within the City.1 Each Node consists of a canister antenna and two remote 40 watt radio units (“RRUs”). RRUs convert light from fiber optic cables into radio frequencies (“RF”), which is then 1 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has described development of 5G infrastructure as “critical.” See generally Accenture Strategy, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities, (2017); attached to Letter from Scott Bergmann, Vice Pres. Reg. Affairs, CTIA to Marlene H, Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 16-421 (filed Jan. 13, 2017). January 31, 2019 Page 2 2464.109 / 8022440.1 broadcast from the antenna to provide signal to mobile users. As originally proposed, each Node’s RRUs would either be housed in a ground-level cabinet designed to mimic the shape of a mailbox (or some other acceptable housing) or would be mounted to the side of the pole. The antenna would be mounted at the top of the streetlight, above the luminaire arm. Here is a photo simulation of one of the nodes proposed as part of the Project with an adjacent RRU “faux mailbox” cabinet and pole-top antenna: January 31, 2019 Page 3 2464.109 / 8022440.1 The Nodes would be located at the following locations: Photo-simulations for each Node are included as Exhibit A. Construction drawings for each Node are included as Exhibit B. B. Critical Telecommunication Services for the 21st Century It is often incorrectly assumed that Crown Castle’s networks are intended only to enhance specialized data needs, such as video streaming and online gaming. The Project actually provides essential infrastructure to support critical voice telecommunications and broadband services to residents, visitors, and other mobile users in the City. Networks like Crown Castle’s are replacing traditional wireline telephone service and soon may constitute the only form of telephonic infrastructure.2 Without a reliable wireless telecommunications network, the City could be left without adequate telephone service -- including 911 service. The Project is critical for the following reasons, among others: 2 See, e.g., Robert Channick, Illinois OKs End of Landlines, Chicago Tribune (Jul. 5 2017). <https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-att-landline-end-illinois-0706-biz-20170705-story.html. (as of Jan. 8, 2019). List of Proposed Node Sites Node Number Streetlight Number Adjacent Address Conditionally Approved Permit Applications Node 25 CPAU Streetlight 23 275 Forest Avenue Node 27 CPAU Streetlight 82 248 Homer Avenue Node 29 CPAU Streetlight 76 385 Homer Avenue Node 30 CPAU Streetlight 86 845 Ramona Street Node 31 CPAU Streetlight 16 190 Channing Avenue Denied Permit Applications Node 26 CPAU Streetlight 32 345 Forest Avenue Node 28m1 New Pole Structure 905 Waverley Street January 31, 2019 Page 4 2464.109 / 8022440.1 (a)The world is going wireless. In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in wireless broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, and France.3 (b)Over 50 percent of all homes in the U.S. are now wireless only.4 That trend will continue until the entire nation conducts its telecommunications exclusively through wireless networks. (c)An increasing number of civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite a lack of robust wireless networks as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that more than 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones and that percentage is growing.5 (d)Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven-fold increase by 2021.6 2. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL Infrastructure development, like the Project, is essential to establishing a seamless national and statewide telecommunications network. Accordingly, the Project arises under a unique confluence of federal, state, and local law. Given the national and state-level interests at work, both federal and state regimes restrict local land use authority to promote the rapid development of advanced telecommunication networks. A. Federal Law (1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) deliberations on the Project are governed by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amend in scattered sections of U.S.C., Tabs 15, 18, 47) (“Telecom Act”). In enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent “to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” (Telecom Act, Pub. L. 104 (Feb. 8, 1996) 110 Stat. 56.) 3 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, Broadband Statistics (June 2010) <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Releases of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2016 (2017) <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201705.pdf> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 5 Federal Communications Commission, 911 Wireless Service (2018) <http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). 6 Cisco, Cisco Visual Networking Index, Forecast and Trends 2017-2022 (Nov. 18 2018) <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.html> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). January 31, 2019 Page 5 2464.109 / 8022440.1 As one court noted: Congress enacted the TCA to promote competition and higher quality in telecommunications services and to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Congress intended to promote a national cellular network and to secure lower prices and better service for consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. (T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte (D. Kan. 2007) 528 F.Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47.) One way in which the Telecom Act accomplishes those goals is by reducing impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) [“Section 332” or “§ 332”].) Section 332(c)(7)(B) limits the general authority reserved to state and local governments. These limitations include: (a) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(I).) (b) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services (better known as the “effective prohibition clause”). (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) (c) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(ii).) (d) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii).) (e) No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions. (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv).) Additionally, 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) (“Section 253”) states: “No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Section 253(a) preempts local ordinances and regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services. (Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 571, 578.) Implementing regulations and policies to the Telecom Act also guide local governmental actions, including the following. January 31, 2019 Page 6 2464.109 / 8022440.1 (2) The Shot Clock Rule In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued the “Shot Clock Order” to provide a specific timeline for what constitutes a “reasonable period of time” to act on a wireless telecommunications permit application under section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Telecom Act. (Petition for Declaratory Ruling (“Shot Clock Rule”), 24 F.C.C. Rcd. 13994 (2009) (“Shot Clock Rule”.) It did so in light of significant delays caused by local governments in issuing permits for telecommunications facilities: Personal wireless service providers have often faced lengthy and unreasonable delays in the consideration of their facility siting applications, and [ ] the persistence of such delays is impeding the deployment of advanced and emergency services. (Id. at 14004-05; see also id. at 14006 [“[t]his record evidence demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the personal wireless service facility siting applications process have obstructed the provision of wireless services.”].) Under the Shot Clock Rule, a municipality’s failure to allow the construction of a new wireless service facility within 150 days of submission of the application (or 90 days for a collocation site) was presumptively unreasonable and constituted a “failure to act” triggering the right to seek judicial relief (“Shot Clock”). In its most recent Shot Clock order, the FCC refined the previous Shot Clock rulings and shortened the Shot Clock time frame: (1) from 150 days to 90 days for new facilities, and (2) from 90 to 60 days for collocations. (FCC’s September 2018 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in the matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (2018), FCC 18-133 (“September 2018 Order”).)7 The FCC also altered the remedy for violating the Shot Clock. Failure to act within the Shot Clock timeframe now amounts to a presumptive prohibition of service in violation of the Telecom Act. The FCC’s recent ruling underscores the critical impacts of delay on the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure. (3) White House Broadband Initiative On February 10, 2011, the White House called for a National Wireless Initiative (“Initiative”) to make available high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans. The Initiative would free up spectrum through incentive auctions, spurring innovation, and create a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety with a fiscal goal of catalyzing private investment and innovation and reducing the deficit by $9.6 billion, “help the United States win the future” and successfully compete in the 21st century economy.8 7 The September 2018 Order is comprised of two parts: (1) a declaratory ruling on the appropriate interpretation of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7); and (2) a third report and order. The declaratory ruling portion is the definitive interpretation of the statutory requirements, applying to all pending permit applications, while the third report and order promulgates new regulatory requirements that take effect on January 14, 2019. 8 Remarks by the President on the National Wireless Initiative in Marquette Michigan (Feb. 10, 2011) < https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/10/remarks-president-national-wireless-initiative-marquette-michigan> (as of Jan. 8, 2019). January 31, 2019 Page 7 2464.109 / 8022440.1 (4) Section 6409 On February 17, 2012, Congress passed the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012” (“TRA”). TRA section 6409 (“Section 6409”) is part of a series of provisions commonly referred to as the “Spectrum Act.” Section 6409 allows for ministerial approval of collocated wireless facilities, which is intended to facilitate rapid development of wireless infrastructure on a national basis. (47 U.S.C. § 1455.) Section 6409, codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455, mandates administrative -- not discretionary -- approvals of “modifications” to wireless telecommunications facilities: [A] State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. (Id.) B. State Law In addition to the federal statutes, regulations, and policies, state law also controls the City Council’s deliberation on the Project. Public Utilities Code sections 7901, 7901.1, and Government Code Section 65964.1 are the most pertinent and applicable California statutes. (1) Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and 7901.1 Under state law, Crown Castle is a “competitive local exchange carrier” (“CLEC”). CLECs qualify as a “public utility” and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the California Public Utility Commission’s (“CPUC”) issuance of a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” (“CPCN”), CLECs have authority under state law to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments” in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the “time, place and manner” of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone corporation has “the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities.”].) The CPUC issued a CPCN authorizing Crown Castle to construct the Project pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown Castle’s special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to “construct … telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State” and to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]” (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: … “[I]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. January 31, 2019 Page 8 2464.109 / 8022440.1 [Citations.]” … Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 [quoting County of L.A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384].) Given the vested nature of the section 7901 right, Crown Castle contends that a discretionary use permit, like those at issue here, constitutes an unlawful precondition for a CLEC’s entry into the ROW. (See, e.g., Michael W. Shonafelt, Whose Streets? California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 in the Wireless Age (2013) 35 Hastings. Comm. & Ent. L.J 371.) Public Utility Code section 7901.1 -- a sister statute to section 7901 -- grants local municipalities the limited “right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,].” Nevertheless, such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent the company from exercising its right under state law to “erect poles” in the ROW. That is because “the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair.” (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, “to be reasonable, shall, at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, to the extent that other public utilities are authorized to use the ROW in the City without having to obtain a discretionary land use permit, such disparate treatment runs afoul of the “equivalent manner” provision of Public Utilities Code section 7901.1. On the basis of Crown Castle’s status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the Project is designed as part of an ROW telecommunications system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the Project, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901.1 apply. Crown Castle reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its right to challenge any approval process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle’s rights as a CLEC. (2) Government Code Section 65964.1. By enacting AB 57, codified as Government Code section 65964.1, the California Legislature echoed the courts’ oft-repeated declaration that “the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair.” (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) Under section 65964.1, if a local government fails to act on an application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the prescribed Shot Clock timeframes the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it enacted section 65964.1, the Legislature observed that: The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in January 31, 2019 Page 9 2464.109 / 8022440.1 Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern. (Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).) 3.THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION RESULTS IN A VIOLATION OF THE TELECOM ACT’S PROHIBITION OF SERVICE PROVISION. As noted above, section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the federal Telecom Act bars local governmental decisions from precluding the provision of wireless services: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— *** (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).) In its September 2018 Order, the FCC reaffirmed the definitive interpretation of the effective prohibition standard, stating: “a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” (September 2018 Order, at ¶¶ 34, pg. 14.) Thus, the FCC resolved the conflicting interpretations and standards issued by the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.9 (Ibid.) Accordingly, the two-step prohibition of service analysis developed by the Ninth Circuit in T-Mobile U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, does not control. And local review of issues such as “significant gap” and “least intrusive means” are no longer deemed relevant to an analysis of whether a prohibition of service has occurred. 10 9 Consistent with the FCC’s broad mandate, courts have consistently recognized the FCC’s authority to interpret Sections 253 and 332 to “further elucidate what types of state and local legal requirements run afoul of the statutory parameters Congress established.” (September 2018 Order ¶ 21; see also City of Arlington (5th Cir. 2012) 668 F.3d 229, 253-54l, Spring Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 54 F.3d 571, 578, RT Communications, Inc. v. FCC (10th Cir. 2000) 201 F.3d 1264, 1268.) The United States Supreme Court has recognized that definitive FCC interpretations are particularly appropriate when the statutory language is ambiguous or when the subject matter is technical, complex, and dynamic. (Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Gulf Power Co. (2002) 534 U.S. 327, 328, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000) 529 U.S. 120 [recognizing “agency’s greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated”]; see also, e.g., Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs. (2005) 545 U.S. 967, 983-986 [FCC’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision overrides earlier court decisions interpreting the same provision].) According, the FCC’s interpretation of Sections 235 and 332 control. 10 The FCC mused that “[d]ecisions that have applied solely a “coverage gap” based approach under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflect both an unduly narrow reading of the statute and an outdated view of the marketplace.” (September 2018 Order ¶ 40.) 1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 10:39 AM To:Council, City; Alison Cormack Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:University South Cell Towers Appeal Dear Mayor Filseth; Vice‐Mayor Fine; and Council Members Cormack, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka: I am writing to you today because I am unable to attend the council meeting on Monday, February 4th. I continue to be very concerned about the cell tower proposed installations in our city. This time, I am writing specifically about the towers located in University South. I am flummoxed about why the interim Planning Director, Jonathan Lait would essentially go rogue and disregard the Architectural Review Board's recommendation that the equipment go underground. The ARB has clearly and plainly determined that the cell towers in University South should go underground. Please overturn Jonathan Lait's decision and send this design that he approved to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing. The City Wireless Ordinance requires this step. Please do not allow City Staff to run roughshod over the process. This equipment is heavy, noisy, ugly, and a potential fire hazard. The equipment belongs underground. Period. Full Stop. Thank you for your consideration. Please keep our residential areas in Palo Alto, peaceful and beautiful. Yours truly, Annette Evans Fazzino 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 8:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: University South Cell Tower Appeal Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 5:13 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: University South Cell Tower Appeal Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, We are writing to express our great displeasure with the interim Planning Director's disregard for Palo Alto resident's rights as well as the judgment of the experts on the Architectural Review Board with respect to the University South cell towers. In throwing out the ARB's recommendations, Mr. Lait approved a new aboveground cell tower design without either the ARB review or a mandated public hearing. We ask you to overturn Mr. Lait's University South decision and to also send the new cell tower design which he approved for University South where it should have gone in the first place - to the Architectural Review Board, for review in a public hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Tom and Mary Thomas 249 Santa Rita Avenue Palo Alto 94301 3 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 8:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: University South Cell Towers Appeal Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 10:39 AM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com> Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: University South Cell Towers Appeal Dear Mayor Filseth; Vice‐Mayor Fine; and Council Members Cormack, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka: I am writing to you today because I am unable to attend the council meeting on Monday, February 4th. I continue to be very concerned about the cell tower proposed installations in our city. This time, I am writing specifically about the towers located in University South. I am flummoxed about why the interim Planning Director, Jonathan Lait would essentially go rogue and disregard the Architectural Review Board's recommendation that the equipment go underground. The ARB has clearly and plainly determined that the cell towers in University South should go underground. Please overturn Jonathan Lait's decision and send this design that he approved to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing. The City Wireless Ordinance requires this step. Please do not allow City Staff to run roughshod over the process. This equipment is heavy, noisy, ugly, and a potential fire hazard. The equipment belongs underground. Period. Full Stop. Thank you for your consideration. Please keep our residential areas in Palo Alto, peaceful and beautiful. Yours truly, Annette Evans Fazzino 5 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 8:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Opposition to Mr. Lait's decision on cell towers South of University Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 5:17 PM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Fw: Opposition to Mr. Lait's decision on cell towers South of University I apologize that your address was dropped from the original email. Kathleen ‐‐‐ On Fri, 2/1/19, Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > From: Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> > Subject: Opposition to Mr. Lait's decision on cell towers South of > University > To: "<Eric.Filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>" > <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>" > <Greg.Tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org> > Cc: "<ARB@cityofpaloalto.org>" > <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org> > Date: Friday, February 1, 2019, 4:15 PM Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor > Fine, Ms. > Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, Mr. Tanaka: > > I wish to express my opposition to > the decision and action of Interim Planning Director Jonathan Lait > involving University South cell tower planning. He has acted without > ARB review or a public hearing, and in so doing, in violation of Palo > Alto's Municipal Code. This is in violation of my rights as a citizen > of Palo Alto. 6 > > I ask that the City Council overturn > Mr. Lait's decision on University South cell tower placement and send > any design he has approved to the Architectural Review Board for > review in a public hearing. > > Thank you for your consideration and > action, > > Kathleen Martin > > Resident, South Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 2/4/2019: Cell Tower Hearing Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 2:48 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 2/4/2019: Cell Tower Hearing Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to overturn the interim Planning Director’s University South decision regarding cell towers that is against the recommendation of the experts on the Architectural Review Board (ARB). I support ARB's recommendation to put the ancillary equipment for the cell towers underground and not install the equipment on utility poles nor on street lights in University South, Downtown North, and Barron Park neighborhoods. I urge you to direct the ARB to review the cell tower design and equipment locations in a public hearing as required by Palo Alto's Municipal Code. Sincerely, Mary Dimit 30-year resident and former city employee 3 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Opposition to University South Cell towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Bryan Chan <chan_bk@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 5:43 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Opposition to University South Cell towers Dear Mayor Filseth and members of the City Council, I am a resident of Palo Alto and I am writing to you about the disturbing decision by the Interim Planning Director Jonathan Lait to unilaterally overrule the decision by the ARB to reject the cell towers proposed for University South region. Specifically, I would like you to: 1. Condemn the interim Planning Director’s outrageous disregard both for residents’ rights and for the judgment of the experts on the ARB; 2. Overturn the interim Planning Director’s University South decision; and 3. Ask Jonathan Lait to send the new cell tower design he approved for University South where it should have gone in the first place: to the Architectural Review Board for review in a public hearing. Thank you, Bryan 4 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please note my request! Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 5:38 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Please note my request! Gwen Luce, Realtor® DRE License #00879652 Direct Line: 650.566.5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com I am in support of the appeal to overturn the decision to allow Crown Castle/Verizon to install ancillary cell tower equipment on top of streetlights in the University South neighborhood—a 5 decision made against the recommendation of the experts on the Architectural Review Board and without regard for residents’ right to a public hearing. Thank you. Gwen Luce 4065 Laguna Way, Palo Alto 94306 Gwen Luce 650-566-5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com www.gwenluce.com Powered by e-Letterhead *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 6 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: April Eiler <aprilei@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 8:57 AM To: Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Cell towers Dear Ms. Kou, I am very upset that Planning Director, Jonathan Lait, disregarded the recommendation of the ARB for putting cell towers underground. I hope the Palo Alto City Council will overturn the decision for South Palo Alto and make sure that there will never be above ground cell towers in Downtown North or any other neighborhood. I am a Verizon stock holder but I do not want them on my neighborhood utility poles. It is not just unsightly, but also unhealthy. Thanks for all you do, April Eiler (Palo Alto resident since 1967) (Palo Alto home owner since 1972) (Downtown North since 1978) 7 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 7:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell Towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: April Eiler <aprilei@pacbell.net> Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2019 8:55 PM To: Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Cell Towers Dear Ms. Kniss, I am very upset that Planning Director, Jonathan Lait, disregarded the recommendation of the ARB for putting cell towers underground. I hope the City Council will overturn the decision for South Palo Alto and make sure there will never be above ground cell towers in North Palo Alto or any other neighborhoods. I am a Verizon stock holder but I do not want them on my neighborhood utility poles. It is not just unsightly, it is unhealthy and totally unnecessary. I am horrified that Palo Alto would sell its health, quality of life and utility poles to a greedy utility company. Thanks for all you do, April Eiler Palo Alto resident since 1967 Palo Alto home owner since 1972 Downtown North resident since 1978 8 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 10:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Cell phone towers Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Peggy Phelan <pphelan@stanford.edu> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 9:57 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Cell phone towers To all of you, I have written to many of you in the past to record my utter dismay about and opposition to the cell towers in Palo Alto. As you no doubt know by now, the whole process has been a travesty, anti‐democratic and a deep embarrassment to the governing officers of Palo Alto. I will not rehearse all my previous email which outlines my objections clearly. I believe that record is clear. But the latest debacle of ignoring the ARB, and the outrageous corruption of officers on the take, increase my ire. I have lived in Palo Alto since 2003 and I really am shocked by the way this has been handled. 9 Do not approve the construction of any of these cell phone towers at all. I know a lot of people are happy to have them buried underground but I myself have some concerns about the environmental impact of that as well. I have looked but have found no long‐term studies about the consequences of underground burial of the towers either. So it is best to be cautious, have Verizon pay for an environmental impact study of underground burial, and pay attention to the results. Other cities have managed to keep these corporate giants out of their districts and I am puzzled why Palo Alto seems so ready to throw out all procedures and due diligence in order to placate these CEOS. A very bad look for democracy broadly and an embarrassment to Palo Alto specifically. I know some of you personally and I know you to be earnest and responsible public servants. So I will trust you to do the right thing and put a halt to this mess at the meeting tonight. Thank you, Professor Phelan 10 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 11:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: please support residents Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 10:58 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org> Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: please support residents Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice-Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, I am writing to urge you to overturn the interim Planning Director’s decision to place small cell towers in the University South neighborhood. This decision demonstrates disregard both for residents’ rights and for the judgment of the experts on the ARB. The ARB should review any new cell tower designs in a public hearing where residents have a voice. Please direct city staff to work together with city residents on this important issue rather than doing away with protocol for the sake of “convenience”, which just makes the process of finding good solutions take longer overall. Best regards, Tina Chow Barron Park 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 1:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 2/4/2019 City Council hearing on Planning Director's decision re: cell towers Attachments:3715 Whitsell Avenue.pdf Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 1:06 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 2/4/2019 City Council hearing on Planning Director's decision re: cell towers Dear Mayor Filseth, Vice‐Mayor Fine, Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou and Mr. Tanaka, I am writing to specifically ask you to overturn the interim Planning Director's ill‐informed decision regarding ARB's decision to reject Verizon's plans for cell towers in our neighborhoods. I support ARB's recommendation to put the ancillary equipment for the cell towers underground and not install the equipment on utility poles nor on street lights in University South, Downtown North, and Barron Park neighborhoods. When I presented at ARB for Barron Park neighborhood, the neighbors next to the proposed cell tower installation near 3715 Whitsell were 100% against the proposal. I submitted the document to ARB and have also attached a slightly outdated version here. From, 3715 Whitsell Ave 3810 Whitsell Ave 3818 Magnolia Dr Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Vinculums/Verizon “Cluster 2” Application for 7 WCF nodes, SF PALO ALTO 153 @ 3715 Whitsell Avenue, scheduled for public hearing on December 20, 2018 Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Peter Baltay, Mr. Gooyer, Mr. Lew and Mr. Thompson: We, the Palo Alto residents who live closest to the cell tower Verizon proposes locating at 3715 Whitsell Avenue, respectfully request that you DENY this wireless facility. Here are our reasons: 1. Location and Siting A. The proposed wireless facility would be less than 10 feet from 2 Protected Coastal Redwood Trees. In fact, it is within the drip line of the Redwood trees. (See Verizon’s simulation below.) B. The proposed wireless facility is less than 20 feet from the homes at 3715 & 3810 Whitsell Avenue. C. There is NO tree screening to reduce the visibility of the facility all year round (please see attached photographs). Figure 1 No Cover from Street D. It is in FULL VIEW of 3715 Whitsell Avenue, including in from front doors and windows. Figure 2 Full View from Bedroom Window Figure 3 Full View from Front Door E. It is in FULL VIEW of the home located across the street at 611 Barron Avenue, including in FULL VIEW of these residents’ front doors and windows. Figure 4 Full View from Front Door F. It is in FULL VIEW of the home located across the street at 3810 Whitsell Ave, including in FULL VIEW of their second story bedroom window. Figure 5 Full View from Front & 2nd Story Bedroom G. Safety (see attached photograph B): The proposed facility is less than 20 feet from the homes at 3715 and 3810 Whitsell Avenue. With hundreds of extra pounds of equipment added to it, this pole would be a likely candidate to topple over in an earthquake or in a winter wind storm. Plus, it is within the drip lines of two beautiful redwood trees. As such, it would be a fire hazard. Last year’s devastating Malibu Canyon fire was caused by power poles overloaded with cell equipment—including Verizon’s—(see the attached article from the Los Angeles Times), and power poles are currently being investigated as a likely cause of the fires in Napa and Sonoma and, most recently, of the Camp fire in Paradise. Please note that THIS POLE IS ALREADY LEANING. It is decades old. It was not designed to carry the extra weight of cell tower equipment. ● Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan calls for all City utilities to be undergrounded. The proposed facility interferes with undergrounding. We agree with the Board’s Mr. Gooyer, who observed that “it all comes down to money. It just costs [Verizon] more to place the equipment underground than onto existing poles.” https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/13/put-new-cell- devices-underground-city-board-rules/) Verizon has targeted our houses because it believes it can install its cheapest, most visually intrusive equipment there. We strongly object to placing the interests of this multi-billion dollar company over our interests and those of other Palo Alto residents. 