HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190304plCC 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: 03/04/2019
Document dates: 02/13/2019 – 02/20/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Carnahan, David
From:eswyoung@aol.com
Sent:Saturday, February 16, 2019 12:56 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:sharon.erickson@sanjoseca.gov; sharon.winslow.erickson@gmail.com
Subject:Consent Agenda Item - "RFP to Outsource the Office of the City Auditor"
Dear Mayor Eric Filseth,
I was disappointed to learn that an RFP to outsource the Office of the City Auditor was placed on the "Consent Agenda"
and not presented as a major item for discussion by the full City Council. In my opinion, the RFP proposal is a deliberate
attempt to eliminate the office of the city auditor operations and a subterfuge to amendment the city charter without the
consent or approval of the electorate.
The citizens of Palo Alto specifically established the city auditor position to ensure city operations are transparent and
open, and city employees are accountable and ethical. Placing the RFP on the Consent Agenda while the City Auditor
position is vacant, when no one is able to defend the office, and when no one can oppose placing the RFP on the
Consent Agenda is, in my opinion, an unfair tactic to eliminate a Council appointed position that is sorely needed in
government.
Only the city auditor would dare to test the city information systems, discover the cybersecurity practices are flawed, and
dare to report the system shortcomings. If the city outsources the city auditor operations to contractors who are unfamiliar
with the city operations, I doubt anyone would dare to test, detect, and report such shortcomings, particularly if the results
embarrassed top level executives.
Past city auditor reports, while not warmly received, have repeatedly pointed out ways for the city to improve its programs
and operations and saved significant taxpayer funds. I am therefore opposed to placing the RFP proposal on the
"Consent Agenda". The electorate should fully debate the issue and the discussion should be open and transparent, not
hidden and smuggled through as a consent agenda item.
Sincerely,
Edwin Young
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:48 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:February 25, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #10
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 19, 2019
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FEBRUARY 25, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #10
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.18.120
CROSS REFERENCE: 488 UNIVERSITY AVENUE (PRESIDENT HOTEL)
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because the proposed
ordinance violates the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Brown Act Violation
The primary purpose of this proposed ordinance is to enable the conversion
of the property at 488 University Avenue from rental apartments to a
hotel.
The failure to include that fact in the agenda description is a violation
of the Brown Act.
CEQA Violation
CEQA Regulation 15378(a) defines “project” as the whole of an action,
which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment”, including “(1) An activity undertaken by any public
agency.”
CEQA Regulation 15378(d) says, “Where the Lead Agency could describe the
project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under
2
subdivision (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to
several governmental approvals .. the Lead Agency shall describe the
project as the development proposal for the purpose of environmental
analysis.
Therefore, the CEQA project is the proposed conversion of 488 University
Avenue from apartments to a hotel, and the regulation in the subject
agenda item is part of that CEQA project.
Segmenting this agenda item from the CEQA analysis of the development
project is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Additional reasons why the project is subject to CEQA are included in the
arguments in July 27, 2018, letter from Heather Minner of Shute, Mihaly &
Weinberger LLP that appears in the Public Letters to Council in the August
13, 2018, City Council Agenda Packet on pages 90-96 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=45470.91&
BlobID=66185.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040
Staff’s most recent accounting of the net change in the non-residential
floor area in the CD zone district reports a total net change of 317,475
square feet during the monitoring period of 1986-2017, leaving a potential
of 32,525 square feet of non-residential floor area before a moratorium on
development takes effect.
The proposed development of additional non-residential floor area at 488
University Avenue exceeds the remaining allowable floor area under the
cap.
Therefore, the proposed CEQA project is 488 University Avenue.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:57 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Fw: February 25, 2019, Council Meeting, Item #10
The correct section reference in the subject line of the letter should read 18.18.040, not 18.18.120.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 12:29 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hodge, Bruce; David Coale; Debbie Mytels; uucpagreen; Bret Andersen; Altieri, Lisa; Sandra Slater;
Kate Kramer
Subject:All Electric, Energy Efficient (+beautiful/affordable) Home Tour this Saturday 4-5
Gentle City Council Members,
In support of the City's SIP* you are invited to tour ProjectGreenHome.org one of the nation's most energy efficient
homes. Feel free to bring significant others, friends and colleagues.
314 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Saturday 16 February 4‐5p.
Technologies include heat pump water heater (