2. Design Criteria a. The design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Verizon’s design may be suitable for installation next to a factory or an office building. But it is not suitable for installation here. Please note: Verizon has the capability to put all of its ugly equipment underground, and has done so in other communities. Why are they not applying to do that here? b. The design of this proposed facility is inconsistent with Palo Alto’s commitment to green building—that is, to efficient, environmentally responsible construction. c. The design of this proposed facility interferes with expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s prized canopy of trees. In particular, the proposed facility is within the drip lines of two redwood trees. Figure 6 View from Below the Pole (within drip line of Redwood trees) 3. Property Values Locating such an obviously commercial telecommunication facility at 3715 & 3810 Whitsell Avenue will harm property values. Few home buyers want a cell tower in front of their house, and home prices will drop accordingly. This will, in turn, cause financial harm to nearby homeowners. 4. The “Significant Gap” Issue If there is no “significant gap” in cellular coverage, Palo Alto may—under Federal law—deny approval for Verizon’s proposed installations. In this regard, Verizon has submitted coverage maps to the City that it asserts demonstrate that there are significant gaps in the coverage area. In fact, these maps amount to nothing more than Verizon’s unsupported, data-free assertions that service in the Cluster 2 area is currently inadequate and that it would improve if Verizon is allowed to install cell towers in this small area. In other words, the company has provided no evidence that a “significant gap” exists. a. More specifically, Verizon fails to list quantitative values, using industry standard units, for each category of coverage (for example, -95 dBm RSRP) on each map. Without this information, it is impossible to tell if Verizon’s "required" levels are correct. b. WE BELIEVE VERIZON FAILED TO PROVIDE LEGITIMATE “SIGNIFICANT GAP” DATA BECAUSE THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT GAP IN SERVICE. HERE’S WHY: - One of us, Saeid Salehi-had at 3810 Whitsell Avenue, is an existing Verizon customer and has never experienced gap in coverage. He has never noticed any gap in coverage between his house and as far as Bol Park, half a mile away from our pole at which Verizon wants to install the antenna. 5. Other options exist for Verizon. Verizon can improve the quality of its service—should its service in fact need improving—without littering the Cluster 2 neighborhoods with ugly, noisy equipment. Setting aside the facts that Verizon could a) locate larger transceivers on large tracts of public and/or uninhabited land, b) locate its equipment on roadway medians or c) share systems with AT&T, there is the miniaturization option. Right now, Verizon has units so small they can simply be hung on a wire next to homes that want them. And right now, Verizon can almost completely underground its equipment and employ small, hard-to-spot antennas. The only reason they’re not proposing to do this is that the crude metal equipment they’re proposing to use—and the $237/year pole rental fee they’d be paying Palo Alto—is cheaper for them. It’s that simple. The dozens and dozens of ugly, noisy, bulky small cell towers Verizon wants to install in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods are already as outdated as the equally ugly TV antennas people used to install on their roofs. This shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Finally, Mr. Baltay in (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/13/put-new- cell-devices-underground-city-board-rules/), is quoted as saying “Verizon has been resistant to provide alternatives; they haven’t made an objective case.” We couldn’t agree more. 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 3:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please vote against approving the amended Wireless Ordinance Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 2:09 PM To: Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Please vote against approving the amended Wireless Ordinance Dear Councilmembers, I am writing again in support of United Neighbors’ appeal of Palo Alto’s interim Planning Director’s decision to allow Crown Castle/Verizon to install ancillary cell tower equipment on top of streetlights in the University South neighborhood. This decision was made against the recommendation of the experts on the Architectural Review Board and without regard for residents’ right to a public hearing. I am hoping that you will respond favorably to the appeal submitted by United Neighbors and overturn the interim Planning Director's recent decision to allow the installation of unsightly and potentially harmful cell tower equipment in the University South neighbors (and really, in any other area of Palo Alto). Sincerely, Whitney Leeman, Ph.D. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 9:21 AM Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> wrote: 2 Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you support United Neighbors’ Appeal and set aside the Director of Planning’s extraordinary January 4th decision to: 1) dispense with required procedure; 2) dispense with the Architectural Review Board’s recommendations, and; 3) unilaterally approve a new, street‐light‐pole‐mounted cell tower design in the University South neighborhood. I am extremely concerned that City Staff have brazenly turned their backs on the advice of the experts on the Architectural Review Board, cutting residents out of the review process, and doing exactly what they want to do: allowing the telecom industry to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods however they want, where ever they want . In fact, only a couple of days ago, the Planning Director again ignored the Architectural Review Board, this time the Board’s recommendation to deny the cell towers in Barron Park. Instead, the Planning Director decided to push forward and allow the installation of hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment on utility poles in Barron Park. Again, the evidence that RF/microwave radiation may be unsafe is mounting: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell‐Phone‐Guidance.pdf https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html Please do not subject your constituents to the great human experiment conducted by the cellular providers, who are trying to fill every cubic centimeter of public space with RF/microwave radiation at densities unheard of in the past. As you know, there are major conflicts of interest between cellular providers, local/state/federal/international governments, and the public: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/23/palo‐alto‐tech‐chief‐whose‐junkets‐triggered‐ethics‐complaint‐says‐hes‐ quitting/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/ Sincerely, Whitney Leeman, Ph.D. On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:53 PM Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. DuBois, Mr. Fine, Mr. Filseth, Ms. Kniss, Ms. Kou, and Mr. Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote against approving the amended Wireless Ordinance that City Staff is asking you to approve. The Planning Director and the City Attorney may tell you that the proposed amendments represent only minor adjustments to the Ordinance, adjustments required to bring it into compliance with an FCC order that goes into effect in mid‐January. Unfortunately, the proposed new language gives authority over aesthetics of cell towers to the Planning Director, instead of to City Council and the people (both residents and businesses) of Palo Alto. The amended Ordinance, in giving the Planning Director the sole authority to establish aesthetic standards—more specifically, the sole authority to replace the City of Palo Alto’s core aesthetic standards expressed in Section 3 18.76.020(d) of the Code with those of his own devising—does so a) without stating what the standards should be, b) without requiring that the Architectural Review Board provide the Planning Director with recommendations, and c) without giving either City Council or residents/businesses any say in the matter. In 2017, the ARB put forward a thoughtful set of guidelines that should serve as the starting point for any cell tower‐ related aesthetic standards the City establishes. But the amended Ordinance ignores these guidelines and, as written, empowers the Planning Director to establish whatever aesthetic standards he chooses, with input from no one. If you approve this amended Ordinance, you will be: 1) pre‐approving, sight unseen, whatever a single City employee—an employee who has no particular qualifications to establish aesthetic standards and who is not accountable to voters—wants to do; 2) allowing him to make critical quality‐of‐life and quality‐of neighborhood decisions without any recommendations from the Architectural Review Board—i.e., from the people best qualified to establish aesthetic standards; and 3) setting in motion a process in which the residentsand businesses of Palo Alto are given no opportunity to participate. The proposed amended Ordinance establishes a process that is undemocratic: residents and businesses should have a say regarding what small cell towers look like, sound like, and where they should be located. Additionally, the evidence that RF/microwave radiation may be unsafe is mounting: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell‐Phone‐Guidance.pdf https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html Please do not subject your constituents to the great human experiment conducted by the cellular providers, who are trying to fill every cubic centimeter of public space with RF/microwave radiation at densities unheard of in the past. As you know, there are major conflicts of interest between cellular providers, local/state/federal/international governments, and the public: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/23/palo‐alto‐tech‐chief‐whose‐junkets‐triggered‐ethics‐complaint‐says‐hes‐ quitting/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/ The amended Ordinance makes no provision for anyone to know what standards the Planning Director has in mind until after City Council has approved his sole authority to establish them. Why doesn’t the amended Ordinance you are being asked to approve state, at least in general terms, the aesthetic standards the Planning Director wishes to incorporate into the Wireless Ordinance? Staff have had since October to prepare the Ordinance. The proposed amended Ordinance ignores the wishes of the ARB and the concerns of the Planning & Transportation Commission and the people of Palo Alto. The ARB, in its public hearings, has repeatedly said that ancillary cell tower equipment must be installed underground, where it can’t be seen. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission, because of the fire hazard utility poles and aboveground equipment pose, has now begun a process that will lead to moving most of them underground. Only two weeks ago, the Planning and Transportation Commission 1) expressed grave doubts about the safety of aboveground ancillary cell tower equipment; 2) urged the City to consider joining dozens of other municipalities plus the League of California Cities (to which Palo Alto belongs) in suing the FCC; and 3) urged the City to obtain expert 4 legal advice on the lawfulness of the FCC’s order and on how best to amend Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance. Why are the PTC’s recommendations being ignored? Please, reject the amended Ordinance that City Staff has submitted to you and insist that it be modified to establish: 1) the Architectural Review Board as the lead—not the Planning Director— in setting standards for the siting and appearance of cell towers; 2) that there be a series of community meetings so that residents may learn what standards are being proposed, ask questions of ARB members and City Staff, and offer their own ideas for consideration; and 3) require that, once these standards have been created, City Council must approve them before they become part of the City’s Wireless Ordinance. The 12/12/18 Staff Report notes that cities may take up to 180 days following the effective date of the FCC regulations to develop and publish their aesthetic standards. There is no need to rush. Sincerely, Whitney Leeman, Ph.D. 1 Carnahan, David From:Sara L. Breckenridge <breckenridge@smwlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:29 AM To:Gutierrez, Samuel; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board; Council, City Cc:Carmen J. Borg; Laura D. Beaton; carlsonsharlene@gmail.com; julie.baskind@gmail.com; josieshu@comcast.net; a_m_mason@ieee.org Subject:4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments:Comment Letter on IS-MND 02-06-19.PDF; Appendix C - Smith Tree Specialists Report 12-1-17.PDF; Appendix B - RK Engineering Noise Report 2-5-19.PDF; Appendix A - RK Engineering Traffic Report 1-25-19.PDF Mr. Gutierrez, Please find attached a letter from Laura Beaton and Carmen Borg on behalf of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association regarding the 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project. Appendices A‐C are also attached. Hard copies will not follow. Please confirm your receipt of this message and contact our office with any questions. Thank you. Sara L. Breckenridge Secretary to Carmen J. Borg Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 552‐7272 Fax: (415) 552‐5816 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com LAURA D. BEATON Attorney Beaton@smwlaw.com February 6, 2019 Via Electronic Mail Only Sam Gutierrez Project Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Samuel.Gutierrez@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Gutierrez: On behalf of the Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (“PAR”), we have reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared in connection with the proposed hotel located at 4256 El Camino Real (“Project”) in the City of Palo Alto. We submit this letter to express our legal opinion that: (1) the MND for the proposed Project fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. (“Guidelines”), and (2) the City must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) before proceeding with the Project. As detailed below, numerous inadequacies and omissions in the MND render it insufficient as an environmental review document. The document lacks the necessary evidentiary support for its conclusions that the Project will not adversely impact the visual character of the area, traffic, and noise. In the absence of an enforceable and proven plan for mitigation for the significant environmental impacts, there is ample evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental effects not analyzed or even acknowledged in the MND. In addition, many of the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are inadequate and will not address the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 2 The Project is also fundamentally inconsistent with the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. See Section IV.F of this letter, below. Thus, approval of the Project and adoption of the MND would violate not only CEQA, but also the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code section 65000 et seq. For all of these reasons, the City cannot approve the Project as currently proposed. Included with these comments are reports from consulting engineers at RK Engineering Group. See Appendix A, RK Engineering Traffic Report, Appendix B, RK Engineering Noise Report, and Appendix C, Smith Tree Specialists Report. We respectfully refer the City to the RK Engineering reports, here and throughout our comments on traffic and noise, for further detail and discussion of the MND’s inadequacies. I. Introduction and Background The Project proposes to construct a five-floor, 100-room hotel with subterranean parking, a restaurant and bar, and conference facilities on a 0.6 acre site. The Project applicant submitted at least eight versions of project plans over a two-year period. Neighboring residents voiced strong concerns to the development proposals because the Project was out of scale and out of character with the surrounding community and would have resulted in significant traffic congestion. Despite this specific feedback from the community, the applicant inexplicably revised the plans for a more intensive project than earlier iterations. In August 2017, the applicant submitted plans to the City for Preliminary Architectural Review for a hotel with 69 guest rooms, 8 townhomes, and 85 parking spaces. Now, the applicant proposes 100 hotel rooms and 85 vehicle parking spaces. In addition, public records indicate that the applicant has pressured City staff to process his application, even when he has presented incomplete information, and to reduce parking requirements for the site. Now, the City is recommending Directors Adjustments allowing a 15 percent reduction in parking and loading zone areas. This Project will have serious long-term consequences for the residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods and the surrounding area. Those consequences include the impacts from inadequate parking, significant traffic congestion and potential traffic safety issues, visual impacts, and a significant increase in noise. Yet, this MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate these significant impacts. In addition, the City has designated the project site as a Housing Inventory Site appropriate for construction of low-income housing. Given that housing is one of the City’s current priority issues, it is surprising that the MND does not address the site’s Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 3 designation for housing. Moreover, the MND is silent as to the need for a hotel in this part of the City. There are more than two dozen hotels on El Camino Real within two miles of the project site, with 10 hotels being located within one mile of the site. The MND has not established a clear need for the Project. The job of community leaders in evaluating projects such as this one is to achieve a balance between protection of resources, which represents the long term interest of the entire community, and the short term interest and gain of a few individuals. As discussed throughout this letter, the proposed Project and the proposed intensity of use is incompatible with the surrounding uses. II. The MND’s Description of the Project is Inadequate. The MND must adequately describe the Project. “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 727 (1994) (quoting County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193 (1977)). “The negative declaration is inappropriate where the agency has failed to provide an accurate project description or to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis.” City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino, 96 Cal. App. 4th 398, 406, 410 (2002). Courts have found that, even if an environmental review document is adequate in all other respects, the use of a “truncated project concept” violates CEQA and mandates the conclusion that the lead agency did not proceed in a manner required by law. San Joaquin Raptor, 27 Cal. App. 4th at 729-30. Furthermore, “[a]n accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.” Id. at 730 (citation omitted). Thus, an inaccurate or incomplete project description renders the analysis of significant environmental impacts inherently unreliable. Here, the MND fails to describe aspects of the Project critical to its analysis. For example, the MND fails to provide a construction schedule or list of equipment required. Consequently, the MND relies on conceptual models of equipment that might be used and makes assumptions about what construction activities and resulting noise would occur. Given the project’s site’s close proximity to a residential area, deferral of these important details is unacceptable. In another example, the applicant failed to submit a lighting plan. See Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) Staff Report dated January 17, 2019, at 7. As the ARB Staff Report pointed out, the lack of detail provided about project lighting prevents staff and the ARB from properly reviewing and evaluating the Project design. It also Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 4 prevents the City from evaluating any impacts associated with aesthetics and glare. But rather than deeming the application incomplete, staff opted to process the application without the needed information. Moreover, incorrect assumptions could result in significant impacts to the community. For instance, the MND states that “it is assumed that pile drivers would not be used in building construction.” MND at 82. As pointed out in the RK Engineering Report, typically, subterranean structures like the one proposed by the Project require advanced footings that require pile driving or drilling. RK Engineering Noise Report at 3 and 4. A revised environmental document must provide specific information about proposed construction activities. Perhaps most egregiously, the MND fails to submit a dewatering plan even though it acknowledges that construction would likely require dewatering. MND at 65. The MND discloses that Project excavation is estimated to be 34 feet below ground surface, which is well below the groundwater table in the area. Id. However, other than a statement that dewatering activities would have to comply with the City’s guidelines, the MND provides no details related to these activities. Where will the referenced dewatering features be located? What provisions will be in place to contain sediment? What measures will be in place to prevent contamination of the storm drain system? Without a detailed project description that includes these basic planning and design considerations, the MND will remain incapable of addressing and analyzing the Project’s important environmental effects. The MND also fails to provide information on the following Project elements: • description of construction-related activities (including construction schedule; equipment required, location, number of construction employees; location of the Project staging areas; location of spoils sites and haul routes; description of reuse or disposal of site spoils, etc.); • description of method for tree removal; • hours of operation (including operating hours for the restaurant and bar); • a description of special events that might take place at the project site (such as weddings, corporate events, or other gatherings); • other Project features such as fences, gates, or other proposed improvements. Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 5 In sum, the MND fails to describe the project with sufficient accuracy and specificity. The failure to describe the whole of the Project is a serious and pervasive deficiency, as it renders faulty the environmental impact analyses as well as the discussion of potential mitigation measures to minimize those impacts. A revised environmental document must provide accurate information including, but not limited to, a sufficient description of anticipated construction activities, including a description of the Project’s dewatering plan, and any other Project details. This information is necessary to allow decision makers, the public and responsible agencies to evaluate potential environmental impacts. III. The MND’s Description of the Project Setting Is Inadequate. CEQA provides that one of the required components of an initial study is a description of the environmental setting of a project. Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). “[W]ithout such a description, analysis of impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives becomes impossible.” County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 953 (1999). Decision-makers must be able to weigh the project’s effects against “real conditions on the ground.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal. App. 3d 229, 246 (1986). One initial study’s “environmental setting” section that was held to be adequate set forth the existing site conditions, facilities, and recreational uses, and contained a description of the existing physical conditions, including the topography and types of habitats and vegetation. Lighthouse Field Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 915-17 (2005). According to the court, the initial study’s several-pages-long environmental setting discussion “met the minimum requirements of the Guidelines.” Id. at 917. In contrast to this type of thorough description of the environmental context in which a project is proposed, the environmental setting discussion in the proposed MND omits essential information and thus fails to meet CEQA’s requirements. In order for the public and decision-makers to be able to fully understand the environmental impacts of this Project, more information about the Project setting is needed. Such information includes, but is not limited to, a detailed description of the following: • The visual character and appearance of the community and the proposed Project site, including existing development in the Project vicinity. This would necessarily include photographs of the area surrounding the Project site, to include other buildings on the block and across the street. • The existing hydrological and hydraulic conditions of drainages in the vicinity of the Project. Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 6 • Cumulative projects, including major construction projects, that will be carried out in the area during the period when the Project will be under construction. • The City of Palo Alto’s General Plan, including the goals and policies relevant to the Project site (going beyond maximum densities, the only information currently included about the surrounding land uses). • Properly documented noise levels existing at and around the Project site. See RK Engineers Noise Report at Appendix B. • Existing transportation infrastructure around the Project site, including the existing accident rates on roadways, availability of public transportation, and line-of-sight information for proposed project access. • Any other relevant regional and local setting information necessary to evaluate project and cumulative impacts. Given the inadequacies of the Project setting and description, however, a member of the public would not be made aware of the threat to important environmental, aesthetic, and community values. IV. The Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts Require Preparation of an EIR. A negative declaration is inappropriate where an agency has failed to “gather information and undertake . . . environmental analysis.” City of Redlands, 96 Cal.App.4th at 406. The MND contains an incomplete project description and inadequate description of the existing environmental setting; thus, its analysis of potential impacts cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the MND’s findings of no significant impacts are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (1988). A. CEQA Establishes a Low Threshold for Requiring Preparation of an EIR. It is well settled that CEQA establishes a “low threshold” for initial preparation of an EIR, especially in the face of conflicting assertions concerning the possible effects of a proposed project. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 928 (2005). Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 7 CEQA provides that a lead agency may issue a negative declaration and avoid preparing an EIR only if “[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1) (emphasis added). A lead agency may adopt a mitigated negative declaration only when all potentially significant impacts of a project will be avoided or reduced to insignificance. Id. § 21080(c)(2); Guidelines § 15070(b). A mitigated negative declaration will also be set aside if the proponent’s conclusions are not based on substantial evidence in the record. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311 (1988). An initial study must provide the factual basis, with analysis included, for making the determination that no significant impact will result from the project. Guidelines § 15063(d)(3). In making this determination, the agency must consider the direct and indirect impacts of the project as a whole, Guidelines § 15064(d), as well as the project’s cumulative impacts, see City of Antioch v. City Council of Pittsburg, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325, 1333 (1986). Here, the City must prepare an EIR because there is a fair argument that the Project will cause significant impacts on aesthetics, traffic, and noise, in addition to the flaws discussed above related to the inadequately described Project and existing conditions. B. The MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate the Project’s Construction and Operation Noise Impacts. One of the glaring inadequacies of the MND is found in its analysis of and mitigation for the Project’s noise impacts. Although construction and operation of the Project is all but certain to result in a significant increase in noise levels, the MND presents a flawed analysis of project noise impacts that fails to fully analyze impacts to adjacent noise sensitive land uses. To conclude, as the MND does, that an impact is less than significant, the analysis must be supported with substantial evidence. Substantial evidence consists of “facts, a reasonable presumption predicated on fact, or expert opinion supported by fact,” not “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1)-(2). Once again, the MND fails on many levels. First, the MND improperly measured existing ambient noise levels at El Camino Real, in front of the project site. As explained in the RK Engineers Noise Report (Attached as Appendix B), this reading is misleading because it does not reflect ambient noise levels at the adjacent residential community, which is set back from the roadway and experiences much lower noise levels. MND at 79 and RK Engineers Noise Report at Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 8 3. Construction noise impacts and operation noise impacts associated with use of the outdoor patio area and the HVAC system will be higher in the quieter areas of the PAR community. A revised analysis must evaluate impacts to ambient noise measured at the residential area rather than at the roadway. Second, the referenced noise levels used to evaluate impacts from the proposed outdoor patio area on the PAR community are inappropriate for two reasons. RK Engineers Noise Report at 2. The proposed hotel patio area would be closer than 25 feet to the nearest residents, but the referenced noise levels from a Cheesecake Factory restaurant’s patio, on which the MND relies, were taken from a distance of 75-100 feet. Id. Maximum noise levels from outdoor seating areas can be as high as 90 dBA max such that impacts from this outdoor area can be expected to be significant. Moreover, the MND’s method for estimating noise levels from the outdoor patio is inconsistent with the City’s Municipal Code. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10.020. The Code requires analysis of the maximum noise levels generated by the Project, whereas the MND evaluated average noise levels or Leq. RK Engineers Noise Report at 2. Third, the MND fails to provide adequate mitigation for significant construction period noise impacts. RK Engineers Noise Report at 4.The MND concedes that construction noise would exceed 90 dBA Leq and would result in significant impacts to nearby residents. MND at 83. The MND identifies specific measures to address this impact, but fails to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the measures for reducing noise. See MND at 84 (Mitigation Measure N-1, which calls for mufflers, use of electrical power, and reducing machinery idling time to reduce construction equipment related noise). As discussed above, the impacts to residents would be greater than disclosed in the MND due to the location on a busy street of the ambient noise reading used in the analysis. In addition, the MND’s identified mitigation for this impact is likely inadequate. The identified mitigation is unlikely to be feasible or adequate to accomplish the amount of noise reduction required and may be inadequate to provide noise shielding for residential units on second and third floor units. RK Engineers Noise Report at 4. The MND provides no evidence that the proposed measures will go far enough to reduce noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Id. A detailed analysis of the feasibility and effectiveness of noise barriers must be conducted now to determine whether it is feasible to construct noise barriers that would have the potential to afford a reasonable degree of protection to adjacent residences. Without such a study, the conclusion that the Project’s noise impacts would be less-than-significant is without merit. Sam Gutierrez February 6, 2019 Page 9 In short, the MND’s analysis of noise impacts dramatically understates the Project’s potential to significantly affect area residents. At the same time, the MND fails to provide effective, enforceable measures to mitigate such potentially significant impacts. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR fully analyzing the Project’s potential impacts to these resources and identifying effective mitigation measures. C. The MND’s Transportation Analysis is Inadequate, and There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Transportation Impacts. The MND’s analysis of transportation impacts fails to achieve CEQA’s most basic purpose: informing governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed activity. Guidelines § 15002(a). CEQA additionally requires “adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure” in an environmental document. Guidelines § 15003(i). Here, the MND’s analysis of the Project’s traffic impacts fails to meet these standards. The MND concludes that the Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to traffic. MND at 95-103. However, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. The MND’s traffic study did not include appendices or worksheets showing detailed calculations or backup data. RK Engineers Traffic Report at 4. Without this data, readers cannot confirm that intersection delay and level of service (“LOS”) analyses are accurate. Id. What information the MND does provide analyzing Project-related traffic impacts contains numerous omissions and deficiencies that must be remedied in order for the public and decision-makers to fully understand the Project’s impacts. The report prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (“RK Engineers Traffic Report”), attached as Appendix A, provides detailed comments on the shortcomings in the MND’s transportation impacts analysis. We incorporate the RK Engineers Traffic Report into these comments. In summary, the MND’s deficiencies identified in the RK Engineers Traffic Report include (1) deficient traffic counts to establish baseline conditions; (2) omitted analyses; (3) improper assumptions for trip reductions due to transportation demand management (“TDM”) measures; and (4) inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts. 1 Carnahan, David From:Martha Elizabeth Angell <grizzlecat@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:A bond issue is the most obvious choice Hello City Council, My name is Martha Angell. My husband John Grant and I live at 1681 Castilleja Avenue. Former mayor Gail Woolley is my neighbor and friend. I am following the CalTrain and HSR discussions with interest. I started my legal career in New York at a firm called Mudge Rose, practicing municipal bond law. With that knowledge, I am perplexed that this community has not chosen a bond offering as the most obvious solution to build an underground train rail. Along with Bethesda, Maryland, Palo Alto is the wealthiest community in the US. It is known as the heart of Silicon Valley ‐ an area primed to grow and be an urban leader and model for other cities as we move into the 21st century. A municipal bond offering would be easy to sell to institutional investors. It would be a win‐win for Stanford and its students, faculty, and visitors, as well as the community, homeowners, and future visitors. I am happy to discuss further. My number is+16502835752. Regards, Martha Elizabeth Angell 1 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 12:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gennady Sheyner Subject:Annual Priority Setting Council: I do not agree with all the chosen priorities, but no short list of priorities could please every Palo Alto resident. I am particularly sad that restoring trust in local government did not make the list, given the dramatic decline shown in the annual citizen survey. The simplest action Council can take to start restoring this trust is to establish an independent review of your progress toward these priorities at mid-year. I propose Council select 6 resident leaders who invested their time to attend Saturday’s meeting to meet and produce a report on Council’s progress in July of this year. This kind of “citizen auditor” function would be an incentive to help council focus on delivering results for these priorities. Thank you, John 1 Carnahan, David From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 7:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:auto pollution / kids video Hello City Council Members I spoke before you today about the number of deaths related to automobile pollution. There’s an award‐winning short [6 min] video that explains what I was trying to get across in a much more articulate, educational, and entertaining manner than I was able to express. It’s called Worse Than Poop, and kids of all ages have loved it. It’s available at this website: http://www.worsethanpoop.com/ If you’re as busy as I imagine you are, you’ll enjoy taking a moment to watch something light‐hearted (even though it’s got a few facts in there). And please spread the word about this! Thanks very much, David Page 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <Central.Valley@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 10:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail Authority Construction Update for February 2019 To view this email as a web page, go here. Girders Going Up in CP 2-3 Girders hoisted into the sky in Kings County as part of Construction Package 2-3. You can read more about the work underway at Kent Avenue in the February 2019 Construction Update. 2 Construction Update Arch Construction Begins At the San Joaquin River Viaduct, foundations have been poured for a cast-in-place concrete arch that will act as the high-speed rail “gateway to Fresno County.” CHECK IT OUT Fresno Trench & SR 180 Passageway A little north of downtown Fresno, workers are nearing completion of the excavation for the high-speed rail crossing under State Route 180. Continue Reading Road 27 Grade Separation Crews continue building the structures (called diaphragms) that will connect the girders to one another along the sides at the Road 27 Grade Separation in Madera County Continue Reading 3 Looking Forward to 2019 Looking ahead to 2019, construction will continue in the Central Valley. See what else we're doing in this new video. LATEST VIDEOS Road Closure Alerts Faces of HSR HSR.ca.gov TONI TINOCO California High-Speed Rail (559) 274-8975 Toni.Tinoco@hsr.ca.gov DAN GALVIN California High-Speed Rail (559) 490-6863 Dan.Galvin@hsr.ca.gov CENTRAL.VALLEY@HSR.CA.GOV | BUILDHSR.COM This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe Can't see the images? View As Webpage Northern California Regional Update The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) continues its commitment to conduct public outreach. Here are a few updates this month. Statewide Update From:California High-Speed Rail To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail: Northern California Regional Newsletter January 2019 Date:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:59:01 PM To view this email as a web page, go here. Happy new year! 2018 was a year full of progress for the high-speed railprogram, and we’re excited to keep that momentum going into 2019. Construction continues to move forward on 119 miles in the Central Valley,and we continue to advance through the environmental process in Northern and Southern California. Through our ongoing work with our regional partners, and our ongoingsuccess in putting Californians and small businesses to work, 2019 will bringhigh-speed rail even closer to becoming a reality in our state. Check out the latest video to see why we’re Looking Forward to 2019. HSR and Partner Agencies Relocate Housing Facility The City of Wasco opened Rosaleda Village this month. It’s a new housing complex for residents who previously lived near the future high-speed railalignment though the region. The relocation is a win-win for both the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and the residents. The move to the new 17-acre complex located on the south side of Gromer Avenue features more than 200 units and gives the relocatedresidents easier access to schools, shopping centers and other activities and resources. The Authority allocated $10-million to the WascoFarmworkers Housing Relocation Project as an alternative to building a sound barrier wall to mitigate noise impacts to the previous housing facility located east of the railroad line on 6th and J Street. The moneyalso helped to leverage several other existing resources and programs to improve living conditions for the residents. Construction is underway for the first 119-miles of high-speed rail in theCentral Valley, creating more than 2,500 labor jobs and putting hundredsof small businesses to work. Click to Read More Planning for the Future of Diridon Station Diridon Station Concept Planning Moves Forward; Google Joins the Ride Together with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain,and the City of San Jose, the Authority continues to advance the development of a concept plan for the upgrade and expansion of San Jose’s Diridon Station.The existing Diridon Station will be expanding with the addition of high-speed rail and BART service to electrified Caltrain, existing Amtrak, Capital Corridor,Altamont Commuter Express, and local and regional bus service at the facility.With all of these transportation systems coming together in one place, San Jose’s Diridon Station will be the biggest transit hub west of the MississippiRiver. In December, the San Jose City Council approved a Memorandum ofUnderstanding along with land sale agreements with Google for the company’s future development in the station area. The development review processbegins in 2019 and will last at least two years. Multi-agency civic engagement, in which the Authority will participate, will continue throughout this period. Together, the concept plan for the station itself and the development plansaround it will be critical to determining the future of this transportation hub and the surrounding neighborhood. The Partner Agencies (VTA, Caltrain, San Jose, and the Authority) are conducting community outreach for the development of the concept plan. Thegoal of the outreach is to gather input on the community’s aspirations, issues, and ideas for Diridon Station and how the station can be integrated into the surrounding area. Additionally, the City of San Jose conducted extensivecommunity engagement in 2018 related to the potential sale of land forGoogle to build a master-planned, mixed-use development in the station area. UPCOMING PUBLIC OUTREACH The planning and construction of California’s high-speed rail project, like all major infrastructure projects that intersect cities and counties, requires closecollaboration with the public as well as local and regional transportation andnatural resource agencies. In 2019, the Authority will continue to honor its commitment to engage our Northern California stakeholders as we move forward in analyzing alignment alternatives in the Northern California sections February 2019 Public Meetings Community Working Group – Hosted by HSR February 21, 2019 6:00 – 8:30 p.m.San Jose TBDLocal Policy Maker Group – hosted by Caltrain February 28, 2019 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Caltrain Headquarters 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA Community Working Group – hosted by HSR March 5, 2019 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Location TBD Please be sure check the Community Meetings section of the California High-SpeedRail Authority website for updates and most current information. If you are interested in inviting us to your community meeting to receive a project update, our team would be happy to coordinate with you. Feel free to contact us here: Via Email:san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.govsan.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov Via Phone: San Francisco to San Jose Project Section: (800) 435-8670 San Jose to Merced Project Section: (800) 455-8166 Via Mail: Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 Sincerely, Boris LipkinNorthern California Regional Director SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 northern.california@hsr.ca.gov (408) 277-1083 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:Adina Levin <adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com> Sent:Sunday, February 3, 2019 8:50 PM To:Lydia Kou; Adrian Fine; Shikada, Ed Subject:Caltrain business plan - opportunities and infrastructure Hello, Council Members Kou and Fine, As Palo Alto's representative on Caltrain's local policymaker working group and Rail Committee chair, you have likely seen information about the potential for ridership and service increases enabled by electrification over time. Using information from the agency's reports, here is an update on how the future scenarios may relate to Palo Alto. Caltrain’s business plan studies reveal exciting forecasts that Caltrain could increase ridership to nearly a quarter of a million average daily trips, depending on the service schedule it runs and the infrastructure it adds to support higher levels of ridership. If Caltrain provides service to meet pent-up demand, ridership would increase from ~70,000 today, when Caltrain already carries the equivalent of nearly 3 freeway lanes. The increase would be the equivalent of double-decking the 101 freeway. Caltrain has been analyzing and reporting on what the future growth scenarios would look like in terms of service levels, and the amount of passing infrastructure that would be needed to deliver the service with a high-quality, clock-face schedule where trains arrive at regular intervals (unlike the confusing irregular schedule today.) The “Baseline” scenarios studied in the Caltrain and High Speed Rail environmental reviews assumed a schedule with up to 6 Caltrain trains per direction per hour (tph), with up to 4 High Speed trains. The “Moderate growth” scenario could double this, to 12 trains per direction per hour – a train every 5 minutes at the busiest stations. The “High Growth” scenario would increase frequency to 16 trains per direction per hour – a train less than every 4 minutes (the same as BART’s frequency in the core between Daly City and West Oakland). The “Moderate Growth” scenario would require about 4 additional miles of passing infrastructure over today’s system, and the “High Growth” scenario would require 11 more miles of passing track. The passing tracks would help not only with service level and capacity, but also would improve the quality of the service. Without additional passing infrastructure, the studies showed that the Caltrain schedule would be affected by “bunching”. For example, without passing infrastructure, Downtown San Mateo would see 4 tph (trains per direction per hour) – but two trains would arrive over a span of <10 minutes, then there would be a >20 minute gap in service while high speed trains travel through the corridor. Also, with passing tracks, service could be designed to avoid the “you can’t get there from here” challenges with the skip‐stop pattern. Palo Alto In the Moderate growth scenario, requiring passing tracks, which could be near Cal Ave or probably more logically at the University Caltrain station, allows Caltrain to increase service from the 6 tph baseline to 8 tph downtown - service every 7.5 minutes. The high growth scenario, requiring passing tracks extending further south, would allow service to increase to 12tph - every 5 minutes - downtown. The Cal Ave station would see 15-minute service in the Moderate and High Growth scenarios, which would do a better job at supporting mixed use/housing being considered for the Fry’s area, and possibly for the Stanford Research Park area, for which Cal Ave the closest station. Palo Alto is wrestling with decisions about its at-grade crossings and the need for solutions for Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill, Meadow and Charleston. Because the State Rail Plan has called out capacity and grade separations on the corridor as a high priority for the state, it is logical that the decision to add passing infrastructure would help significantly in bringing in state funding for the grade separations. 2 Station Baseline Moderate High Growth Palo Alto 6tph 8tph 12tph Cal Ave 2tph 4tph 4tph Plans for electric service schedule in 2022 The “Baseline” scenario ‐ with initial electrification ‐ assumed a “skip stop” pattern that poses some challenges in traveling between non‐major stations.The prototypical “skip stop” schedule studied for initial electrification is not a real schedule that Caltrain plans to deliver. After the board decides on its long‐term service vision as part of the Business Plan, Caltrain will assess schedule options for initial electric service, and potential roadmaps to expand service from a 2022 starting point to the future scenarios. Then, before electric service starts in 2022, there will be a public process to discuss and review the service options for initial electric service. Summary Here is the full blog post showing how a Caltrain system with much higher ridership would work city by city– how much extra service is likely to be provided, and what passing tracks would be needed to deliver that service? http://www.greencaltrain.com/2019/01/city-by-city-what-the-future-might-hold-with-caltrain-electric-service- growth-and-infrastructure/ The scenarios offer the potential for greatly increased service that would help support expected increase in transit demand in the Downtown and Cal Ave areas. Given these potential major changes, might Palo Alto interested in a City Council study session or public workshop? This Spring, the Caltrain board is expected to make important decisions about strategic direction that will effect Palo Alto and the whole region. Palo Alto's voice will be heard on the Local Policymaker Working Group. Will Palo Alto want to express a more direct opinion? Thank you for your consideration, ‐ Adina Adina Levin Friends of Caltrain http://greencaltrain.com 650‐646‐4344 1 Carnahan, David From:Respicio, Maryknol <mrespicio@rutan.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1:50 PM To:ed.shiraka@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Stump, Molly; Council, City; so.website@sheriff.sccgov.org; Lanferman, David; Roy, Alyssa Subject:Correspondence from the Office of the City Manager of Palo Alto dated 1/29/19 Re: "Potential Tenant Eviction Actions" at President Hotel, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto Attachments:2019 0130 Letter to Ed Shikada.pdf Please see attached letter from Dave Lanferman. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you. Maryknol Respicio Assistant to David P. Lanferman and Alyssa Roy Rutan & Tucker, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Ste. 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 320-1500 x7723 mrespicio@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN _____________________________________________________ Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510‐2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. RUTAN RUTAN & TUCKER. LLP VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ed Shikada City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton A venue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org David P. Lanferman Direct Dial: (650) 320-15D7 E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com Re: Correspondence from the Office of the City Manager of Palo Alto dated . January 29, 2019 n~garding "Potential Tenant Eviction Actions" at President Hotel, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Shikada: We are in receipt of your very unusual letter dated January 29, 2019, to Sheriff Smith and to our client, AI Capital Management, LLC ("AJ Capital") regarding potential legal actions for possession of residential premises at the President Hotel in Palo Alto. As you and the members of the Palo Alto City Council are well aware, AJ Capital has gone to extraordinary lengths to work with the residents of the President Hotel over the past months, to assist with relocation, and to acconm1odate many requests by .the residents to extend their occupancies so as to reduce inconvenience and mini111ize the need to eventually consider formal court eviction proceedings. We would like to take this opportunity to address a couple aspects of your letter which are inaccurate. First, the reference to Palo Alto 's Rental Housing Stabilization Ordinance in your letter is misplaced and not relevant to this situation. The requirement to offer a one-year lease contained in PAMC section 9.68.030, and associated provisions, does not apply in the context of the closure of the President Hotel Apartments. The subject property is being removed from the residential housing market in its entirety. A.ny application or interpretation of PAMC section 9.68.030 to require a new property owner i~tending to go out of the business of being a landlord-a right protected by State law-to instead become or remain a landlord for one year would be in violation of and preempted by controlling State law, specifically the Ellis Act (Government Code sections 7060 et seq.), which occupies the field in rhis area. (See, Small Property Owners of San Francisco In stitute v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 77.) Accordingly, the reference in your letter to the decision in Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 335 is not instructive, much less controlling, here. The Court of Appeal in that case did not have occasion to address or rule upon; preemption under the Ellis Act-as the prope1iy owner in that case was not seeking to exit the residential rental business. Thus, the implication in yo ur letter Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.320.1 500 I Fax 650.320.9905 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 2644/034460-0002 13348353.2 aOl/30/19 1 Carnahan, David From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, February 3, 2019 12:51 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:from Winter Dellenbach - RE Route 22 bus service on El Camino Hello Ed ‐ I hope you know about this and the City is strongly urging VTA to not cut services of Route 22 as it proposes, below and to contact Supervisor Joe Simitian to as him to weigh in on our behalf. Below is an email that expresses my thoughts that I have sent to several organizations in town who are vocal housing advocates and to Palo Alto Housing to alert them of this proposal and urge them to respond immediately. What will Palo Alto be doing to retain full 24 hour Route 22 service, Ed? Thank you, Winter Dellenbach Barron Park This Wednesday night, the 6th, at the MV Senior Center in the Crafts Room at 6PM, 266 Escuela Ave, the VTA is holding a meeting to take community input on its proposal to reduce bus service at night on El Camino's Route 22 (below) It would stop the so called Hotel 22 line that so many homeless sleep on that was made famous in Elizabeth Lo's short film (see you tube). This is important bus service, not just for the homeless, but for night workers and others who use it for basic transportation. Once lost, bus service is hard to gain back. Proposal: Staff proposes ending 24-hour service on Route 22 on El Camino Real to Eastridge. In the draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan, service on Route 22 would start around 4:00 a.m. and end around 1:00 a.m. This service will become more important as more and more housing in Palo Alto, MV, and Sunnyvale comes on line on El Camino that was approved in part because the bus ran there. In these towns, there exist or will be soon entire BMR developments such as Wilton here in Palo Alto where onsite parking has been reduced so more people will supposedly take the bus and other transport (they will have free bus passes at Wilton). Some people work at night, including some at Buena Vista, and this proposal is just so counter to what is needed. If affordable housing and homeless advocates ask for housing on El Camino, then there is a need to speak up now for continued bus service, not letting VTA cut it. The systems must be in place to make El Camino housing work for residents in the housing. After all, we passed County Measure B ‐ the transportation tax on ourselves that included VTA services to North County. We want those tax dollars to continue working for us. I hope you will be there at the senior center this Wednesday night to speak up for continued 24 hour service on Route 22. 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 8:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: 2019 Draft New Transit Service Plan Community Engagement Underway - Please Share! Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Baltao, Elaine <Elaine.Baltao@vta.org> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 3:26 PM To: Baltao, Elaine <Elaine.Baltao@vta.org> Cc: Childress, Brandi <Brandi.Childress@vta.org> Subject: 2019 Draft New Transit Service Plan Community Engagement Underway ‐ Please Share! Dear City Clerks/Clerk of the Board, Please send forward the message below to your City Council Members/Board of Supervisors so they may share information about VTA’s 2019 Draft New Transit Service Plan with their constituents. Thank you. Have a good weekend, Elaine Baltao Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-7578 Mobile 408-464-7740 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ City Council Members: 2 Community engagement is well underway on VTA’s 2019 Draft New Transit Service Plan with multiple public meetings and targeted outreach planned thru the end of February. VTA hosted two public meetings this past week in Santa Clara and Alum Rock, both of which were lightly attended (approx. 25 participants each). More meetings are planned and VTA staff will be reaching out to many more stakeholders. VTA would appreciate any amplification you can give this effort by placing information in your newsletters, emails or providing links to your webpages. Information can be found at http://newtransitplan.vta.org/. A public comment form has been created to capture all the great community feedback at http://newtransitplan.vta.org/comment. And of course the Planning and Community Engagement teams are ready to meet with anyone who will have us by emailing community.outreach@vta.org or calling (408) 321‐7575. List of upcoming meetings: Monday, February 4 @ 7pm Cambrian Library Conference Room 1780 Hillsdale Avenue, San Jose Tuesday, February 5 @ 6pm Campbell Community Center Activity Room 1 W Campbell Ave C‐31, Campbell Wednesday, February 6 @ 6pm Mountain View Senior Center Arts & Crafts Room 266 Escuela Ave, Mountain View Monday, February 11 @ 7pm Almaden Valley Community Association South Hills Campus of the West Gate Church 6601 Camden Avenue, San Jose Tuesday, February 19 @ 11am San Jose State University, MLK Library Room 255 150 E San Fernando St, San Jose For questions, please contact Brandi Childress, Media & Public Affairs Manager, at (408)952‐4297. Thank you. Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 board.secretary@vta.org 3 Conserve paper. Think before you print. 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 8:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Notice of Vacancy on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Attachments:SFBRA Notice of Vacancy Bayside Cities Park District 20190131.pdf Thanks and have a great day. B‐ Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329‐2379 From: Fred Castro <fcastro@bayareametro.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 3:32 PM Subject: Notice of Vacancy on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority January 31, 2019 Bayside City or County: Supervisors Mayors Councilmembers City and Town Clerks Clerks of Boards of Supervisors Notice of Vacancy on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority A Bayside City or County/Park or Open‐Space District seat on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is vacant and will be filled following a nomination process. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional government entity created in 2008 with jurisdiction extending throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Its mission is to raise and allocate funds for the restoration, enhancement, protection and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. In June of 2016, Bay Area voters approved a regional parcel tax expected to generate $25 million per year for 20 years for this purpose. More information about the Restoration Authority is available at http://sfbayrestore.org/ 2 The Governing Board of the Restoration Authority consists of seven members appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The open seat is available to an elected official from a) a bayside city or county, or b) a regional park district, regional open‐space district, or regional park district that owns or operates one or more San Francisco Bay shoreline parcels. ABAG is interested in appointing someone who: Has a demonstrated interest in the restoration and conservation of San Francisco Bay; Is willing to make funding decisions that are in the best interest of the Bay Area region as a whole; Will work collegially with elected officials from outside their own jurisdiction; and Has the time and interest to be an active member of the Governing Board and who can regularly attend board meetings as well as take on occasional tasks requiring work between board meetings. The appointment will be for the unexpired current term which ends on April 21, 2021. If you would like to be considered for appointment, please prepare a letter of interest addressed to ABAG President David Rabbitt, Association of Bay Area Governments, 375 Beale Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, California 94105. Letters can be emailed to Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, fcastro@bayareametro.gov. Include a statement about your interest in serving on the Governing Board, a description of your experience with wetlands restoration, and your experience working at a regional level or other related collaborative efforts. Following a review of letters of interests, individuals may be invited to interview with a selection panel and/or the ABAG President. The appointment of the ABAG President will be ratified by the ABAG Executive Board. Please submit your letter of interest by February 21, 2019. For information, contact Karen McDowell, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority/San Francisco Estuary Partnership at (415) 778‐6685. Fred Castro Clerk of the Board Association of Bay Area Governments fcastro@bayareametro.gov BAY AREA METRO | BayAreaMetro.gov Association of Bay Area Governments Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 820‐7913 A SSOCIATION OF B AY A REA G OVERNMENTS Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area Notice of Vacancy on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority A Bayside City or County/Park or Open-Space District seat on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is vacant and will be filled following a nomination process. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional government entity created in 2008 with jurisdiction extending throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Its mission is to raise and allocate funds for the restoration, enhancement, protection and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. In June of 2016, Bay Area voters approved a regional parcel tax expected to generate $25 million per year for 20 years for this purpose. More information about the Restoration Authority is available at http://sfbayrestore.org/ The Governing Board of the Restoration Authority consists of seven members appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The open seat is available to an elected official from a) a bayside city or county, or b) a regional park district, regional open-space district, or regional park district that owns or operates one or more San Francisco Bay shoreline parcels. ABAG is interested in appointing someone who: Has a demonstrated interest in the restoration and conservation of San Francisco Bay; Is willing to make funding decisions that are in the best interest of the Bay Area region as a whole; Will work collegially with elected officials from outside their own jurisdiction; and Has the time and interest to be an active member of the Governing Board and who can regularly attend board meetings as well as take on occasional tasks requiring work between board meetings. The appointment will be for the unexpired current term which ends on April 21, 2021. If you would like to be considered for appointment, please prepare a letter of interest addressed to ABAG President David Rabbitt, Association of Bay Area Governments, 375 Beale Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, California 94105. Letters can be emailed to Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, fcastro@bayareametro.gov. Include a statement about your interest in serving on the Governing Board, a description of your experience with wetlands restoration, and your experience working at a regional level or other related collaborative efforts. Following a review of letters of interests, individuals may be invited to interview with a selection panel and/or the ABAG President. The appointment of the ABAG President will be ratified by the ABAG Executive Board. Please submit your letter of interest by February 21, 2019. For information, contact Karen McDowell, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority/San Francisco Estuary Partnership at (415) 778-6685. 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 6:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Stop Cell Tower Placements From: Robert Lum [mailto:outrageouslums@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 3:51 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Clerk, City Cc: Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject: Stop Cell Tower Placements As long‐time residents of Palo Alto and homeowners adjacent to the site we are strongly opposed to the PCE director’s decision to unilaterally disregard the ARB’s decision to not allow these unsightly, hazardous, and financially irresponsible towers to be installed throughout the city. Reconsider the INTERIM Planning Directors outrageous disregard fro residents rights and the ARB and stop the placement of any new nodes in Pal oAlto. As the elected Palo Alto City Council, overturn the interim Planning Directors decision and stop the placement of new nodes. We need the Palo Alto City Council to reconsider the design and placement of ANY new nodes and any redesign should abide be the ARBs recommendations. We are appealing the PCE’s decision and do NOT want a tower on CPAU Pole #0238. Tier 3 WCF Node 154, CPAU Pole #0238, this pole is located at the intersection of Barron Ave and Josina with traffic flowing through from El Centro. This is a highly traveled street for school drop‐off and pick‐up so it is visually obtrusive. We already have a cell tower on Barron Avenue near La Donna, and with existing overhead power/phone lines and other “boxes” on the poles, adding more overhead equipment will make this area even more ugly impacting property value and the beauty of the neighborhood. Additionally, there is a legacy tree on the front lawn of 785 Barron and the proposed location of Node 154 would interfere with the tree’s flowing branches. Sincerely, Anne and Robert Lum 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:19 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC Subject:ideas for those every-meeting items about FTTP and FTTN Commissioners, At your 01-09-19 meeting, you decided that it would be a good idea for staff to include on each UAC agenda going forward (until you say otherwise) an item about "fiber." (See this transcript, at page 29 -- 1:46:39 on the video.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68777 (Similar to the items that were included on each UAC agenda from 05-07-14 to 08-31-16 about the drought in California.) Let's call these items "every-meeting items." On the agenda for your 02-06-19 meeting, Item IX.5 is "Staff Update and Discussion of Fiber and AMI Planning." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68793 It would have been better if it had been only about "fiber," as requested. If you agree, please request that future every- meeting items be so designated. The item is agendized as a "Discussion" item. I would like to have seen it agendized as an Action item, so that UAC could have given Council advice by voting on something if it wanted to. (Of course, UAC doesn't have to vote on an Action item if it doesn't want to.) If you agree, please request that future every-meeting items be agendized as Action items. The item has no clickable link to a staff report. I would like to have seen a staff report, with topics to be discussed, and a copy of the presentation slides. (One problem with the every-meeting items about the drought was that the presentation slides were never posted anywhere, so the public couldn't go back and refer to them.) If you agree, please request future every-meeting items provide this information. --- Here are some ideas about what these every-meeting items might cover. * Can each every-meeting item report how much is in the Fiber Fund? The most recent Utilities Quarterly Update (for 4Q18, dated 12-05-18) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67939 says that the Fiber Fund has $26,040,000, as of the end of FY 2018 (i.e., 06-30-18). But that was more than six months ago. At the 01-17-19 CAC meeting, staff said the Fiber Fund had $28 million. (They apparently weren't reporting in fractions of millions of dollars.) * When FTTP is deployed, it will need to be connected to the City's billing system. As you know, part of the AMI project is figuring out how it will connect with the City's billing system. The billing system is currently being upgraded. Is anyone responsible for making sure the needs of FTTP are being accommodated? (This is sort of analogous to "dig-once," where updating the billing system corresponds to digging up the street.) * Can there be a presentation and discussion about what the City's policy is regarding replacing utility poles? The 09-28- 15 staff report on FTTP https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 said (PDF pages 68-69) that 659 of the City's 5,931 utility poles were "likely" too short to accommodate City fiber. As I understand it, about two years ago, the City adopted a policy that whenever a pole has to be replaced (e.g., because it has reached end-of-life) the replacement pole WILL be tall enough to accommodate City fiber. (Is my understanding correct?) (It would have been even better if the City had thought of adopting this policy decades earlier.) Is it also the City's policy that whenever a pole has to be replaced, space for City fiber is reserved on the new pole, so that make-ready work doesn't have to be done later? How is this policy working out? In the last two years, how many utility poles have been replaced? Of those, how many were too short and/or required make-ready work to accommodate City fiber? And 2 how many are still either too short or still require make-ready work? Incidentally, if the City had a detailed engineering design for how FTTP would be deployed citywide, should the policy be modified to apply only to poles that the engineering design said would actually be used for FTTP? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 3, 2019 4:28 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC Subject:LAST-MINUTE idea for those every-meeting items about FTTP and FTTN Commissioners, In addition to the suggestions I sent you on 01-31-19 (see below) about how to use the "every-meeting" items about FTTP and FTTN, please consider the following: * Your last joint study session with Council was 11-27-17. To review what I hoped would happen then, please see my message of 11-25-17 -- pages 2-4 here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62409 To review what I thought did happen then, please see my message of 12-04-17 -- pages 152-170 here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61020 Anyhow, these joint study sessions are supposed to be annual. What can UAC do to make this happen? You could ask staff to report at each "every-meeting" item how long it's been since the last joint study session. And/or you could ask staff to provide this information on its 12-month rolling calendar series. The 12-month rolling calendar for February 2019 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68774 doesn't say anything about the next joint study session with Council, not even as a "to be scheduled" in the indefinite future item. (The rolling calendar should say when the last one was.) Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> To: UAC <uac@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; CAC-TACC <cac- tacc@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:18 PM Subject: ideas for those every-meeting items about FTTP and FTTN Commissioners, At your 01-09-19 meeting, you decided that it would be a good idea for staff to include on each UAC agenda going forward (until you say otherwise) an item about "fiber." (See this transcript, at page 29 -- 1:46:39 on the video.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68777 (Similar to the items that were included on each UAC agenda from 05-07-14 to 08-31-16 about the drought in California.) Let's call these items "every-meeting items." On the agenda for your 02-06-19 meeting, Item IX.5 is "Staff Update and Discussion of Fiber and AMI Planning." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68793 2 It would have been better if it had been only about "fiber," as requested. If you agree, please request that future every- meeting items be so designated. The item is agendized as a "Discussion" item. I would like to have seen it agendized as an Action item, so that UAC could have given Council advice by voting on something if it wanted to. (Of course, UAC doesn't have to vote on an Action item if it doesn't want to.) If you agree, please request that future every-meeting items be agendized as Action items. The item has no clickable link to a staff report. I would like to have seen a staff report, with topics to be discussed, and a copy of the presentation slides. (One problem with the every-meeting items about the drought was that the presentation slides were never posted anywhere, so the public couldn't go back and refer to them.) If you agree, please request future every-meeting items provide this information. --- Here are some ideas about what these every-meeting items might cover. * Can each every-meeting item report how much is in the Fiber Fund? The most recent Utilities Quarterly Update (for 4Q18, dated 12-05-18) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67939 says that the Fiber Fund has $26,040,000, as of the end of FY 2018 (i.e., 06-30-18). But that was more than six months ago. At the 01-17-19 CAC meeting, staff said the Fiber Fund had $28 million. (They apparently weren't reporting in fractions of millions of dollars.) * When FTTP is deployed, it will need to be connected to the City's billing system. As you know, part of the AMI project is figuring out how it will connect with the City's billing system. The billing system is currently being upgraded. Is anyone responsible for making sure the needs of FTTP are being accommodated? (This is sort of analogous to "dig-once," where updating the billing system corresponds to digging up the street.) * Can there be a presentation and discussion about what the City's policy is regarding replacing utility poles? The 09-28- 15 staff report on FTTP https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 said (PDF pages 68-69) that 659 of the City's 5,931 utility poles were "likely" too short to accommodate City fiber. As I understand it, about two years ago, the City adopted a policy that whenever a pole has to be replaced (e.g., because it has reached end-of-life) the replacement pole WILL be tall enough to accommodate City fiber. (Is my understanding correct?) (It would have been even better if the City had thought of adopting this policy decades earlier.) Is it also the City's policy that whenever a pole has to be replaced, space for City fiber is reserved on the new pole, so that make-ready work doesn't have to be done later? How is this policy working out? In the last two years, how many utility poles have been replaced? Of those, how many were too short and/or required make-ready work to accommodate City fiber? And how many are still either too short or still require make-ready work? Incidentally, if the City had a detailed engineering design for how FTTP would be deployed citywide, should the policy be modified to apply only to poles that the engineering design said would actually be used for FTTP? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- 1 Carnahan, David From:David Smernoff <david@grassrootsecology.org> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 11:13 AM To:Council, City Cc:editor@paweekly.com Subject:Local Green New Deal Dear Council Members and Staff ‐ I read with interest the Guest Opinion by David Coale in the 1/25/19 edition of the Palo Alto Weekly. In short, I fully concur with Mr. Coale’s analysis and conclusions. Specifically I believe it is important for Palo Alto to continue and extend it’s leadership in aggressively decarbonizing our local economy and infrastructure. We should be leading California, the Nation and the World in eliminating dependence on fossil fuels for transportation, heating and cooling and electrical demand. For far too long we’ve coddled the car by subsidizing roads, parking, and fossil fuel extraction and use. Let’s end the subsidies that we can control, like parking garages. Let’s invest that money in more robust active transportation infrastructure, EV charging and all the various rideshare and public transit options. We can also accelerate progress in reducing natural gas use by requiring all new buildings to be fully electric. Not only does this reduce our carbon footprint but will drive appliance innovation and encourage others to follow suit. Please adopt climate change as one of your top priorities for the coming year and help Palo Alto, Silicon Valley, our Nation, and the global community press forward with the substantial decarbonization required to secure a meaningful future for life on Earth. Respectfully yours, David Smernoff, Ph.D. 112 Foxwood Road Portola Valley, CA 94028‐8113 1 Carnahan, David From:Rainer Pitthan <Rainer@Pitthan.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:04 PM To:Doria Summa; Council, City Subject:Meetings Agendas The Agenda is not available easily. Why? The meeting is not available at this time, please check back later Go back to the page you were on. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting 1/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 -- mailto:rainer@pitthan.com ---this is not a US Government supported domain, true and nasty political comments are given and are welcome--- https://stanford.io/2Mqa8mJ (650)327-9497 157 S. California Ave., #H-100 Palo Alto CA 94306 USA Cell Rainer: (650)380-4823 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 6:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:NO to the proposed Waiver! The Low‐Income Housing Committee of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Peninsula Branch, overwhelmingly opposes the proposed waiver process, ( addressed at the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday), a waiver that only favors owners or developers and which is very undemocratic. It would place tenants in jeopardy with no due process or protection. DO NOT SUPPORT this EXTREMELY unfair waiver. We must have tenant rights protections! Make it possible for the President Hotel to offer 78 or more units of Below Market or low‐rent HOUSING! WE ARE LOSING BMR HOUSING EACH MONTH. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF 1 Carnahan, David From:PaloAlto YouthCouncil <officialpayc@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 5, 2019 6:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Youth Council Survey Request for Input Hi Everyone, We are the Palo Alto Youth Council. As you may remember from our Study Session in August, we are a youth‐led council that focuses on addressing relevant teen issues. This year, we thought we would send out another survey to better understand teen life in our community. We understand that the city would like to receive more feedback from the youth, so we shared a draft of our survey and we welcome your input by Feb 12 (next Tues). Here is the link for the survey: Palo Alto Youth Council Teen Survey We designed the survey to be short and simple in order to encourage more youth participation. Councilmember Lydia Kou has mentioned to us that the city is interested in the teen vaping issue. We did not explicitly address that in the issue because we do not feel like students would answer honestly (similar surveys have been conducted before). The Youth Council has another subcommittee brainstorming projects that would target education around the effects of vaping. We would be happy to update you on progress for both endeavors. We hope to hear from you soon! Sincerely, Palo Alto Youth Council 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC Subject:Palo Alto's member self-description for Next Century Cities Council members, Palo Alto is a member of Next Century Cities (NCC). https://nextcenturycities.org/ NCC says: https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/Next-Century-Cities-Two-Pager.pdf "Next Century Cities supports mayors and community leaders across the country as they seek to ensure that everyone has fast, affordable, and reliable internet access." NCC provides a place for each member to describe itself. Palo Alto's self-description is here: https://nextcenturycities.org/member/palo-alto-ca/ Since the self-description says who the mayor is, and there's now a new mayor, the description should be updated. Please see (below the "######" line) the existing self-description, with my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###"). Please also see (below the "======" line) an example of what the self-description might look like. Thanks. Jeff -------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------- ############################################################################ https://nextcenturycities.org/member/palo-alto-ca/ Palo Alto, CA Mayor Liz Kniss ### As of 01-07-19, the mayor is Eric Filseth. On Palo Alto “Palo Alto is a unique hub for technological innovation and is widely known as a premier startup center. Many tech giants got their start in Palo Alto – Facebook, Google, and Hewlett Packard, to name a few. In the 1990s, the City of Palo Alto made an investment in fiber-optics, which has proven to be a significant factor in the City’s economic growth and health.” ### I suppose this means economic health, not health in general. On Next Century Cities “The City’s principles and Next Century Cities’ principles for broadband expansion are closely aligned, 2 ### NCC's principles are general enough that they could align with practically anything, https://nextcenturycities.org/about/overview/ but they do say connections should be affordable. I don't know that Palo Alto's principles are written down anywhere. and focus on the importance of leveraging gigabit-speed Internet ### Before Palo Alto can leverage gigabit-speed internet, it has to get gigabit-speed internet. Well, OK, I guess one can focus on the importance of something one doesn't yet have. ### Does "gigabit-speed" internet mean speeds of at least 1 Gbps for both downloads and uploads? (Comcast claims to have "up to" gigabit-speed downloads, although when the network is congested, you get less.) ### Customers of the City's dark fiber network must provide their own electronics. Speed is limited only by the electronics. Speeds exceeding 1 Tbps are possible. But dark fiber connections are relatively expensive. It could cost many thousands of dollars up-front to be connected, plus many hundreds of dollars per month. See this pricing information. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1508 Most residences and many small businesses wouldn't like to pay this much. to attract new businesses and create jobs, improve health care and education, and connect residents to new opportunities.” What Palo Alto is working on In the mid-1990s, the City planned and built the first phase of a dark optical fiber backbone ring (“network”) that passes several commercial zones (e.g. downtown and the Stanford Research Park) and key City facilities. Through incremental expansions, primarily in commercial zones, the network is now 49 route miles. The network supports the communication needs at multiple City facilities, in addition to supporting critical municipal services and infrastructure, including electric, gas, water and wastewater utility services provided by City of Palo Alto Utilities and command and control of the City’s traffic signal system. The network also supports the provisioning of Wi-Fi services at most City facilities for staff and guest use. The City licenses “dark fiber” to more than 100 commercial customers ### The 4Q18 Utilities Quarterly Update (12-05-18) says there are 93 commercial accounts. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67939 The 2Q18 Utilities Quarterly Update (04-12-18) says there were 108. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64481 and the Palo Alto Unified School District (17 schools and the district’s business office). The City does not provide “lit” or “managed” telecommunication services. In 2016, the City initiated a network rebuild project that will install new aerial duct or substructure (conduit and boxes), in addition to fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the network that are at or near capacity. This project will allow the City to meet future customer requests for services. The project areas primarily cover the Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto Internet Exchange/Equinix and downtown areas. This project basically “overlays” new fiber over existing fiber routes in the network. Existing fiber will continue to serve City facilities and commercial dark fiber customers. ### This paragraph is still entirely about the dark fiber network. The City has evaluated various business models to expand the network for citywide use. In 2015, with the escalating interest in municipal gigabit-speed broadband networks, the City developed a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan to guide future investment in its fiber optic asset. ### The 09-28-15 report said, in effect, that FTTP was infeasible. The City should have figured out why the report was wrong. Instead, it lowered its sights. The City is currently planning to develop a business case for a municipal-provided Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) network for fiber and broadband expansion. ### The world thinks fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) means fiber to nodes and then copper to premises (which is a bad idea, 3 but at least it makes connections to premises). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x But what staff means is fiber to nodes and then NOTHING to premises. In effect, the City is lying to the people who are likely to read this NCC member's blurb. The City plans to retain a management consultant to develop the business case, funding plans, identification of potential private partners and/or Internet service providers, and preparation of a high-level network design. Based on the findings and recommendations in the business case, the City will retain an engineering firm to design a FTTN network with an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises network. ### Staff now says (in this 01-09-19 staff report) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68314 that RFP #171422 https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/RFP-171422-FTTN-B1.pdf asked for the wrong thing. Staff now wants to abandon this RFP and do a new RFP. I think we should abandon the FTTN concept, do a detailed engineering design of a citywide municipal FTTP network, so we can estimate costs accurately, and then decide which pieces of this network we should build first. ==================================================================== Palo Alto, CA Mayor Eric Filseth On Palo Alto "Palo Alto is famous for its technological innovation. It's also famous for its municipal electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities. So we have considerable experience with deploying infrastructure for utilities. And providing utilities. And billing for utilities. And, as a community, we have no problem with the idea that city governments should be in the business of providing utilities. The Equinix data center (formerly the Palo Alto Internet Exchange -- PAIX) in downtown Palo Alto offers a world-class internet connection to the world. We even have a dark fiber network (49 route miles) with more than 90 customers and more than 190 active connections. Over the years, it's amassed a Fiber Fund of $28 million, which could be spent on fiber-related projects. But, somehow, we have struggled over the last two decades in the quest to achieve citywide municipal fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP). Our strengths are sometimes our weaknesses. More businesses want to come to Palo Alto than physical space permits, so attracting them with citywide municipal FTTP has not been a priority. All of our schools are already dark fiber customers, so they're not potential future anchor customers of FTTP. The incumbents' internet services are better here than they are in lots of other communities, so it's a little harder to make the case that they're not good enough. (But they're not good enough.) On Next Century Cities "In Palo Alto, we haven't written down our principles about FTTP, so we haven't gone through the exercise of seeing how they compare with NCC's principles. When NCC says high-speed internet is necessary infrastructure, do we think that means we don't have to do provide citywide municipal FTTP because the incumbents will provide 5G? Or Google might provide whatever? Or Comcast will provide its so-called 1-Gbps service, which will be good enough? When NCC says connections should be affordable, do we think that Comcast's prices are affordable? Or that our own dark fiber connections are affordable? (Surely not for most people.) When NCC says meaningful competition drives progress, does it mean that municipalities like Palo Alto should facilitate this meaningful competition? Or possibly even BE the meaningful competition?" What Palo Alto is working on Palo Alto is in the midst of upgrading its dark fiber network, especially near Equinix, since most dark fiber customers want to get there. But this upgrade won't really make dark fiber connections significantly less expensive. Palo Alto is trying to study whether to deploy more fiber infrastructure to more nodes (but not to "pass" any premises with fiber), in hopes that it might somehow make citywide FTTP (either as a municipal effort or as a public-private partnership) more feasible in the future. It's similar to what Boulder, CO, is deploying. But, unlike Boulder, Palo Alto intends not to build this infrastructure unless a business case can be made that it will pay for itself (whether or not citywide FTTP ensues). 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Chen <chenpaul@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please don't spend on backward ideas in Palo Alto Dear Sir/Madam, As a Palo Alto resident for 10 years, I have been impressed with the progressive agenda of the city. The recent proposal of building a new massive downtown garage just made my heart sink. We all witnessed the extreme climate change the mega wild fires choking bay area residents is becoming an annual ritual. In schools we encourage kids to bike or walk to school and they soon will bike to downtown and bike to work as they grow up. The massive garage encourages more traffic, pollution and carbon. If you really need to build one, build an "EV only" (or Tesla only if Tesla sponsors that :) garage with charging stations in every spot. That's the way we set an impressive to lead the rest of the world! Thanks Paul 1 Carnahan, David From:Sandra Slater <sandra@sandraslater.com> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2019 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Council Priorities Urgent Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, As you are defining the priorities for the Council and City for 2019 we, the undersigned (on behalf of our organizations), implore you to keep our climate change goals front and center. The climate crisis is ever more present and we’re feeling its effects here in Palo Alto already (drought, smoke from fires and even a drastic reduction in Monarchs and beneficial insects)! The City committed to reducing our greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) 80% from 1990 levels by 2030 — and our Sustainability Implementation Plan by a vote of 9-0 in 2016. We need to redouble our efforts in delivering a robust transit system and deal with our affordable housing inventory, get serious about electrification of our homes and businesses and promote EV uptake among other pro-sustainability measures. While you may consider traffic and housing as your main issues, please note that the low carbon alternatives in these areas are often the most cost-effective and beneficial way to deal with them. For example, smaller, denser, all-electric housing is less expensive to build and operate. It increases alternative mode use while reducing long commutes from far away towns and cities. Not acting or just continuing to build as usual creates GHGs and also affects our quality of life as lack of housing limits the number of people to staff our schools, hospitals and other services. While you’re prioritizing crucial issues, it is imperative that you take GHGs into account and review each policy, building, roadway, garage, ordinance and project for its potential GHG impacts. One way to do this would be to require an informational box on each City Staff Report and project approval document, noting the potential GHG impact of the options presented. Such highlighted attention would help us meet our own approved goals. Making decisions without considering their GHG implications is irresponsible and ignores our City’s stated goals. We need to visibly demonstrate the path forward for our city and our planet. It has never been more urgent and more clear - and our children’s and grandchildren’s future are in our collective hands. Please include climate change as a top priority. Sincerely, Jennifer Thompson - Sustainable Silicon Valley 2 Nicole Kemeny - 350 Silicon Valley Chris Lepe - Transform Gladwyn D’Souza - Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club Adina Levin - Friends of CalTrain Debbie Mytels - Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action (PICA) Diane Bailey - Menlo SPARK Sandra Slater - Cool Block Palo Alto Bruce Hodge - Carbon Free Palo Alto James Tuleya - Carbon Free Silicon Valley Jeralyn Moran - UUCPA Green Sanctuary Committee Marianna Grossman - Minerva Ventures Barbara Weinstein - Transition Palo Alto Eric Rosenblum - Palo Alto Forward Sudhanshu Jain - Acterra Linda Hutchins-Knowles - Mothers Out Front Northern California Walt Hays Jonathan Foster Peter Drekmeier A.C. Johnston Bret Andersen Lisa Van Dusen Mike Danaher John Kelley Pat Burt Terry Trumbull Gail Price Sven Thesen David Coale Stu Bernstein Elizabeth Greenfield 1 Carnahan, David From:Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 25, 2019 10:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise as a Priority Dear City Council Members: Please make sure dealing with the important problem of airplane noise is in the group of priorities for 2019 Many Palo Alto neighborhoods are affected by airplane noise. Low and loud flights late at night and very early in the morning are a serious problem. Best regards, Ron Wilensky Old Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:chris cocca <chris_cocca@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 12:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please make climate change a priority Hello, I moved to California for the climate, not unlike a lot of people. For two weeks last year, we had the worst air quality in the world due to forest fires. Scientists now say climate change is responsible for the increasing number of wild fires. We need to take climate change more seriously. Please support more transit oriented housing, more alternative energy, more funding for the TMA, more bike lanes and mixed use zoning so people can move between their homes, workplace and shopping locations on foot. Also, please stop wasting money on more parking garages. You are not only wasting tax payer money but also exacerbating global warming. Thanks, Chris Cocca 839 University Ave. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 Carnahan, David From:Andrew Griscom <apgriscom@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 3:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate change-City Council Dear City Council, Please adopt climate change as one of the top Council priorities for the upcoming year. Let’s go all electric housing in all new and major remodel housing. Let’s invest in encouraging active transportation and public forms of transportation, rather than building more parking structures that will be obsolete in future, and instead use the funds in creative ways to reduce automobile traffic and parking congestion. Support company buses and shuttles, public transit, ride‐sharing services, and self driving cars. Support the nonprofit Traffic Management Association (TMA) alternate commuting program which reduces traffic levels in downtown PA. (10% reduction, so far.) Support carpooling, CalTrain, biking, and walking. Natural gas produces Green House Gases; go all electric everywhere possible starting now and avoid using natural gas. We can do it, you can lead the way. Thank you, Andrew Griscom m 650.796.1000 e apgriscom@aol.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Kristian Meisling <kmeisling@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, January 27, 2019 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Make Airplane Noise Reduction a Top Priority Dear Palo City Council Members, I am writing to let you know that airplane noise has become an increasingly serious quality of life issue for my wife and I. As long‐time Palo Alto residents we are concerned that the overflight noise situation has been allowed to deteriorate to its current unacceptable state. We are often awakened at night by low‐flying commercial aircraft, especially on cloudy days. Certain times of the week the frequency of planes flying directly over our house reaches more than one every two minutes. It is not uncommon for things to rattle in our house due to low‐flying aircraft rumble, and at times it can be difficult to hear the TV or carry on a conversation. By observing aircraft flight patterns it is my belief that this air traffic is all on an approach path to SFO. Planes used to follow many paths and fly at higher altitude, but now they all seem fly lower and almost directly over our house. I believe that addressing our deteriorating airplane noise problem should be a top priority for the Palo Alto City Council. I would appreciate your efforts to bring our concerns to the attention of the authorities that are in position to do something to improve the situation. Thank you for listening and for representing us as constituents in this matter, Dr. Kristian Meisling Palo Alto Resident 1 Carnahan, David From:Steven Atneosen <atneosen@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 10:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please adopt climate change as one of the top Council priorities for 2019. Dear Council member: I support the request articulated in David Coale's recent post: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2019/01/25/palo‐alto‐needs‐to‐step‐up‐its‐green‐new‐ deal#comment_form Many thanks, Best, Steven Atneosen 3966 Duncan Place, Palo Alto CA 94306 atneosen@hotmail.com 1 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:22 AM To:Pete Gang Cc:Council, City; Flaherty, Michelle; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Climate numbers - Please make climate change a top priority Hi Pete and City Council, Unfortunately, I think you are reading the numbers correctly, we only have about 10 years (2028) to get to zero CO2 if we are going to avoid disaster. And if we could get to zero CO2 in that time, there is only a 66% chance that we would avoid disaster as you have stated. Would you get on a plane that had a 66% chance of getting to its destination? I think not! The problem is that governments the world over are not acting on this info, or they think 66% chance for a livable planet is good enough. As much as you and I (and many others) try to educate local and state governments on this problem and urgency of this issue, I am not seeing enough action on their part. In Palo Alto, they think they are ahead of the curve with their aggressive goal of 80% reduction by 2030. The problem is, this problem/progress can not be graded on a curve; it is measurable in absolute numbers so while we look good compared to our neighbors, we can see by the IPCC numbers below, that with our aggressive goals we are falling way short of what is needed. I hope you have better luck in persuading your local government/city council on the need for immediate aggressive action on this issue. I like your idea of declaring a Climate Emergency, but this might scare some people off. The really ironic thing is that most of the solutions make for a more livable planet anyway: renewable energy, cleaner transportation systems, more active transportation (biking, walking etc), housing near transit centers, clean efficient all electric homes that are cost effective, etc. etc. But you know all this. I will keep pushing the rope here and best of luck in your efforts my friend, David PS. Maybe the comic below will “cheer” you up. Begin forwarded message: From: Pete Gang <pete@commonsensedesign.com> Subject: Re: Climate numbers Date: January 28, 2019 at 11:16:36 PM PST To: David Coale <david@evcl.com> David, The attached is excerpted from the recent IPCC "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C" (released in October 2018). As I read the highlighted text, in order to have a 66% chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre‐industrial average, our remaining “carbon budget” – or how much more CO2 we can dump into the earth’s atmosphere ‐‐ is 420 gigatons of CO2, or just 10 years at current rates of emissions. In 2 other words, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates, we must immediately and completely stop using all fossil fuels and magically arrive at net zero carbon emissions ten years from now (in 2028). This is not a likely scenario. Please tell me I’m reading it incorrectly!!!! Pete On Jan 28, 2019, at 7:13 PM, David Coale <david@evcl.com> wrote: Hi Pete, I would like to get a copy of the climate (CO2) numbers you were showing me. The numbers for folks like you and I are very compelling! Thanks and hope you are well, David 3 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Holzer <mbholzer@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:support@opengov.com Subject:Open Burning in Palo Alto - the Dangers to Health Attachments:2018-03-02-0002.pdf Dear City Council Members, I understand that I have missed the deadline for topic discussion for your retreat next weekend. Apologies. Too many things . . . I did connect with Alison Cormack at the Cubberley meeting last week, and we had a short discussion about open fire pit/wood burning pollution. You may not be aware that it is apparently OK for people to burn wood in open air fire pits in Palo Alto, even though the city no longer issues permits for in‐home wood burning fire places. And has (see PDF attachment) banned second hand smoke in living accomodations in the city. Second hand smoke from open fire pits is worse than either of the above. I’m sure you remember the air pollution from the North Bay fires and how everyone suffered from that. The firepits are placed very low to the ground so the smoke emitted spreads out at ground level, unlike smoke from chimneys that is dispersed into the air at 20 feet or higher. This means that the heavy smoke from the fire pits blankets the air surrounding the near by residences, even as far as several streets away. It is extremely irritating and if you have low‐ level asthma, as I do, sets off severe coughing spells. Even closing all the house windows does not keep it completely out, and it is impossible to be outside while the people on the street behind me are burning in their fire pit. Just so you know, I am not the only one in the neighborhood, and the city who suffers from this open burning. I pinged the neighborhood email list and had many responses saying the smoke had the same effect on them as it does on me, and on their children. And that they, as I have, complained to the people burning and were told it was fine to have open pit fires in Palo Alto. To quote the Familes for Clean Air Website: "In the winter, residential wood burning produces more particle pollution than any other single source in the Bay Area, accounting for 30‐50% of this area’s particle pollution. This adds up to 6,000 tons of sooty particles annually, more than the entire region’s vehicles and businesses." For more information, below are links to the Families for Clean Air website. And you can also find information on the California EPA site. These sites explain the chemistry of wood smoke, why breathing it is so dangerous and which particles are the worst. And for reference, the Palo Alto ordinance on Second Hand Smoke is also attached. I hope you can find time to discuss instituting a ban on outdoor burning similar to the ban on second hand cigarette smoke. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Regards, Mary Holzer 2 From the Families for Clean Air website: http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/ http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/health/health2/ The Truth About Wood Smoke Pollution Even though humans have burned wood for thousands of years, scientists have only recently discovered just how hazardous wood smoke pollution is to our health. Hundreds of studies have now documented the harmful health effects of wood smoke pollution. Yet many people remain unaware of the facts—or refuse to accept them. The current situation is similar to the way we used to treat second‐hand tobacco smoke—by the time the public finally accepted just how hazardous second‐hand smoke was, there had already been incalculable damage to human life. There’s good reason to be even more concerned about wood smoke pollution than about second‐hand tobacco smoke, since it’s more hazardous: according to the US EPA, the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke is estimated to be 12 times greater than from a similar amount of cigarette smoke. The time has come for all of us to acknowledge the real dangers of burning wood. Wood Smoke is Hazardous to Your Health Scientists have now linked wood smoke and the pollution it creates with a litany of health hazards. These include asthma attacks, diminished lung function, increased upper respiratory illnesses, heart attacks, and stroke. Long‐term exposure to wood smoke can lead to emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and arteriosclerosis. Many of the substances in wood smoke are carcinogenic. Laboratory studies have linked wood smoke exposure to nasal, throat, lung, blood, and lymph system cancers. While pollution from wood burning is harmful to everyone, research has shown that it is particularly dangerous for children. Epidemiological studies have linked daily morbidity and mortality to particle pollution concentrations; burning wood creates particle pollution. Put in plain English, this means that when particle pollution levels rise, more people die. CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC WORKS 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 February 16, 2018 Re: Multi-unit Smoking Ordinance Requirements in Effect Dear Resident, Palo Alto City Council unanimously voted in 2016 to restrict smoking at all multi-unit residences and common areas effective January 1, 2018 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations, Ordinance 9.14). Council's decision was based on the desire to reduce public exposure to secondhand smoke and a survey of multi-unit residents. Th~ survey showed that 80% of multi-unit residents were bothered by smoking from nearby units, and 90% favored smoking restrictions in multi-unit housing. This letter provides answers to common questions about Ordinance provisions that prohibit smoking in multi-unit residences: 1. Where is smoking prohibited in Palo Alto multi-unit residences? As of January 1, 2018, smoking is prohibited: • inside multi-unit residences, including associated balconies, porches, decks and patios; • in indoor and outdoor common areas of multi-unit residences, such as lobbies, halls, pathways, courtyards, elevators, community rooms, playgrounds, gym facilities, swimming pools, grassy or landscaped areas, laundry rooms, shared cooking and eating areas, and parking lots and garages; • in outdoor areas that are within 25 feet from a doorway, window, opening or vent of a multi-unit residence (a nonsmoking "buffer zone"). 2. What is considered a multi-unit residence? A multi-unit residence includes any property containing two or more units, including apartments, condominiums, town homes, senior facilities, long-term health care facilities, and assisted living facilities. A multi-unit residence does not include a single-family home (including a home with a detached or attached second unit), a hotel or motel, or a mobile home park. 3. What does "smoking" mean? Smoking includes the use of cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, hookah, pipes, electronic smoking devices, and marijuana. 4. Where is smoking allowed? Owners or property managers may create a designated smoking area so long as it: (1) is outdoors; (2) is located at least 25 feet away from multi-unit residence doorways and windows, areas primarily used by children, and recreational areas; (3) has receptacles for cigarette butts that are maintained free of tobacco litter; and (4) has conspicuous signs. Additionally, residents may smoke cigarettes and use electronic smoking devices on streets or sidewalks that are at least 25 feet from a multi-unit residence, unless smoking is otherwise prohibited in those locations. 5. I am a property owner or landlord of a multi-unit residence, what am I required to do? Property owners or landlords must: • post clear "No Smoking" signs in common areas where smoking is prohibited. A selection of free signs and window decals can be ordered at cityofpaloalto.org/smoking ordinance, although other "No Smoking" signs that are preferred by the property owner or manager may be used as well; • deliver a written notice of the new smoking restrictions to each unit of a multi-unit residence. Sellers of a multi-unit residence shall provide prospective buyers with written notice of the smoking restrictions. A list of Frequently Asked Questions is available at cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance that may be used to supplement the required notification letter; • include all Smoking and Tobacco Ordinance limits in new, renewed, or continued month-to-month rental and lease agreements effective January 1, 2018. Lease language must include a clear description of all areas on the property where smoking is prohibited. Property owners and managers should refer to Section 9.14.060 of the Smoking and Tobacco Ordinance for a complete list of requirements that should be included in lease and rental agreements (visit cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance for a link to the Ordinance). 6. What should I do if I see someone violating the ordinance? If you are a resident, please report the problem to your landlord, property manager, or condominium association so that they can take steps to resolve the problem. You can also try talking to your ' neighbor to inform them of the law. If you are a landlord or property owner, smoking violations are also violations of the lease and may be enforced accordingly. For additional information: www.cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance ~~ Phil Bobel Assistant Director Public Works cityofpaloalto .org Printed with soy-based inks on 100°/o recycled paper processed without chlorine. 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Priorities Honorable City Council Members, Like a lot of Palo Alto residents, I am bothered by the increase in airplane noise. It rattles my windows, interrupts my sleep and conversations. It has become untenable. However, I do not think this issue should be a City of Palo Alto priority. Our electeds and staff may provide support of citizen efforts to make headway with appropriate government agencies, but this is not the city’s purview and it should not be a city priority. Instead, I think the city should prioritize issues that fall squarely in the city’s wheelhouse. The 2018 City Council Priority List was a good one, and the work is not yet done: Transportation Housing Budget and Finance Grade Separation RE: Transportation-- Prioritize Safe, Convenient Multi-Modal Mobility Moving forward, please commit to implementing the progressive vision for Multi-Modal Mobility that is laid out in our Comprehensive Plan. This vision includes Safe Routes to School and the projects outlined in the city’s new Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan as well as city-wide TDM, parking, transit, signalization and road improvements, and would provide safe and convenient options for road users of all ages and abilities. It is important to remember what we have learned from Safe Routes to School. Mode shift requires a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to support behavior change, including: encouragement, education, engineering, enforcement, equity and evaluation. Steady, disciplined and strategic work in all of these categories effects real change. We have seen it. A similar approach can work across the broader community as well. The priorities on the 2018 list, interestingly, align with concerns raised in the citizen’s survey. Stay the course. You were right last year. There is more to be done. Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to our community. Gratefully, Penny Ellson 1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Schmitt <schmitta@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 8:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate change a priority Hello dear council: sustainability has always been a priority and PA a leader. It is an over arching goal for housing, public transit and transportation. And underlying is an issue of scarce resources and the real fact of climate change. Pls make this issue a priority. Thanks for your consideration, Anne and Ed Schmitt Anne Schmitt Sent from my iPhone 2 Carnahan, David From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Make Climate Change A Priority for 2019! Gentle Council Members, As you determine Council priorities for 2019, i strongly encourage the Council to address climate change as one of the Council's top priorities. In summary, relatively simple steps initiated now to address climate change such as new building energy efficiency codes, expanding the TMA and heat pump/ electric retrofit programs have multiple benefits in addition to reducing our carbon footprint including cost savings over conventional practices and increases in comfort, convenience and safety. I look forward to more detailed discussions in the coming months, Sven Resident, 314 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ‐‐ Sven Thesen, 415‐225‐7645 EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie __________________________________________________ Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones! See: http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html 1 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Guest Opinion: Palo Alto needs to step up its Green New Deal In case some of you have not seen this and for the record: Palo Alto Weekly Spectrum ‐ January 25, 2019 Guest Opinion: Palo Alto needs to step up its Green New Deal by David Coale It has been exciting to hear about the Green New Deal (GND) being talked about across the nation. Here at home, Palo Alto has committed to an 80‐percent reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 — the 80‐by‐30 goal. This goal was adopted in 2016, so you could say Palo Alto has laid the groundwork for its GND already; but even though city staff has been working on this, the overall plan is not widely known. With California's recent Climate Action Summit in San Francisco last September, a United Nations report, and even the climate report from the White House, all saying that climate change is worsening at a faster pace than we thought, I think the City of Palo Alto needs to step up its efforts to enable our community to seriously address climate change. The first step is to avoid continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and appliances that will likely become obsolete before the end of their useful life. The main opportunities to save here relate to transportation, and natural gas usage in buildings. They are the largest contributors to Palo Alto's GHG emissions, and we have efficient and cost‐ effective alternatives. Let's look at our transportation: Currently, Palo Alto is planning to build a parking garage downtown at a cost of $29 million. This large expenditure would encourage more auto use and likely be underutilized as our transportation modes continue changing. Increasingly, the younger demographic is shying away from car ownership, choosing instead to use company buses/shuttles, public transit, ride‐sharing services and other modes of transportation. Ride‐sharing services and self‐ driving cars will become very important to our aging population as well, enabling safe and reliable mobility as driving becomes more difficult. The money for the garage can be spent much more effectively on expanding the nonprofit Traffic Management Association's (TMA) alternative commuting program. (The association develops, manages and markets programs aimed at reducing traffic levels in downtown Palo Alto.) By 2017, the association had reduced the number of single‐driver service workers driving downtown by 10 percent by providing alternative commute incentives to their places of work. It plans to reduce driving by 30 percent (from a 2015 baseline of about 5,500 member employees) in the next few years with incentives that increase the use of carpooling, CalTrain, biking and walking. This change is being achieved at a tiny fraction of the cost of building new parking garages 2 and allows for increased flexibility in managing parking demand. Plans are afoot to increase and expand these efforts to the Cal Ave area. The other good news in transportation is that we have reached a 50‐percent active transportation mode (walking, biking, skateboarding) share in our schools. Most of this is bicycle use. This change has reduced auto traffic and parking problems, promoted a healthy lifestyle, and freed up parents from school transportation all while reducing GHG emissions. While some of Palo Alto's bike infrastructure might not be perfect, continued investment in this area will serve us all well by enabling more of us to use active transportation modes. The success in our schools is an outstanding example of what concerted city‐supported efforts can accomplish. For our energy infrastructure, the time is right to modernize by moving away from natural gas to the city's carbon neutral electricity to power our homes and buildings. When you factor in the natural gas leakage (2‐5 percent for California) from production, distribution and end‐use in buildings, natural gas is no better than coal in terms of the GHG pollution that is created. We would never consider using coal to heat our homes, as was the common practice in the 1800s. The resulting pollution choked our cities and shortened our life span. The difference now is that the CO2, methane and other pollution from natural gas use is invisible. What is most visible are the effects of climate change that worsen "natural" disasters worldwide. Again, here in Palo Alto, there is good news. The city has enjoyed carbon neutral electricity since 2013 at rates lower than our neighbors. Also, a recently completed study commissioned by the city showed that it is cost effective for all new homes and small businesses and major remodels to be built all‐electric. The study looked at using modern heat‐ pump appliances for heating and cooling (hot water too) and induction cooking; not the old clunky resistive heating and cooking of yesteryear. These new appliances are three times more efficient than their gas counter parts, and are cheaper to operate so we can start gradually upgrading to electric homes in a cost effective and beneficial way. The city can help by requiring that all new homes, small businesses and large retrofits use cost‐effective, low‐carbon appliances instead of their natural gas counterparts. And with electric vehicles (EVs) getting more affordable everyday, charging them with Palo Alto's carbon neutral electricity also will play a big role in switching away from fossil fuel use. Since climate change is happening faster than any government can react, we need to make climate change a top city council priority. If we make the right investments now instead of building obsolete infrastructure and equipment, we will save even more in the long run. The sooner we make climate‐friendly investments, the more we will save and improve our quality of life. If you think Palo Alto should be combating climate change through local actions, then send an email to the City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) asking them to adopt climate change as one of the top Council priorities for the upcoming year. David Coale is a board member of Carbon Free Palo Alto, was on the city's Green Building Technical Advisory Committee and is a former Acterra board member. See https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2019/01/25/palo‐alto‐needs‐to‐step‐up‐its‐green‐new‐ deal#comment_form to view this on‐line and see the comments most of which are supportive. 1 Carnahan, David From:Patti Colevas <pattiallencolevas@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Climate Change is a Priority Dear City Council, I read David Coale's editorial in Palo Alto Online today and I wholeheartedly agree with his view that Palo Alto needs to be a leader in planning for and mitigating climate change. I oppose the large parking structure in the California Avenue area which will just increase individual automobile use. Let's use the money to really develop a great bike path, bike lane system. Please consider a trip to Boulder, Colorado where one can ride for miles on bike paths without having to cross traffic. And keep in mind that Colorado is the fittest state in the nation. We would benefit from a similar system and the maintenance costs would be much lower here because of our mild weather. Please combat climate change in all your decisions. Patti Allen Colevas 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan Stansbury <stansburysusan@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Make dealing with climate change a priority for 2019 Dear Honorable City Council Members, Thank you for your service and dedication to our community. I am writing to you today to urge you to make responding to climate change a top priority. While the city has done a lot to address climate change, there is always more that we can do. Climate change is upon us, and we are feeling and seeing the effects already. We recently had a long drought, breathed the smoke from the fires, and watch hurricanes and floods inflict damage on other parts of the country. We must all do more. Some examples are invest our city's money in non‐polluting industries. A group of people are working with the County of Santa Clara on creating a local public bank. If we create a local public bank, we can invest locally and keep our money out of the fossil fuel industry. We can also look at many city decisions through the lens of how it impacts our carbon footprint. I urge you to keep our response to climate change at the forefront of your decision making process. Thank you, ‐‐ Susan Stansbury 741 Josina Ave, Palo Alto ‐‐ Susan Stansbury (650) 353‐1994 2 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Neff <nrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 6:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Priority: Climate Crisis Dear City Council members, I would like the City of Palo Alto, as its first priority and backdrop of every decision made, to do everything in its power to mitigate the ever‐worsening climate crisis. Most of you know I am dedicated to volunteering for California Clean Money Campaign which works to reduce the influence of big money in politics. That is my way of working on climate change. Thank you for your service! Nancy Neff 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Salzman <jsalzman3@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 10:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Gail letter on council priorities 2019: climate change Attachments:gail price city priorities letter.pdf Sent on behalf of Gail Price. Gail A. Price 4082 Orme Street, Barron Park, Palo Alto January 31, 2019 Re: City Council Priorities for 2019: Addressing Climate Change and Framework of the S/CAP Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Councilmembers: I believe it is important to address climate change by making it a critical focus area for the Palo Alto City Council in 2019. By seriously aligning the work plan to climate change policies, projects, and initiatives, there will be many opportunities for coordinated, comprehensive, and meaningful results. The importance of focusing on climate change is paramount and using GHG emissions as one measure is a way to measure our outcomes. I strongly agree with David Coale’s recent opinion piece (1/25/19) in The Palo Alto Weekly, “Palo Alto Needs to Step Up Its Green New Deal.” He outlines the critical climate change issues and the various options we have as a community to measure steps and take actions. Many of the goals and actions are already well articulated in the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, previously prepared and adopted by the Palo Alto City Council. Why not use these adopted documents as the framework for measuring our success as a community? Both programs and capital projects have elements that address climate change. The vast majority of these items are presented for review or action by the City Council. One way would be to explicitly outline our 2030 CAP goals, and establish annual goals to enable Palo Alto to reach the mid and longer-term outcomes. Without a more explicit structure and measurable outcomes, we will simply continue our rhetoric without conducting coherent evaluations of our progress towards seriously addressing climate change impacts. Establishing goals will drive outcomes. As has been reiterated by others, using the GHG impacts is one measure and having a specific section of the staff report identifying the goals and noting our steps to meet them will keep this focus (Climate Change) at the forefront of our thinking. This is a practical approach and a straightforward way to measure and demonstrate progress (and challenges). The proposed approach (having a section of their staff reports to address impacts)) was introduced by former Supervisor Liz Kniss to the Board of Supervisors and subsequently staff reports always noted “Impact on Seniors” Gail A. Price Page 2 and “ Impact on Children and Youth.” This is an important way to highlight issues of importance such as climate change. Using climate change as a strong focus area would enable the City Council and community to address related topics of concern: • Developing compact affordable housing near transit stations and corridors • Expanding electrification of our homes • Improving infrastructure to promote higher use of electric vehicles • Improving all types of non-polluting transit • Prioritizing Caltrain grade-separations to address operational efficiency and safety • Emphasizing the health and well-being of our community both now and in the future. As an example, it is my understanding that the City of San Francisco’s CIP process includes discussion of how the capital project is designed with performance technology to ascertain how the project will be capable of adapting to climate change over time. This practice has been in place for a few years and this approach is appealing. The City of Palo Alto and the City Council have been committed to reducing our greenhouse gasses through our climate action plan. Now is the chance to realize the policies and goals previously created and adopted. Now we can align our actions with our goals and honestly and directly make a difference. Decisions should incorporate GHG implications and be measured against annual goals. Seriously considering these systematic and meaningful recommendations, which are shared by many in the community, will benefit us all. Please take actions to demonstrate how a responsible and innovative local government, such as Palo Alto, can make a difference. Thank you. Sincerely, Gail A. Price Palo Alto, CA 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 12:54 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle Cc:Planning Commission; Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; Allison Levitsky Subject:Feb 2 Agenda Item #3 Attachments:181009 Millbrae Council Agenda Regional Activity reporting Oct 9 2018.pdf Please accept the attached Millbrae Council agenda item as an example to expedite and improve reporting from local/regional authorities and agencies which now have profound impact upon Palo Alto. This level of detail in an agenda will assure that delegated responsibilities to Councilpersons are noted by the entire Council, press and the general public Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com CITY COUNCIL Oct. 9, 2018 7:35 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARING will be heard when the presiding officer calls for comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After oral testimony has been given, the hearing is closed unless continued to another time, and brought to Council level for discussion and action. Normally no further oral testimony is permitted unless requested and allowed by the Council. NONE EXISTING BUSINESS NONE 7:35 NEW BUSINESS NONE COUNCIL COMMENTS Committee Reports: Councilmembers serve as representatives to various committees listed below. They will report by exception on matters affecting Millbrae. • Mayor Papan • Vice Mayor Lee • Councilmember Schneider • Councilmember Oliva • Councilmember Holober CLOSED SESSION NONE C/CAG Board of Directors, C/CAG Legislative Committee, Mayor's Civic Coordinating Council, Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Board of Directors, San Mateo County Council of Cities, San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services JPA, Bike Sharing Program Sub-Committee, Budget/Finance Sub-Committee, Cannabis Further Study Sub-Committee, Community Center Sub-Committee, Downtown Enhancement Sub-Committee Association of Bay Area Governments General Assemblies, Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Board, Congestion Management/Environmental Quality Committee, Millbrae Youth Advisory Committee Liaison, Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors, San Mateo County Joint Committee on El Camino Real (Grand Boulevard), Adopted Military Unit Sub-Committee, Commission/Committee Interview Sub-Committee, Fire Shared Services Sub-Committee, Sewer Modernization Sub-Committee, Technology/Data Center Sub-Committee C/CAG Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Millbrae Community Enhancement Advisory Committee Liaison, Millbrae Cultural Arts Advisory Committee Liaison, San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services Council, SeaChange SMC, Bike Sharing Program Sub-Committee, Budget/Finance Sub-Committee, Fire Shared Services Sub- committee Airport Community Roundtable, Airport Land Use Committee, HEART Board of Directors, HEART Member Agency Committee, Millbrae Chamber of Commerce Liaison, Millbrae Senior Advisory Committee Liaison, Adopted Military Unit Sub-Committee, Commission/Committee Interview Sub-Committee, Downtown Enhancements Sub- Committee, Technology/Data Center Sub-Committee Caltrain Local Policymakers Group, Millbrae Community Television Liaison, Millbrae Economic Vitality Advisory Committee Liaison, Millbrae Parks and Recreation Commission Liaison, Millbrae Sister Cities Commission Liaison, San Mateo County Library JP A Governing Board, Cannabis Further Study Sub-Committee, Community Center Sub-Committee, Sewer Modernization Sub-Committee From:Arlene Goetze To:Joe Simitian; susan.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org Subject:QBack Brady says No Drink Fluoride Date:Monday, February 4, 2019 4:21:00 PM Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com ALL-STAR NFL QUARTERBACK WARNS AGAINST FLUORIDE, FEB. 4, 2019 [Graphic Credit: Karen Spencer] Sorry Ram Fans, but the Patriot’s quarterback knows what it takes to win. And fluoride-free water is one of his advantages; so instead of getting mad, campaign toremove fluoride from L.A.’s drinking water. Tom Brady, the star veteran quarterback of the New England Patriots and now 6-timeSuper Bowl winner, has recently authored a book on staying healthy in which he mentions fluoride in water. In chapter seven of his new book (The TB12 Method: How to Achieve A Lifetime of Sustained Peak Performance), while discussing the importance of hydration,Brady acknowledges the risks of ingesting fluoride, advising readers to remove it from tap water by filtration. He writes, “Tap water is water that comes from a municipal source. Depending on where you live, most sources of tap water contain fluoride, chlorine, and, in some cases, lead. Excessive amounts of both fluoride and chlorine have now been linked to anumber of health risks. Drink tap water only if you filter it first, which gets rid of many impurities. Even when you use tap water for steaming vegetables, it’s better to filter itfirst.” [page 208] Additional quotes from Brady on health: -"Our bodies become toxic when we ingest toxic chemicals." [page 224] -"I chose to eat organic foods." [page 218] -"Whenever the media claims any of the dietary methods that I pursue are new age or even quackery, I tell them that some of the biggest advertisers on television and in the stadiums I played in are marketing all the wrong things." [page 224] -"Let food be thy medicine." [page 219] Sincerely, Stuart CooperCampaign DirectorFluoride Action Network See all FAN bulletins online Twitter | Facebook © 2016 Fluoride Action Network, All rights reserved. UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS LIST / SUBSCRIBE TO LIST IS THIS EMAIL NOT DISPLAYING CORRECTLY? VIEW IT IN YOUR BROWSER. 1 Carnahan, David From:Dilcia Mercedes <dilcia19@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 7:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Committee Questions Hi Palo Alto City Council, My name is Dilcia Mercedes and I am a student reporter at the Peninsula Press. I'm reaching out because I would like to speak with someone on the rail committee about grade separations. If you can reach out to me with a few times and dates that work this week, I can schedule a phone call. I am mainly looking to learn about the process of grade separations and I am hoping to understand what a timeline of the issue looks like within Palo Alto. Please respond to this email: dilcia19@stanford.edu Thank you! 1 Carnahan, David From:David Recht <david.recht@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 5, 2019 11:27 AM To:Tong, Reanna Cc:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Re: City Creates a Dangerous Situation and Liability Reanna: I am writing yet again about the dangerous situation the city created at the California Avenue Caltrain underdressing. I just returned from my morning coffee at Starbucks. Fortunately, I survived once again. I know that is a bit sarcastic but I must share with you again that this is a very dangerous situation. This morning I was “buzzed” at significant speed by 3 bicyclists and one small, motorized scooter. By my estimate, I am buzzed approximately 90% of the times I make the passage. Eventually, a bicyclist will lose control, not be paying adequate attention or be confronted with an unexpected step from some elderly person or young child or a dog on a leash. You must believe that this is a continuing dangerous situation for all users of the tunnel and a potential liability for the city. As I mentioned in a previous Email, I agree with making the passage more accessible to those with strollers and those with disabilities. However, factually the city has taken a situation that was an inconvenience to a small portion of the users (I am not dismissing the importance of the inconvenience) and turned it into a significant safety issue for 100% of the users. By logic, this should not be acceptable. I know we can do better. I have included a photo I took this morning to show how big the gap is between the barriers. This large gap allows bicyclists to not even have to slow down to pass through much less get off their bicycles. Ironically, as I was crouched down taking this photo another bicyclist buzzed past me at a high rate of speed. A small lurch by me from my crouching position would have caused a significant crash and probably multiple injuries. As much as I would like to believe your previous suggestion that 'In the interim we will continue to look at ways to improve signage and pavement stenciling to encourage courteous behavior and lower speeds with the facility that we currently have. “, it is unrealistic to think that signage and stenciling are making any difference at all. There are already 3 “Walk Bike Signs” and some ground stenciling. However, simply put, it is just too easy to ride straight through the “barrier”. The signs have almost zero impact in behavior modification. I have anecdotal evidence that 85% of the riders do not dismount their bikes. Probably only 40% of bicyclists slow their speed (not good enough IMO). While I have seen police officers on several occasions making warnings, it has done very little to correct the situation. My data is anecdotal and personal. Has the city taken any steps in follow up to see what actual impact the change in barriers has had? What percentage of bicyclists are walking their bikes? The city could simply post a single person with a clipboard (I would be happy to join you or anyone else for this data collection) for an hour or so at several different times and have a very good picture of the situation in the tunnel. Has this been done? This data would speak to the safety level and whether it is reasonable and acceptable. If the city has not done this follow up then I don’t think the city has done enough to ensure safety in the tunnel. So, what can be done that is effective and low cost? I’d still like to hear serious feedback on my previous suggestion to study the barrier angles and adjust them to retain passage for strollers and the disabled and, at the same time, prevent the ability for bicycles to have a straight through passage. Drilling just two new holes in the concrete at some angle between the original holes and the current holes seems like a super low cost way to significantly improve this dangerous situation. How about some data collection and analysis to create a true safe solution? I will be interested in a thoughtful response from the city that will make a difference. The signage is not working. A high potential for injury and liability remains. 3 4 David Recht david.recht@gmail.com 415-706-1521 ============ Photo sites: davidrecht.net www.instagram.com/david.recht/ https://500px.com/drecht https://www.flickr.com/photos/drecht/DavidRecht http://drecht.zenfolio.com On Aug 18, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Tong, Reanna <Reanna.Tong@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi David, The City of Palo Alto recently adjusted the angle of the gates at the California Avenue Caltrain undercrossing after receiving numerous complaints from members of the community who travel through the tunnel. Navigating the previous angle of the gates in those travelling by wheelchair, mobility scooter, tandem‐bike, cargo bike, bikes with trailers, and other non‐traditional users proved to be problematic. These changes are supported by the City of Palo Alto’s 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which includes a recommendation to modify the California Avenue Caltrain undercrossing to improve access. In 2015 the City proposed removing the gates entirely, however after receiving community feedback we elected to adjust the angle of the gates as a compromise solution to improve accessibility. While an ideal uncrossing would have a separate pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists similar to the Homer Ave Caltrain undercrossing, this costly option would require significant city funding. In the interim we will continue to look at ways to improve signage and pavement stenciling to encourage courteous behavior and lower speeds with the facility that we currently have. The City is also studying the feasibility of adding an additional Caltrain undercrossing south of the Cal Ave undercrossing which would likely reduce the demand on this particular crossing. We encourage you to also participate in Connecting Palo Alto which looks at the future of Palo Alto with respect to the rail corridor, grade separations and crossings. Thank you for your email and please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any additional questions. We will continue to monitor the undercrossing and make adjustments as needed to ensure the safety of all users. Sincerely, Reanna Tong <image002.jpg> Reanna Tong| Transportation Program AssistantPlanning & Community Environment – Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2568 E: reanna.tong@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you. 5 Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you would like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: David Recht [mailto:david.recht@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 11:26 AM To: City Mgr Subject: City Creates a Dangerous Situation and Liability I was gone for a week and just experienced the dangerous situation in the California Avenue train track underpass. The barriers near the bottom of the underpass have recently been changed and set at a much more open angle than before. Previously, the barriers actually acted as barriers and caused bikers to either dismount or to negotiate the barriers at almost zero speed. With the new, open angle configuration, bikers can now navigate virtually directly through the barriers with no need to even slow down. The result of this change is that bikers now accelerate on the down slope and pass through the barrier without losing speed. This means that pedestrians in the walkway are encountering bikes from behind passing at a high rate of speed. Furthermore, because the underpass is limited by walls and is fairly narrow, there is no alternative for pedestrians to “steer clear” for safety. There is nowhere to go. Also, the barrier is naturally a dimly lit area which makes it even more susceptible to collisions. Lastly, the underpass is frequented routinely by parents pushing strollers with infants in them and/or parents using the underpass with young toddlers that are naturally unstable and not always under control of their direction. In short, the new barrier configurations are highly dangerous and create potential for hi speed bike/pederstrian collisions or, more frighteningly, bike/stroller or bike/toddler collisions. Obviously, a much greater liability for the city in my opinion. Why was this done? More importantly, how can we change this situation either back to how it was or some safer configuration than what now exists? Thank you David Recht david.recht@gmail.com 415-706-1521 ============ Photo sites: davidrecht.net www.instagram.com/david.recht/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/drecht/DavidRecht plus.google.com/+DavidRecht/photos http://drecht.zenfolio.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 11:42 AM To:Kniss, Liz (external); Council, City Cc:Alison Cormack; Arthur Keller; Pat Burt gmail; allanseid@gmail.com; Tom DuBois; Brettle, Jessica; Charlene Liao; Ken Dauber Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto stands behind and supports Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Dear Liz and City Council, I read last year at a local newspaper (perhaps not Palo Alto Weekly) that a proclamation to recognize Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was delivered to her quietly due to her own preference. Thank you for doing this. Is it possible to get a copy of the official proclamation so that I can see the final language from our city council? Charlene On Saturday, September 29, 2018, 5:17:04 PM PDT, Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote: Dear Dr Liao Thanks for this. We'll be putting a proclamation together tomorrow. And we'll call to talk with you about content as well. We are so proud of her! Thank you, Liz Kniss Mayor Sent from my iPhone On Sep 29, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote: Great idea! On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:20 PM Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to ask you to make a declaration, a proclamation or a resolution in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of our city, and in support of all survivors of sexual assaults. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a pride of our city. She demonstrates the characters and values expected of all of our responsible citizens. She fulfills her civic duty and upholds the belief of freedom of our country with great personal sacrifice. In light of so many rumors, personal attacks, death threats to her, and new accusations about the GoFundMe campaigns (intended to support her 2 security and legal expenses for her and her family), a proclamation from the city she lives and the city she has chosen to live in order to escape the person who assaulted her, and to escape the geographic association of her assault, will go a long way to assure her and people around the world that our city is indeed a safe place for her. There have already been so many caring neighbors sending her cards and offering tangible supports to her and her family. The official pledge of support from our city will go a long way to comfort her, to represent, and express solidarity of, the majority of our residents, and to dissuade a small number of vocal local residents who further propagate rumors, attacks and accusations towards Dr. Ford. Please do so at your next City Council Meeting or ASAP. Sincerely yours, Dr. Charlene Liao Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Carnahan, David From:Iqbal Serang <iqbalserang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 5:05 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City Cc:michelle.kraus@carbontracing.com; Iqbal GMAIL; iqbalserangarchitect@gmail.com Subject:RE: Your letter of January 29, 2019 pertaining to the one year lease requirements, PAMC 9.68.030, & 9.68.040, etc., as addressed to A.J. Capital-the owners of Hotel President, Lawyers, & Sheriff Smith: Attachments:Hotel President Letter_01.29.19.pdf Hello City Manager Ed Shikada, City Attorney Molly Stump, and Council members, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Duboise, Kou, Tanaka, and Cormack : We take great solace in your specific action and letter on reminding all of the concerned parties, and especially A.J. Capital Partners, the new Landlords involved in this matter of the Tenant/Landlord issues of one year leases at the Hotel President, and we appreciate the city's formal and official statement expressing the illegality of this impending move‐out order, which unfortunately is still being implemented upon the remaining tenants of the Hotel President. Now that this official decision has finally been taken by the City Manager, City Attorney, and presumably the City Council, our hope and expectations are that the city will continue in earnest with the follow‐through necessary towards implementing this legal and correctional pathway forward and provide these citizen tenants of Palo Alto all the deserved assistance they require. The tenants at the Hotel President thank you for your decisive action on this issue. Sincerely, Iqbal Serang and Dennis Backlund. (Tenants of the Hotel President.) 488 University Ave., #307, & #503, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301. IqbalSerang@gmail.com (650) 906‐7059 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2392 January 29, 2019 Timothy Franzen, President Adventurous Journeys Capital Partners 133 N. Jefferson Street, 4th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60661 tf@ajcpt.com David P. Lanterman Rutan & Tucker, LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94306 dlanferman@rutan.com Sheriff Laurie Smith County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff 55 West Younger Avenue San Jose, California 95110-1721 so.website@sheriff.sccgov.org Re: Potential Tenant Eviction Actions at Hotel President, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto Dear Messers Franzen, Lanterman, and Sheriff Smith: I am writing in anticipation of potential tenant eviction actions that may be under consideration by your offices in the near future. It is our understanding that as of January 31, 2019, residential tenants at the Hotel President, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto, may have their tenancy terminated by their landlord, AJ Capital Partners. The City of Palo Alto's Rental Housing Stabilization Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.68, provides for a number of requirements and responsibilities of parties involved in residential tenancy arrangements and eviction. Specifically, Section 9.68.030 requires landlords to offer tenants a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. Section 9.68.040 provides that failure of a landlord to comply with the Ordinance provides the tenant with a defense to a legal action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the unit, among other remedies. In Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 335, the California Court of Appeal upheld the City's one-year lease requirement as a substantive defense to an eviction action. City Of Pa Io A I to. o rg Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine Our City Attorney has informed the tenants' legal counsel of the requirements of the Rental Housing Stabilization Ordinance. We are also communicating directly to you to ensure that, prior to any eviction action, you are similarly aware of the Ordinance and responsibilities of landlords as prescribed. Please feel free to contact me at ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org or (650) 329-2280 or City Attorney Molly Stump (molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org) if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this matter. Ed Shikada City Manager Cc: Palo Alto City Council 1 Carnahan, David From:Mukul Agarwal <mukulagarwal9@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 4, 2019 2:48 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; greg@gregtanaka.org; liz.kniss@cityofpaloalti.org; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Subject:South PA tunnel option Dear city council members and staff: Hope all is well with you. I have been following on the discussion at the different meetings and have also tried to make it out for a session in person. I am writing this email to highlight my and my families overwhelming support for a tunnel for South PA. a) it retains the neighborhood and community b) does not divide the city c) will not become an ugly cynosure d) preserves the bike friendly culture for all kids who use the crossings to go to middle and high school e) provides a way to rejuvenate the track area into something more beautiful I have spoke to several of my neighbors who live on streets off of Park Blvd, and they all are thankful for you to bring this option back for evaluation. We are confident that you will not be swayed by the so called compromise of a hybrid option, which was predetermined imho, by the people who do not live in these neighborhoods. The people who care would not agree to the viaduct or raised train option. It will totally destroy the community we live in. So thank you for keeping a perspective on what is important (ie; big picture) here ‐ the kids, the school children, and the community. Only a tunnel option can retain the Palo Alto character. Mukul 1 Carnahan, David From:loveoverplastic Live plastic free <loveoverplastic@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting an expedited timeline for Foodware Items Reduction Plan. Attachments:Letter to the council regarding Foodware Items Reduction Plan (3).pdf Dear City Council, Please see attached letter from a concerned resident. Sincerely, Gloria Garcia Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to support the Foodware Items Reduction Plan, the initiative to reduce single-use, disposable foodware items generated in Palo Alto, encourage reusable foodware items, and to ensure that single use disposable items are effectively recycled or composted. I support the Zero Waste Palo Alto initiative, and am advocating an expedited timeline to phase in full implementation. I applaud Berkeley’s recent ban on single use plastic foodware that took effect January 22nd, 2019, and believe Palo Alto should follow its lead in regards to banning disposable foodware. I think the public is very concerned about the risks that single use plastics pose to our health, and the environment. We are a public that understands that plastic foodware that is meant to be disposed of in a landfill, is more often, finding its way into our marine environment where it enters the food cycle when ingested by marine life. Palo Alto’s residents are learning about another insidious result of degrading plastic, microplastics. Microplastics are the main pollutant in the 5 large ocean plastic gyres that cover our oceans. In addition, they have found their way into our tap water because these tiny particles are not currently filtered by our waste water treatment systems. Plastic pollution is bad news for all living creatures. There is no benefit to our society when convenience, takes the place of common sense. Tax payers pay enormous sums to recycle, and landfill our waste, yet wouldn’t it make more sense to prevent this waste in the first place? The public is now aware that recycling programs have proven largely unsuccessful in curbing plastic pollution. Only 9% of plastic has been recycled since the 1950’s, and that which is recycled, is often shipped to developing countries where it leads environmental degradation due to limited solid waste disposal and recycling infrastructure. The real, and more potent solution is prevention, and banning plastic usage in the first place. Palo Alto’s foodware reduction plan should be phased in on a faster timeline, and follow Berkeley’s plan to phase in completely by mid-2020. We can’t wait to initiate the final phase of a complete Ban on single use foodware items by 2025. We hope the Palo Alto City Council will take the steps necessary to protect its residents, and make a difference defending our health and environment. Sincerely, Gloria Garcia 1 Carnahan, David From:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com> Sent:Saturday, February 2, 2019 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Text of oral comments by Don Jackson at Palo Alto City Council Priorities Retreat, February 2, 2019 Councilpeople: Thank you for the opportunity to speak at your 2019 Priorities Retreat this morning. Here is a transcription of my comments: Text of oral comments by Don Jackson at Palo Alto City Council Priorities Retreat, February 2, 2019 Good Morning, I’m urging the Council to make significant steps this year to define, cost, and potentially implement a municipal Fiber‐to‐the‐Premise (FTTP) service. The goal must be to implement an infrastructure that we own, and therefore control. When we don’t own the infrastructure, we are at the mercy of communications corporations and their shareholders, who will (justifiably) seek to maximize their return‐on‐investment regarding issues like: o Net Neutrality o Privacy o Restrictions/prohibitions on certain applications and services I propose that Council direct Staff to issue an FTTP RFP, and when those results and data are received, we can discuss and debate if we are able to make this investment. I second Jeff Hoel’s recommendation that Council and Staff read Susan Crawford’s new book about municipal Fiber. Thank you 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 3, 2019 6:29 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC; Stump, Molly Subject:UAC subcommittees Commissioners, The UAC "home page" says: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/default.asp "Subcommittees: Chair Danaher will appoint commissioners to committees at a future UAC meeting to cover the following issues: * Fiber-to-the-premise: * Electric Undergrounding: * Water Recycling: * Second transmission line:" According to the Wayback Machine, http://web.archive.org/web/20171013061622/https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/default.asp it said the same thing on 10-13-17. (And this copy of the home page says it was last updated on 09-27-17.) So I assume this information is now out-of-date. --- I have the impression that UAC's subcommittees were set up so that they weren't covered by the Brown Act, and didn't have to allow the public to attend meetings, etc. I'm not a lawyer. This guide to the Brown Act published by the League of California Cities says (page 14) https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Open-Government/Open-Public-2016.aspx "What is not a "legislative body" for purposes of the Brown Act? * A temporary advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of the legislative body that serves a limited or single purpose, that is not perpetual, and that will be dissolved once its specific task is completed is not subject to the Brown Act. Temporary committees are sometimes called ad hoc committees, a term not used in the Brown Act." Apparently the Brown Act didn't quantify "temporary." San Jose has a Sunshine Resolution -- Resolution No. 77135 (08-14-14). It says (pages 20-21) http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/45056 "An advisory entity is not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act or required to allow members of the public to attend meetings if: 1. It is formed or used for specific or immediate problems and not intended to meet for more than six (6) months (an "ad hoc committee") or 2. Its meetings include discussion of private or non-public information, where the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information." (But that's San Jose.) --- If UAC still wants to have subcommittees that aren't covered by the Brown Act, maybe the UAC home page should have a clickable link that goes to a page that provides an historical record of these subcommittees, including, for each, when it was formed, when it was dissolved, who served on the subcommittee, what its limited or single purpose was, and whether/how that purpose was achieved. That way, the home page won't be so cluttered, and won't have to be updated so frequently. If UAC wants to have subcommittees that are covered by the Brown Act, that's a different story. 2 Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: This might be a good topic for the next joint study session between UAC and Council. PPS: I would have said "fiber-to-the-premises." (By "premises," I mean "a building or part of a building ...." I don't mean "a proposition" or "something assumed or taken for granted.") https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise 1 Carnahan, David From:Alex Stanford <astanford@ajcpt.com> Sent:Friday, February 1, 2019 4:59 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Stump, Molly; Tim Franzen Subject:Update to Council on Hotel President Apartment Tenancies Attachments:AJ Capital Statement to City Council - 02.01.19.pdf Good Afternoon City Council, Please see attached update on Hotel President Apartment Tenancies. Thanks, Alex Stanford AJ Capital Partners 1800 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 C: 707.481.4801 www.ajcpt.com www.graduatehotels.com February 1, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mayor Filseth City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Update to Council on Hotel President Apartment Tenancies Dear Mayor Filseth, We are pleased to take this opportunity to provide you with an update on our ongoing communications with the residents of the Hotel President Apartments. Our Tenant Relocation Assistance Agreement of October 26, 2018 allowed the remaining residents to stay in their units until January 31, 2019. Most residents were able to vacate their units well in advance of the agreed move-out date taking advantage of the relocation services and assistance that was offered by AJ Capital to all residents. Furthermore, all residents paid half rent for the months of November, December and January. AJ Capital did receive requests from a few of the remaining residents who were not able to meet the January 31st move out date. Each such request for additional consideration was evaluated and responded to on a case by case basis. In each of these cases, we were able to accommodate those residents who needed additional time in February. After this weekend, there will be eight residents in the building, scheduled to move out in the next 30-60 days, and AJ Capital will not be collecting rent during this time. At the close of business on January 31, 2019, all but two of the eleven remaining residents have provided us with notice that they will vacate the building during February. We will continue to work with the two remaining residents on relocation solutions that take into account their individual needs and abilities. Sincerely, Timothy G. Franzen President, Graduate Hotels cc. Palo Alto City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) City Manager Ed Shikada (ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org) Deputy City Manager Michelle Poche Flaherty (michelle.flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org) City Attorney Molly Stump (molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org) Let Midpen Media Center Help Tell Your Story Thank you for reading this Annual Report and being a supporter of community media! If you have been to the Midpen Media Center you know that on almost any evening our HD studio is charged with creative energy and folks all working together to share their ideas. Midpen Media Center is THE place in our area to learn to write, act, direct, manage sound and light, and even operate a professional studio camera. Using these skills, our staff and volunteers produce stories, interviews, call-in shows, classes, lively discussions, record government meetings and much more. During the day, our center records product demonstrations for local startup companies, promotional pieces for organizations like the San Francisco 49ers, theatrical performances for Standford University Humanities professors, as well as public service announcements, meeting and conference coverage for local municipalities and non-profit organizations, and just about anything else you can imagine. In the summer, our building and parking lot are full of kids learning to operate field equipment, and to provide coverage and color commentary for sports and other live events. They learn many of the same skills adult producers do so they can create their own shows too. The Midpen Media Center Board of Directors is so grateful that all of this happens thanks to our talented and experienced staff, our creative and dedicated volunteers, and our invested professional partners. Our donors and in-kind contributors understand that the Midpen Media Center is an award-winning, innovative and exciting place to be! We are very appreciative of their hard work and contributions. Have you considered including us as part of your planned giving? If you haven't been to our center in a while, come on back! Bring a friend or a colleague and use the studio in 2018 to share your story. -Sue Purdy Pelosi, Board President ~12017 ANNUAL REPORT A Year of Leadership Transitions and Renewed Purpose 2017 was a year of three Executive Directors. The year began with founding Board Member and longtime Execu- tive Director, Annie Folger's retirement. Her 30 plus years in community media were celebrated by the cities and residents Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff presents Annie Folger with a proclamation for her service to the community served by the Midpen Media Center. The City of Palo Alto presented Annie with a proclamation expressing apprecia- tion for her outstanding public service, highlighting her many accomplishments. These included compiling an accessible online archive of City Council meetings, producing informa- tive voter engagement resources, building a state-of-the-art HD studio, and establishing programming initiatives including Youth Sports Broadcasting and the Local Heroes awards. continued on page 5 FINANCIAL REPORT OPERATIONS Operating Revenues The Total Operating Revenues for 2017 was $839.9K, down $72.6K (8.0%) from 2016. This was driven by decreases in temporarily restricted PEG fees of $34.0K (-11.1%), In-kind contributions of $30.8K (-28.5%), Class and facility use fees of $21.9K (-24.2%), Professional/ media services of $13.3K (-12.6%), and Contracted meeting coverage of $10.3K (-4.8%). This was partially offset by an increase in Contributions and grants of $16.5K (28. 7%). Note: Includes $273.4K of PEG Fees temporarily restricted for capital purchases. Operating Expenses Operating expenses were $1,241. 7K, a $15. 7K (1.3%) increase that was due to increases in Professional/media services of $7 4.9K (54.8%), Facility expenses of $7.2K (12.5%), and General operating expenses of $4.0K (4.9%). This was partially offset by a decrease in In-kind legal services of $30.8K (-28.5%) and Salaries and benefits of $30.6K (-3.8%) In-kind conbi>utions 14% Revenues ProfessionaVmedia services 16% Statement of Financial Position December 31, 2017 ASSETS Current assets Cash & cash equivalents $ Investments Accounts receivable Prepaid expenses & other current assets Total current assets Fixed assets, net of accumulated depreciation Total assets $ LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Current liabHlties: Accounts payable and accrued expenses $ Unearned Revenue Total current liabilities Net assets: Unrestricted Temporarily restricted Total net assets Total liabilities & net assets $ Net assets, beginning of period $ Change In net assets Net assets end of eriod $ Contracted meeliig coverage 36% 766,048 5,791, 176 119,432 25,759 6,702,415 2,352,151 9,054,566 45,103 178,594 223,697 7,283,973 1,546,896 8,830,869 910541566 8,648,821 182,048 8830 869 2 Non-Operating Revenue/Expenses Total non-operating revenue was $583.8K, including Investment income, realized/unrealized gains and depreciation. Summary Overall, Total Operating Revenues less Total expenses resulted in a net difference of -$401. 7K. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES In 2017, we had capital expenditures of $54.3K. NET ASSETS UPDATE Net assets increased by $182.0K as compared with 2016. That increase included $635.0K in disbursements for operations from the investment account, and $178.6K in depreciation. The Board continues to invest the capital fund conservatively with the advice of professional investment managers. Extraordinary Professional Services 3% General operatilg 7% Professional services 17% Expenses Faciily 5% Statement of Operations Salaries & benefits 62% for the Year Ending December 31, 2017 OPERATING REVENUES Unrestricted Contracted meeting coverage $ 205,999 ProfesslonaVmedla services 92,238 Contributions & grants 74,053 In-kind contributions 77,192 Class & facillty use fees 68,308 PEG fees released from restrictions 45,391 Tape sales & other income 3384 Total Unrestricted Revenues $ 566,565 Temporariy Restricted PEG subscriber pass-through fees 273,369 Total Operating Revenues $ 839,934 EXPENSES Salaries & benefits $ 769,792 ProfesslonaVOutside services 211,655 General operating 87,027 Extraordinary Professional Services 31,055 In-kind legal services 77,192 Facmty 64,931 Total expenses $ 1,241,652 NON-OPERATING REVENUES (AND EXPENSES) Investment dividends, Interest, and realized/unrealized gains $ 762,370 Depreciation -178,604 Total Non-operating Revenues (Expenses) $ 583,766 Change in Net Assets $ 182,048 WHO WE ARE Our Mission Our mission is to inform, inspire, and empower people to speak and act on behalf of their communities, to use television and the internet to create and distribute programs that promote and celebrate individual expression, local achievements, education, cultural exchange, arts appreciation and civic engagement. Midpen Media Center is a 501 (c)(3) public benefit corporation. Midpen Media Center Staff Staff: Keri Stokstad, Jesse Norfleet, Karen Adams, Dave Sorokach, Elliot Margolies, Nancy Brown, Sara Bennett, David Simon, Elizabeth Kiler, Brian Jones, Lupita Segura, Eva Barrows, Chris Pearce, Louise Pencavel, Becky Sanders, Doug Kreitz. Additional part time staff & contractors (not pictured): Alma Angel, Pedro Arenas, Rick Bacigalupi, Batya Bell, Byron Binns, Lessa Bouchard, Kevin Burnett, Patrick Campisi, Andrew Chen, Audrey Daniel, Francisco Del Rosario, Bill Dimitri, Asia Dubarenka, Ann Eisenberg, Tim Erskin, Nathan Gardner, Alex Gomez, Daniel Gomez, Twila Harrison, Alex Hero, Blair Helu, Cathy Keys, Alex Korolko, Brian Kraker, Jeff McGinnis, Christian Munoz, Stan Ng, Sally Rayn, Doug Smith, Vidur Sood, Greg Weinstein, Kyle Wheeler. 3 Our History Midpen Media Center was created by the 2001 merger of Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation (operating since 1990), and Silicon Valley Community Communications, which was established by the Cable Co-op in order to keep local programming alive by providing our facility and equipment in perpetuity. From our earliest day, we have been providing government transparency, enabling multicultural inclusivity and building social capital. Our Programming Midpen Media Center programming tells the stories that need to be told. Our studio, field production, youth programs, non-profit outreach and Pro Services departments capture the dynamic stories of our community. The inspirational Local Heroes honors outstanding commu- nity members dedicated to positive social change in an inter- view show with live footage, public screening and reception. Walk of DREAMers 2017, shared the stories of immigrants who grew up undocumented in the U.S. as they struggled to attain the American Dream. In the summer, 6th-9th graders come to Midpen Media Center to learn computer animation, special effects, studio and field broadcasting skills. Each class creates a final Digiquest show to display their new accomplishments in media. Midpen Media Center shows won regional and national awards in 2017. Talk Art, Abilities United and Afternoon Snack each won an Alliance for Community Media (ACM) Hometown Video Award. Open to Hope and Veterans Helping Veterans won ACM Western Region WAVE Awards. Board of Directors Board of Directors: Back row (left to right): Sue Purdy Pelosi, Michael Stem, Andrew Mellows, Mike Di Battista, Lawrence Lee. Front row: Marie McKenzie, Azieb Nicodimos, Barbara Noparstak, Joanne Reed, Less Lincoln. Not pictured: Gayathri Kanth, Nick Szegda 2017 HIGHLIGHTS Education • Launched new storytelling workshop • Continued our adult/young adult workshops for studio, field, audio, graphics, virtual sets production • Summer production camps for youth • Academic Year -Youth Sports Broadcasting Program & Youth Media Corps • Partnered with youth organizations like Youth Community Service, East Palo Alto YMCA for youth education Screenings • UNAFF 20th Anniversary • Great Mother-Tribute to the mother of the Dalai Lama • Local Heroes Awards • Ape Action Africa Fundraiser • Cuba Cubano Canibano -all volunteer documentary (UNAFF) • Messengers of Peace -Muslims of Senegal Immigration • Immigration Stories Collection • Walk of Dreamers Storytelling Event • Immigration story workshop in local high schools • You Belong Here series launch Accolades • 3 Hometown Video Awards (National Prize) -Talk Art, Abilities United, Afternoon Snack • 2 WAVE Awards (Regional Prize) Open to Hope, Veterans Helping Veterans • Annual volunteer appreciation Autumn of Love party Regional & National Issues • As a member of the ACM, we advocated or Net Neutrality • Representative Anna Eshoo Studio Forum • On the Table Housing Forum • Voter Resources -EPASD Candidate Statement, Parcel Tax Pros & Cons Debate • Understanding Islam, a 3-part series hosted by Supervisor Joe Simitian Professional Services Highlights • myShakespeare -The 5th episode in Stanford creator Greg Watkin's interactive, multimedia edition of Shakespeare • Orientation video for Racing Hearts - Non-profit that provides AEDs (Automated External Defibrillators) to public spaces • City of Palo Alto Public Works Department -Zero Waste Video 4 • GABA TV -Journalism Panel -The Future Of Content • Continued coverage and archiving of the City of Palo Alto City Council and Commission Meetings and the Palo Alto Unified School District Meetings • SETI Lecture Series New TV Series Launches • Indivisible South Bay -Building · community through promotion of civil discourse • You Belong Here -Stories of immigrant women finding their place in the U.S. • Parent Playbook -Stanford psychiatrists' mental health series created in response to teen suicides in the Palo Alto Unified School District • Soul Matters -Putting faith into action; where religion and service intersect • The Sports Sitdown -Youth Sports Talk Show • Timeless Tales -Using storytelling to understand tragedies and hard times • Resilience from the Heart - Acknowledge Alliance series on building youth resiliency Capacity Building • Invested in a new "Whisper Room" for sound recording • Invested in a new truck for mobile prduction • 10 License Grants from Salesforce • Awarded a $100,000 grant from the San Jose Sharks Foundation and SAP, funding a brand new production truck with broadcasting equipment for the Youth Sports Broadcasting & Career Horizons program .\ 2017 IN GRATITUDE Donors and Members ' AmazonSmile Azerbaijan Cultural Society of Northern CA Duane Bay Fred Bockmann Doug Devore Michael Di Battista Midge Dom Peter Drekmeier Ron Herman Belinda Hopkinson Alexander Kanellakos Jennifer Knox Lawrence Lee Less Lincoln Tara Marple Dolores Mccrorey Patrick McErlain Andrew Mellows Azieb Nicodimos Barbara Noparstak continued from page 1 Susan Purdy Pelosi Dean Prange Joanne Reed San Bruno Fire Department Rebecca Sanders San Mateo County Genealogical Society Mary Sause Michael Stem Marilyn Stocker Lee Taubeneck Paul Wehrenberg In-Kind Palo Alto Baking Company Margaret Petros, Mothers Against Murder Piazza's Market Lewis and Joan Platt, East Palo Alto YMCA Trader Joe's Palo Alto The Board of Directors appointed author and business consultant Debbie Gisonni as Interim Executive Director while conducting a permanent executive search. Debbie's back- ground in senior leadership roles, her personal growth exper- tise, and marketing knowledge made her the perfect person to Debbie Glsonnl (right) hosting a panel discussion at the Autumn of Love Appreciation Event guide the Midpen Media Center through the leadership transi- tion. "As Interim Executive Director, Debbie was immediately accepted, trusted and respected by our entire board and staff," says Immediate Past Board President Barbara Noparstak. Barbara stepped down at the end of 2017, having served as president during significant milestones for the organization, including the HD studio conversion and development of youth programs, including the MC Sports program. Her leadership, financial stewardship and mentoring was essential to the board's success. "It's just astonishing how intensely Barbara cares about the Midpen Media Center, and how that led directly to her excep- tional leadership for ten full years," says current Board Presi- dent, Sue Purdy Pelosi. Barbara shepherded the yearlong strategic planning process. She also provided stability during 5 ' Advisory Council Meda Okelo, Publisher, El Ravenswood Joanie Bigwood Osborn, Former Director, MPAC and SVCC Audrey Ramberg, City of Mountain View Carl Yorke, Principal Information Developer at Symantec Elisa Agor, Learning, HR & Technology Director Bern Beecham, Former Palo Alto Mayor Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust, Former Palo Alto Mayor Sid Espinosa, Director of Corporate Citizenship, Microsoft Ted Glasser, Stanford University Karen Holman, Former Palo Alto Mayor Tony Klein, Latham & Watkins, LLP Liz Kniss, Palo Alto City Council Kerl Stokstad (left) and Jesse Norfleet at the Autumn of Love Appreciation Event the extensive nine-month executive director search. In August, community media advocate Keri Stokstad, with over 15 years executive leadership experience building and managing non profit media centers, was selected from a pool of qualified applicants to lead Midpen Media Center into a new era of expanded community service. When Keri served as Board Chair of the Alliance for Com- munity Media (ACM), she witnessed Annie Folger's stauch advocacy for media access at the congressional level and applauded Midpen Media's exemplary record of award-winning productions at the ACM regional and national conferences. Midpen Media Center has a legacy of established excel- lence, with a wonderful board and creative award-winning staff and producers. Keri states, "It's rewarding to be able to join a media center with a solid foundation of dedicated supporters. I'm very excited about our future potential to engage with the community. There is an opportunity to take our unique, cre- ative and powerful communications resources and use them to serve our communities in new and innovative ways." As lixecutive Director, Keri is building stronger partnerships with neighboring access stations including San Jose and Mountain View. She's also working with Midpen Media Center service area cities, including the City of Palo Alto to ensure thriving collaborations. Keri looks forward to continuing to get acquainted with the board, staff, producers and volunteers. Boston Abrams Mike Alexander Will Allen-DuPraw Peter Anderson Jill Andre Alma Angel JoAppogast Pedro Arenas Eric Baker Golda Bansal JT Bard Eva Barrows Batya Bell Sarah Ben Makhlouf John Bessire Byron Binns Ella Blatnik Fred Bockmann Giana Borgia Lessa Bouchard Bob Boucher Barbara Breuchert Shannon Brooks Nick Brown Eric Brown Kevin Burnett Bernadette Burns John Cabrera Patrick Campisi Doug Carman Anouk Catania Bryce Caudle Ciara Chakraborty Beth Charlesworth Vijeet Chaugule Andrew Chen Scott Chesworth Kathy Cordova Julien Crespo Audrey Daniel Santa Dasu OUR VOLUNTEERS Doug Kreitz and Fred Bockmann at the Autumn of Love event Bill Daul Francisco Del Rosario Stacie Delakovia Lisa DeMartini Bill Dimitri Edita Donnelly Asia Dubarenka TylerDupaw Robert Edgar Patricia Faust Esther Fichtenholz Brenna Fong Phil Fox Ori Gal Azita Gandjei Gianna Gencarella Sean George Carol Golemme Toni Gooch Trich Gray Lionel Haeberle Ashley Harkness Twila Harrison Blair Hetu Paul Hickman Rachael Hogan Michael Horgan Ben Hornstein Alexander Horsley Edgar Hsieh Jack Hullman Hannah lllathu Roxanne Janson Kenneth Jeon Allan Ji Deshaun Jordan Marc Brendan Judson Craig Kaplan Cathy Keys Michael Kim James Kim Linda Kincaid Laura Kinley Suresh Kondapali Carla Kong Alex Korolko Daniel Kottke Susan Kraft Elise Kwan Brandon Lee-Hyde Annie Li Mei Lin Fung Erik Lind Alma Love Austin S. Lu Gerard Lum Susan Lutter Jules Lyons Matthew Mao Ron Marks George Marshall Mary McCargar-Van Arkel Joyce McClure Patrick McErlain John McGuire David Menasco Scott Van Duyne helps editors in the classroom Jennifer Mencia 6 Rene Mendoza Sam Miller Isiah Moody Herb Moore Stan Ng Jesse Norfleet Alex Offput Mark O'Neill Meghna Patel Cheech Pencavel John Pencavel Matt Pencavel Phil Pflager Kai Porter Joe Prestipino Allison Provost Krishna Raghunath Sally Rayn Steph Reaider Judy Rock Rick Row AKSah Becky Sanders Kent Schneeveis Tata Serebryanaya David Simon Liam Smith Vicci Smith VidurSood Shobana Swamy Amber Tang Thomas Thomas Jules Thomas Dan Turturici Michael Uhila Tom Upton Dick Van Arkel Scott Van Duyne Edger Villa Kelly Wang Marty Wasserman Veronica Weber Greg Weinstein Nance Wheeler Linda Wieder Charles Williams Asher Winikoff Nozipo Wobogo Elaine Womack Ashley Xu Kritika Yerrapotu Yo Yoon Loren Young Jessica Yuen Ana Zavala Judy Zeng Charlotte Zhang Min Zheng Alan Zoraster Evelyn Kendy Kristi! Margo Steffy TD ORGANIZATIONS WE SERVED IN 2017 We are a valuable community resource, helping local residents capltallze on evolving opportunities In the digital era. We serve Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Stanford and unincorporated portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We help these residents adapt to the changing media landscape by teaching them skills to Independently use the media. We help schools, churches, local governments and non-profit organizations tell their story through multiple media platforms. Studio class videography 100 Year Plan for Climate Change 1 World Online Abilities United Acknowledge Alliance ACLU of Northern California Acterra Adolescent Counseling Services Afghan Coalition Aikiway Akoma Arts Group Alliance for Community Media -West Region American High School American Legion American Muslim Voice Foundation Anita Fong Memorial Fund Ape Action Africa Apple, Inc. Art in Action Association of Bay Area Governments Avenidas Barron Park Elementary School Bay Area Tutoring Association Building Futures Now California People of Faith Working Against the Death Penalty Cai Humanities California Medical Association Foundation Camp Winnarainbow Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County CCI Center For Comparative Studies for Race & Ethnicity Center for Continuing Study of California Economy Center for Open Recovery Center for Public Environmental Oversight Center of Equine Health ChargePoint Citizen Climate Lobby City of Atherton City of Belmont City of East Palo Alto City of Menlo Park City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto HR Dept City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Public Works Cloud Camp Code Writing for Kids Codepink Colleen Sullivan Art College Track Columbia Middle School Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Congresswoman Jackie Speier Connected Horse Cuestaglass DeAnza Community College Denodo Technologies Diane Lee Moomey Art Die ZEIT District Productive East Palo Alto Academy High School East Palo Alto Library East Palo Alto Sanitation District East Palo Alto YMCA Eastside College Preparatory School eBay EPACENTER Arts EPA Today State of the City address given by Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff 7 An event In Bell Park shot by volunteers Eritrean Community Center of Santa Clara County FBI Foothill Community College Ford Motor Company Forrester Research Frame of Mind Films Fremont High School Friends for Survival Fund a Need Gamble Gardens German American Business Association Girl Scout Troop 61634 Global Future Education Foundation Green Beret Army Special Forces Gunn High School Health Care for All Health Education Services Heart2Heart Club Help a Bee Hortonworks Housing for Teachers Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Indivisible South Bay Institute of Transpersonal Psychology Intel lntentio Fitness Coaching Internet of Things Project Inviting Spaces lronbound Films Jewish Family and Children's Services KB Drifters KCETLink Greater LA Kennedy Middle School Kenya Help Kleid Design Group KZSU Laura Sullivan Consulting Lawrence Livermore Labs Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the SF Bay Area League of Women Voters Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County Live in Peace ORGANIZATIONS WE SERVED IN 2017 Living Wisdom School Logitech Looker Lyfe Kitchen Made Into America Man-Sours MejiaArts Menlo Park Fire Protection District Menlo-Atherton High School Midpeninsula Free University Mobile Art Academy Notre Dame de Namur University Nuestra Casa NYPD Field equipment rental Office of Anna Eshoo Office of Joe Simitian Office of Judge LaDoris Cordell Office of Pat Burt Offices of Carpenter and Mayfield One East Palo Alto Open to Hope Oracle Our Revolution PAC-12 Networks Palo Alto Art Center Palo Alto Forward Palo Alto High School Palo Alto Philharmonic Palo Alto Players Palo Alto PTA Palo Alto Unified School District Paradigm Education Parents Place Community Outreach Peace Action PeerSpace Peninsula Clean Energy Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Piper Portola Valley and East Bay Homeschool Choirs Posit Science pr Ana Predii Moffett Priority Africa Network Qwerty Education Services Racing Hearts Radio Goethe Ravenswood Family Health Center Ravenswood School District Redwood City Government Rise Up for Justice San Mateo County Board San Mateo County Health System San Mateo County Libraries San Mateo County Office of Diversity and Equity San Mateo NAACP Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County Kennel Club Scary Cow Semarchy SETI Seva Health Foundation SFFILM Festival Silicon Valley At Home Silicon Valley Community Foundation Silicon Valley Courageous Resistance Silicon Valley Thorium Alliance San Jose Peace & Justice Center Sling Solar Air Tech South Bay Swing Left SRI Ventures St. Francis High School Stand with Reality Stanford Alzheimer Disease Research Center Stanford CHIPAO Stanford School of Medicine Stanford University Stanford Women in Politics Sunnyvale Heritage Park Museum Support Teacher Housing Survey Monkey Sustain Our Warriors Project SV2 svos Swing Left Stanislaus Understanding Islam hosted by Joe Simitian 8 United Nations Association presents a screening In the studio Synapse School The California Endowment The Compassionate Friends The Friendship Line The Pear Theater The Santa Clara Players Toastmasters Track Trump Project Travelers Fighting Hunger UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine UC Irvine School of Medicine UCSF UNAFF Universal Income Project US Department of Energy VCY Stratagem Veterans Helping Veterans View Ray Wavy Gravy West Coast Songwriters Western States Legal Foundation Wind masters Women Veterans Alliance Woodside Capital Partners Young Americans for Freedom Youth United for Community Action ' . OUR YEAR IN NUMBERS 84 PRODUCED BY STAFF 303 ~OMMUNITY PROGRAMS PLUS 482 LIVE GOVERNMENT MEETINGS 286 STUDENTS AND VOLUNTEERS CONTRIBUTED 4, 752 HOURS & VIDEOTAPED 234 ORGANIZATIONS 9 WE MENTORED 29 YOUTH INTERNS HELD 8 YOUTH WORKSHOPS &CAMPS PRODUCED 455 LIVE SCHOOL BROADCASTS CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO AL TO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT MINUTES Special Meeting December 3, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:03 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine; Holman arrived at 5:06 P.M., Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Council Member Tanaka participating from The Prince Park Tower Tokyo, Main Lobby 4-8-1 Shibakoen Minato,Tokyo 105-8563 Japan Absent: Action Items 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Residential and Mixed-use Development Standards Including, but not Limited to, Minimum and Maximum Unit Density, Unit Size, Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Open Space Including Rooftop Gardens; Parking Requirements Including, but not Limited to, Regulations Related to In- lieu Parking for Downtown Commercial Uses and Retail Parking for Mixed Use Projects; Exclusively Residential Projects in Certain Commercial Zoning Districts; Ground-floor Retail and Retail Preservation Provisions; the Entitlement Approval Process; and Other Regulations Governing Residential, Multi-family Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts, all to Promote Housing Development Opportunities in These Zoning Districts in Furtherance of Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA: Determination of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval of the Proposed Ordinance on October 10, 2018 (Continued From November 26, 2018). Vice Mayor Filseth advised that he will not be participating in this part of the Agenda Item due to owning property in an RM-15 zone. Council Member Holman advised that he will not be participating in this part of the Agenda Item due to being within 500 feet of an RM-2 zone. Page 1of11 r"' ..... I' 1 '•' ACTION MINUTES '• MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to accept the following changes related to Multi-Family Zones: A. Unit Densitv. Replace RM-15 zoning designation, which allows 15 units per acre with a RM-20 designation that allows 20 units per acre, to align with Housing Element density allowance; B. Minimum Density. Establish a minimum unit density as provided below. Allow fewer units when determined by the Planning Director, after review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), that existing site improvements or parcel constraints preclude meeting this minimum standard: i. RM-20: 11 units/acre ii. RM-30: 16 units/acre iii. RM-40: 21 units/acre; C. Non-complying Unit Density. Allow redevelopment and replacement of legally established residential housing units that exceed the maximum unit density allowed for the parcel, subject to the following criteria: i. Other than unit density, the project complies with all applicable development standards. ii. The project is a residential rental project. iii. The development shall not be eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.15. The applicant must elect whether to utilize state density bonus law or the exception described herein as an alternative to state density bonus law; and D. Administrative Code Clean Up. Modify PAMC Section 18.13.040(g) regarding below market rate (BMR) housing units to reflect regulatory requirements of Chapter 16.65 of Title 16. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to review the concept of when a project is over the number of units, it will not make the project non- compliant, and return to Council in 2019 for review. Council Member Tanaka left the meeting at 7:58 P.M. Page 2of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 I ACTION MINUTES INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion to allow a single-family home to be rebuilt as a single-family home and a duplex to be rebuilt as a duplex without meeting the minimum density requirements. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to accept the_ following changes related to Multi-Family Zones: A. Unit Density. Replace RM-15 zoning designation, which allows 15 units per acre with a RM-20 designation that allows 20 units per acre, to align with Housing Element density allowance; B. Minimum Density. Establish a minimum unit density as provided below. Allow fewer units when determined by the Planning Director, after review by the ARB, that existing site improvements or parcel constraints preclude meeting this minimum standard: iv. RM-20: 11 units/acre v. RM-30: 16 units/acre vi. RM-40: 21 units/acre; C. Non-complying Unit Density. Allow redevelopment and replacement of legally established residential housing units that exceed the maximum unit density allowed for the parcel, subject to the following criteria: i. Other than unit density, the project complies with all applicable development standards. ii. The project is a residential rental project. iii. The development shall not be eligible for a density bonus pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.15. The applicant must elect whether to utilize state density bonus law or the exception described herein as an alternative to state density bonus law; D. Administrative Code Clean Up. Modify PAMC Section 18.13.040(g) regarding below market rate (BMR) housing units to reflect regulatory requirements of Chapter 16.65 of Title 16; E. Direct Staff to review the concept of when a project is over the number of units, it will not make the project non-compliant and return to Council in 2019 for review; and Page 3of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ACTION MINUTES F. Allow a single-family home to be rebuilt as a single-family home and a duplex to be rebuilt as a duplex without meeting the minimum density requirements. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-0 Filseth, Holman recused, Tanaka absent Council took a break at 8:20 P.M. and returned at 8:29 PM Council Member Scharff advised he would not be participating in this part of the Agenda Item due to owning property within the Downtown CD-C Zoning District. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to accept the following changes related to Downtown CD-C Zoning District: A. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum density to 40 units per acre. With the proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc.; B. Unit Size. Establish a maximum average housing unit size of 1,500 square feet, (weighted average by the number of bedrooms); C. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within residential mixed-use buildings; D. Driveway Approach. Reinforce existing city policy and guidelines to preclude curb cuts on University Avenue, except for City-owned parcels or City-sponsored projects; E. Residential Only Development. Allow housing-only projects to be constructed downtown, except in the ground floor (GF) combining district. Retail preservation ordinance standards apply for market rate housing projects. Note, current zoning standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed use development or on housing opportunity sites (i.e., in the Housing Element); F. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 75 percent of the usable open space requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to objective performance standards; G. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the zoning code and under State Density Bonus Law Page 4of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 I ACTION MINUTES through waivers granted by the Director of Planning after review by the ARB. This program would be an alternative to the State Density Bonus Law and SB 35 streamlining, since it allows for more density. Components of the HIP include the following: i. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) waiver to increase residential FAR from 1.0 up to 3.0, except for portion of FAR required to remain commercial by the requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or GF combining district. ii. No TDRs may be used in conjunction with a qualifying HIP project iii. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC 18. 76.020 {Architectural Review); and H. Strike Section 8 of the Ordinance and direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to review it further. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission to further study decoupled parking, in lieu parking, and off-site parking for residential developments and return to Council in 2019. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Ordinance a requirement that for rooftop gardens, no up lighting is allowed and light sources should be shielded. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the enforcement officers' tool kit to conduct code enforcement activities if disruptive noise is perceived offsite from the subject property. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission to analyze interaction of housing production by: A. Changing the hotel Floor Area Ratio {FAR); B. Elimination of ability of commercial uses above ground to participate in the in-lieu parking program; and C. Methods to match increases in residential FAR with a decrease in commercial FAR for mixed use projects. Page 5of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ACTION MINUTES Council Member Tanaka returned to the meeting at 9:37 P.M. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XX to require that rooftop gardens should be 100 feet away from any low- density residential zones. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to modify the Motion Part H. to state "add language to Section 8 of the Ordinance indicating office uses above the ground floor shall not be eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program for the period of one year or until the Planning and Transportation Commission returns to the City Council with a detailed study and recommendation." MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to accept the following changes related to Downtown CD-C Zoning District: A. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum density to 40 units per acre. With the proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc.; B. Unit Size. Establish a maximum average housing unit size of 1,500 square feet, (weighted average by the number of bedrooms); C. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within residential mixed-use buildings; D. Driveway Approach. Reinforce existing city policy and guidelines to preclude curb cuts on University Avenue, except for City-owned parcels or City-sponsored projects; E. Residential Only Development. Allow housing-only projects to be constructed downtown, except in the ground floor (GF) combining district. Retail preservation ordinance standards apply for market rate housing projects. Note, current zoning standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed use development or on housing opportunity sites (i.e., in the Housing Element); F. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 75 percent of the usable open space requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to objective performance standards; Page 6of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ACTION MINUTES G. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the zoning code and under State Density Bonus Law through waivers granted by the Director of Planning after review by the ARB. This program would be an alternative to the State Density Bonus Law and SB 35 streamlining, since it allows for more density. Components of the HIP include the following: i. FAR waiver to increase residential FAR from 1.0 up to 3.0, except for portion of FAR required to remain commercial by the requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or GF combining district. ii. No TDRs may be used in conjunction with a qualifying HIP project iii. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC 18. 76.020 (Architectural Review); H. Add language to Section 8 of the Ordinance indicating office uses above the ground floor shall not be eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program for the period of one year or until the Planning and Transportation Commission returns to the City Council with a detailed study and recommendation; I. Direct Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission to further study decoupled parking, in lieu parking, and off-site parking for residential developments and return to Council in 2019; J. Add to the Ordinance a requirement that for rooftop gardens, no up lighting is allowed and light sources should be shielded; and K. Direct Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission to analyze interaction of housing production by: i. Changing the hotel FAR; ii. Elimination of ability of commercial uses above ground to participate in the in-lieu parking program; and iii. Methods to match increases in residential FAR with a decrease in commercial FAR for mixed use projects. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Kou no, Scharff recused, Tanaka absent Page 7of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ACTION MINUTES Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Council Member Scharff advised they would not be participating in this part of the Agenda Item due to owning property near a Fixed Rail Station. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve the Staff recommendation regarding parking standards for properties within 112-mile of a Fixed Rail Station: A. Micro Unit ( <450 square feet)-0.5; B. Studio-0.8; C. 1 Bedroom-0.8; and D. 2+ Bedroom-1.6 AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to amend the Motion Part C. to 1.0 and Part D. to 2.0. SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE SECONDER AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to continue the discussion of the proposed parking standards within V2-mile of a fixed rail station to a date uncertain. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 3-2 Holman, Kou no, Filseth, Kniss, Scharff recused, Tanaka absent Council took a break at 11:07 P.M. and returned at 11:09 P.M. Council Member DuBois left the meeting at 11:10 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve the following changes related to Citywide Revisions: A. Open Space. Establish a consistent open space requirement for multi- family housing units in multi-family residential and commercial districts of 150 square feet (current code ranges from 100 to 200 square feet depending on the number of units provided). Micro units, defined herein as units with less than 450 square feet, are proposed to have a commensurate requirement of 40 square feet/unit; B. Review Process. Eliminate Site & Design Review, which currently applies to residential and residential mixed-use projects with 10 more Page 8of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ACTION MINUTES units in commercial zones. Site & Design applications are reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board (ARB) and City Council. By contrast, commercial-only development projects and housing projects in multi-family zones are reviewed only by the ARB. The amendment makes the review of housing projects (including mixed-use development) no more burdensome than the review process for commercial projects and retains options for appeals to Council; C. Retail Preservation. Exempt 100 percent affordable housing projects (120 percent Area Median Income [AMI] and below) from the retail preservation requirement except in the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts; and D. Parking. Adjust multifamily parking requirements based on maximum anticipated demand. Coincidentally, the changes generally reflect the standards permitted by State Density Bonus Law. Other changes are proposed to incentivize affordable housing and reflect lower parking demand near transit. AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to add a new Part E. to strike the proposed affordable housing standards related to parking for multi-family residential uses; and that an affordable multi-family development may ask for a reduction in parking requirements based on maximum demand. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the amendment "up to 50 percent based on maximum ... " INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the word "add" to the Amendment so it reads " ... and add that an affordable multi-family ... " INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the percentage from 50 to 100. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the word "demonstrated" to the Amendment so it reads " ... based on maximum demonstrated demand." INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove the word "demonstrated" from the amendment and replace it with the word "anticipated." Page 9of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ACTION MINUTES AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to amend the Motion to add a new Part E. to strike the proposed affordable housing standards related to parking for multi-family residential uses; and add that an affordable multi-family development may ask for a reduction in parking requirements up to 100 percent based on maximum anticipated demand. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-2 Fine, Kniss no, DuBois, Tanaka absent INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to exempt the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within residential mixed-use buildings. MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve the following changes related to Citywide Revisions: A. Open Space. Establish a consistent open space requirement for multi- family housing units in multi-family residential and commercial districts of 150 square feet (current code ranges from 100 to 200 square feet depending on the number of units provided). Micro units, defined herein as units with less than 450 square feet, are proposed to have a commensurate requirement of 40 square feet/unit; B. Review Process. Eliminate Site & Design Review, which currently applies to residential and residential mixed-use projects with 10 more units in commercial zones. Site & Design applications are reviewed by the PTC, ARB and City Council. By contrast, commercial-only development projects and housing projects in multi-family zones are reviewed only by the ARB. The amendment makes the review of housing projects (including mixed-use development) no more burdensome than the review process for commercial projects and retains options for appeals to Council; · C. Retail Preservation. Exempt 100 percent affordable housing projects (120 percent AMI and below) from the retail preservation requirement except in the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts; D. Parking. Adjust multifamily parking requirements based on maximum anticipated demand. Coincidentally, the changes generally reflect the standards permitted by State Density Bonus Law. Other changes are proposed to incentivize affordable housing and reflect lower parking demand near transit; Page 10of11 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 12/03/18 ... Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Guidelines Approved by City Council: October 1, 2012 Last revised: October 1, 2012 Background COUNS:IL MEETING 2 /~/ 19 ~eceived Before Meeting aa"eceived at Meeting The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. Each year the City Council reviews it's priorities at its Annual Council Retreat. On October 1, 2012 the City Council formally adopted the definition of a council priority, and the Council's process and guidelines for selection of priorities. Definition A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant attention during the year. Purpose The establishment of Council priorities will assist the Council and staff to better allot and utilize time for discussion and decision making. Process 1. Three months in advance of the annual Council Retreat, staff will solicit input from the City Council on the priorities to be reviewed and considered for the following year. a. Council members may submit up to three priorities. b. Priorities should be submitted no later than December 1. c. As applicable, the City Manager will contact newly elected officials for their input by December 1. d. The City Clerk will provide timely notice to the public to submit proposed priorities by December 1. The Policy and Services Committee shall recommend to the Council which suggestions if any shall be considered at the City Council retreat. 2. Staff will collect and organize the recommended priorities into a list for Council consideration, and provide to Council no less than two weeks in advance of the retreat. 3. The Policy and Services Committee, each year at its December meeting, shall make recommendations about the process that will be used at the Annual Retreat paying particular attention to the number of priorities suggested by Council members. The recommended process is to be forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council retreat. Guidelines for Selection of Priorities 1. There is a goal of no more than three priorities per year. 2. Priorities generally have a three year time limit. Nov Staff Solicits Input from Council Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Schedule P&S Committee Meeting to Discuss Recommended Process Council Deadline to Submit Priorities Dec.1 Council Meeting to Consider Recommended Process Council Holds Annual Council Retreat • • • • Dec Jan Last Updated: 8/17/2012 \:" ,.· Feb HIGHTEK DECK, INC. DEBIGNED F'DR LDDKS • LAST A L.IF'ETIMli: DISTRIBUTORS OF' LUMBEROCK PREMIUM SYNTHETIC DOCK & DECKING PROF'ILES TEL 650.369.7967 • CELL 650.704.0544 • BILL@HIGHTEKDECK.COM • www.HIGHTEKOECK.COM ASK F'OR BILL FLYNN Dear Council Member Greg Tanaka I understand that the Palo Alto City Council will be discussing the California Avenue and El Camino Real commercial areas at the January 28th Council meeting and, as you discuss materials, I would like you to be aware of our premium dock and decking profiles. In keeping with Palo Alto's commitment to a beautiful and vibrant city while achieving cost effective and environmentally responsible goals, my company, High Tek Deck, Inc., is the California distributor for Lumberock, an appealing recyclable dock and decking product with a variety of benefits that outperform the competition. Please find enclosed information on our dock and decking profiles. I'd be happy to discuss with you and the City Council, in person, the features and benefits Lumberock offers. We also have a short installation video on our web site that will give you a good idea of how the product is used. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to speaking with you further. Sincerely ~:r High Tek Deck, Inc. We deliver a quality product that does what is PROMISED ... season after season. 5/4x6 Board 1"x5.5" (2.5cm x 14cm) 5/4x6 Groove & Groove 1"x5.5" (2.5cm x 14cm) 12ft, 16ft 5/4x6 Tongue & Groove 1"x5" (2.5cm x 12.7cm) 12ft, 16ft 1x10 Trim Board O. 75"x9.5" (1.9cm x 24cm) 8ft 2x6 Board 1.5"x5.5" (3.Bcm x 13. 7cm) 12ft, 16ft 2x6 Groove & Groove 1.5"x5.5" (3.Bcm x 13. 7cm) 12ft, 16ft 2x6 Tongue & Groove 1.5"x5" (3.Bcm x 12. 7cm) 12ft, 16ft 2x8Board 1.5"x7.5" (3.Bcm x 19cm) 12ft, 16ft 4x4Board 3.5"x3.5" (B.9cm x B.9cm) 12ft, 16ft Waterproof Lumberock® can withstand even the harshest marine environments. Top Rall (514x6 or 2x6 Board) Spindles & Support Blocks (2x2 Baluster) Ralllng Post Sleeve (4x4Hollow) Post Cap & Poat Skirt 1"x5.5" (2.5cm x 14cm) 1.5"x5.5" (3.Bcm x 13.7cm) :t2ft, 16ft 1.375" x 1.375" ~ 1.2ft (3.4Bcm x 3.48cm) ~(cut to size) 4.25" x 4.25" (10.Bcm x 10.Bcm) 4ft Will never rot, creek or spHnter No pre-drilling during Installation Routing leaves a smooth, clean look No bl-yearly staining or painting Impervious to water (Incl. saltwater) Solid color throughout material Offer color-matching ralUng system profies " " " " " Enjoy the low maintenance benefit that Lumberock® provides. Explore the versatility of Lumberock®. INSTALLATION --PREMIUM DECKllll&-- DECK INSTALLATION GUIDELINES Please note that Lumberock Premium Decking claims no responsibility for the improper installation of our product. All installations are unique and it is the sole responsibility of the installer to determine specific requirements in regard to each application. We recommend that a licensed architect, engineer or local building official review all designs before installation. Knowing how to work with Lumberock Premium Decking is the key to success and to the elimination of call backs. As with most synthetic deck boards, Lumberock Premium Decking will expand in the heat and contract in the cold. It's important to note that the acclimation of the board to the current ambient temperature prior to final cuts and fastening of the board is critical. We recommend not using end to end butt joints and keeping boards to a minimum length. Best practice includes applying deck boards across the shortest length of the deck whenever possible. In these guidelines, you will find procedures to eliminate problems associated with un- sightly gaps that could occur if these procedures are not followed. By taking the time to do the installation correctly, you will be providing a beautiful deck or dock that will look great for a lifetime with very little maintenance required. Handling & Storage • Always keep Lumberock Deck Boards clean prior to installation. • Note that all Lumberock Deck Boards are manufactured longer to allow forthe ends to be trimmed prior to or after installation should any damage occur during handling or storage. • Store Lumberock Deck Boards out of the sun and avoid laying boards directly on hot surfaces to avoid a difference in board temperature when installing. • Lay boards flat. If stored off the ground, support boards every 18" and if boards are stacked higher than one bundle, supports should line up vertically. • Be sure to lift each board individually versus sliding across bottom boards. This will prevent hidden debris from damaging the boards. • In order to allow for assimilation of Lumberock deck boards to current temperatures, lay out individual boards in advance of final cuts and fasteningof the boards to the deck or dock frames. You will have better success the longer that you allow the board to assimilate to current temperatures. Laying the individual boards out overnight is optimal. Deck Design and Layout In order to eliminate noticeable gapping, we encourage the use of a transition board or a "picture frame" design instead of utilizing butt joints whereby two boards are installed end to end. In the utilization of transition board, a board is placed perpendicular to and in between two boards where the design layout is longer than one board. Joints should not be staggered, but rather uniform and broken up with a transition board. ~ / I/ " Transition Board Picture Frame Design As a rule of thumb, shorter boards (16 feet or less) experience less movement than longer lengths and should be incorporated into the deck design and layout whenever possible. The best practice at installation is always to run the joists in the long direction which will provide for the use of shorter length deck boards. When converting a deck frame from short run joists to long run joists, a 2x4 sleeper lying flat could be utilized on 16 inch centers across 2x joists. The sleepers can be fastened to each of the 2x joists. Tools and Working with lumberock Premium Decking Lumberock Premium Decking can be cut and shaped with ordinary wood working tools. Pre-drilling is not necessary and carbide saw blades are not needed. One of the true ben- efits of Lumberock Premium Decking is the unique ability to router the ends to a beautiful finish. Lumberock Premium Deck boards can be bent, curved and shaped using approved heating blankets and ovens. Routered Board Should the need to rip a board arise, it is imperative to rip both sides of the board to avoid possible curvatures. When cutting notches into Lumberock Premium Decking to go around posts, it is imperative that you oversize the cut by a Yi inch to allow for movement around the post and to prevent cracking of the board which will occur if this is not planned for accordingly. When fastening, place screws no closer than% inch from the end of the board. Framing and Joist Span The frame of a deck is its primary support structure, consisting of posts, beams and joists. Follow these deck framing guidelines before installing Lumberock Premium Decking. All joists must be level and structurally sound for new and existing deck frames. Use the chart below to determine the appropriate joist span for your residential or com- mercial project. Deck boards can be placed perpendicular to the joist or placed diagonally on the joist. Remember to install Lumberock Premium Decking boards with the wood grain pattern facing up to enhance the look and improve the slip resistance of the board. Maximum Joist Framing Span RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL goo Perpendicular 45° Diagonal goo Perpendicular 45° Diagonal w i 5/4 x 6 Boards 16" 12" 12" 12" ~ 2x6Boards 24" 16" 16" 16" Joist framing span applies to Standard, Groove & Groove and Tongue & Groove profiles. .... ,.. -~ ... --~r=-.:::--, .... ,;---- ~~==== ,.4,,1,!!E§~~~§ 0 ........, _____ '-r-r~----,....,... 0 4. 11.•n St bstn•ctur<•lmta11Jt u 1 End Post P,.ix Inf, f':::tt'"' FranwlnstJPJt1011 Gapping and Thermal Expansion ~.~ J liP Post box 'r• Lumberock Premium Decking boards are gapped end to house, end to trim or end to feature board based on their location within your project. Proper gapping is necessary to accommo- date for inherent thermal expansion properties. As discussed elsewhere in these guidelines, we do not recommend that you incorporate end to end boards in your design but rather incorporate a "picture frame" design whereby you utilize a feature board in areas where more than one board length is required. Lumberock Premium Decking boards do not need to be gapped side-by-side. The amount of expansion and contraction that will occur depends on the length of the board and temperature of the board attime of installation. Refer to the thermal expansion gap chart below to determine the necessary gap at time of installation. You can expect that a 12-foot board installed at 60 degrees F will expand W' upon reaching a maximum temperature of120 degrees F and will contract W' when reach- ing a minimum temperature of 0 degrees F. In order to account for movement on both ends of the board, the recommended gap to leave on each end of the board would be 1/8''. It is necessary to allow the boards to acclimate to current installation temperatures as outlined earlier in these guidelines. Estimated End to House, End to Trim or End to Feature Board Gap Recommendation Decimal Conversion 1/8 0.13 Installed Temperature 3/16 0.19 0 20 40 60 80 100 1/4 0.25 Feet End Gap to leave for expansion in inches 5/16 0.31 3/8 0.38 ..c: 6 0.17 0.14 0.10 O.Q7 0.03 0.00 "' 7/16 0.44 c: 8 0.23 0.18 0,14 0.09 0.05 0.00 ~ 9/16 0.56 11/16 0.69 "E 12 0.34 0.27 0.2 0.14 0.07 0.00 ~ 16 0.45 0.36 0.27 0.18 0.09 0.00 FASTEN I NG OPTIONS Lumberock Premium Decking can be installed using a face fastening system or a hidden fastening system. No pre-drilling is necessary to install Lumberock Premium Decking and color-match screws are available. Two screws are needed per joist board. For joist spans of 16" centers, 4.5 screws per square foot will be needed. For joist spans of 24" centers, 3 screws per square foot are needed. This figure does not include trim or railing screws. Screws that are face fastened are screwed directly down from the deck or dock surface into the wood framing underneath. We recommend 2 Yi'' or 3", #8 or #10 stainless steel, flat head deck screws or Headcote stainless steel composite deck screws. (Visit www.lumberock.com for Headcote color match options). Smaller size deck screws are not recommended. Face fastening is the best option to mitigate thermal expansion properties and to protect against potential wind and/or water uplift which could occur with a hidden fastening option. A hidden fastener system attaches the board to the frame without leaving any marks on the surface of the deck or dock board. Hidden fasteners biscuits are recommended for boards over 16-feet in length in climates where extreme temperature changes will occur. This fastening system will allow the board to expand and contract with annual temperature changes. Groove and groove profiles are available and work with a number of available hidden fastening options sold nationally. (Visit www.lumberock.com for approved hidden fastener options). RAILING INSTALLATION GUIDELINES Name Top Spindle Support Bottom Spindle Support Top Rail Spindles Cap Post 12 } '" = Splnd (13 t__ ,..,. Posts 12 } "" Posts 12 } kin I I -~ -- Item Quantity Name -- 2x4 1 2x4 1 2x6 1 2x2 13 Support Blocks Post Sleeve Post Cap Post Skirt 2x6 Top Rall 11) 2x4TopSplndle Support 11) 2x4BottcmS~eSu~rt(l) [J-2x2SupportBlockl2}-[J Step 1-Cut Materials for a 6 foot section Item 2x2 4x4Hollow Post Cap Post Skirt Quantity 2 2 2 2 0 I: - I I - Measure the exact distance between each set of Post Sleeves and cut the 2x4 Top Spindle Support, the 2x4 Bottom Spindle Support and the 2x6 Top Rail accordingly. Use 13-2x2s as the Railing Spindles and space them evenly between the Post Sleeves. Cut the remain- ing 2x2s into two 3 Y, "Support Blocks. Step 2 -Assemble Spindles Screw the middle Spindle to the center point of the 2x4 Top and Bottom Rails. Attach the remaining Spindles, working your way out from the center point. Leave a maximum 3.9" gap between each Spindle. Center the 2x2 Spindles on the 3 Yi" side of the 2x4s. Screw all Spindles to the 2x4 Top and Bottom Rails. Step 3 -Attach the Support Blocks Center and attach the two (2) Support Blocks under the 2x4 Bottom Spindle Support as shown on the diagram. Step 4-Attach 2x6 Top Rail Center the Top Rail to the Top Spindle Support Board and attach. Step 5 -Attach Post Sleeve and Skirt Post sleeves are designed to fit over pressure treated wood posts with a maximum dimension of 3-1/2" x 3-1/2" and should be measured and trimmed to that size before installing post sleeves. Slide each Post Sleeve over the 4x4 wood post. Slide the Post Skirt over the Post Sleeve. Step 6 -Attach Railing Assembly to Posts Measure the exact distance between posts. Trim rail ends to length if needed to fit in between the posts. Attach the Rail assembly to the posts. Step 7 -Attach Post Cap Complete your railing section with a standard or decorative Post Cap on top of each post sleeve. TRIM BOARD INSTALLATION GUIDELINES Install Lumberock 1x10 trim boards using two screws every 16" or less. We recommend 1 W' SplitStop Fascia Screws, or #8 or #10 stainless steel, flat head deck screws or Headcote stainless steel composite deck screws. We suggest pre-drilling a hole larger than the diameter of the screw to account for lateral movement. Important! Do not over tighten screws. 'o' Fascia lnstdllat1on Top View I Trim Under TnmOvPr I PILING STRIP INSTALLATION GUIDELINE We recommend the spacing for screw application of every 16" vertically and predrilling with a hole size slightly smaller than the screw diameter. Fasten using #7 stainless trim screws. I LUMBE!S" WARRANTY PREMIUM DECKIN&- Lumberock• Premium Decking warrants that Lumberock• materials will not rot, split, crack, splinter or be adversely affected by insects. Slight color variation is normal with any plastic composite deck- ing, is not warranted, a visual inspection of your decking before final installation is recommended to be sure any variation is considered acceptable by the end user. This limited warranty shall apply to all such materials with respect to which a claim is made to Lumberock• (including return of the claimed defective material if required by Lumberock' as hereinafter provided) accompanied by an original receipt and a written statement describing each defect claimed and which Lumberock's• inspection shows to be defective, provided thatthis limited warranty shall not apply to any materials which have been subject to accident, or improper handling, installation, maintenance, repair or alteration, or used in anyway contrary to good standard of practice within the building industry. Lumberock's• obligation under this limited warranty, and purchaser's exclusive remedy for the breach thereof, shall be limited to Lumberock's• correction of any defect in material or workmanship by, at Lumberock's• option and expense (excluding shipping, installation and any other charges): (i) repair of the defective materials; (ii) replacement of the defective materials; or (iii) refund of the original purchase price of the defective materials. Lumberock• reserves the right to require, as a condition to recognizing any claim under this limited warranty, purchaser's return of any material, transportation charges prepaid by purchaser, to Lumberock's• manufacturing plant for inspection and/or repair by Lumberock•. BACKED BY OUR THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IS EXPRESSLY MADE IN LIEU OF ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. REFUND OF PURCHASE PRICE OR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE GOODS AS PROVIDED ABOVE SHALL BE THE PURCHASER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR THE CONTRACT, WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, TORT OR STRICT LIABILITY CLAIMS. IN NO EVENT SHALL LUMBEROCK' BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, ECONOMIC OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE, LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF BUSINESS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR ATIORNEV'S FEES) CAUSED OR ALLEGED TO BE CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE NEGLIGENCE, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR OTHER BREACH OF DUTY OF OR BY LUMBEROCK'. THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER DAMAGE OF ANY SORT RESULTING FROM FAULTY INSTALLATION, MISUSE, FIRE NEGLECT, OR ACTS OF GOD, AND DOES NOT COVER COSMETIC ITEMS SUCH AS SCRATCHES, DENTS, STAINS, SOILING, OR DISCOLORATION OCCURRING IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF USAGE. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SHOULD NOT BE USED ON LUMBEROCK' MATERIALS AND USING ANY PROD- UCT WITH PETROLEUM DERIVATIVES WILL VOID THIS WARRANTY. Register your warranty online at www.lumberock.com. 14 ----------~---~~--~~---~-~----~--~--~--=-~~~~~---....,.-.i--~-~------------....,.-----:-::,..-----....,.--....,.-....,.-....,.---.,_,_....--15 HIGH TEK DECK, INC. c;;:=:==--- 01sTR1auT0Rs OF SYNTHETIC PREMIUM PROFILES BILL FLYNN TEL 650.368.7967 CELL 650.704.0544 BILL@HIGHTEKDECK.COM WWW. H IGHTEKDECK.CCM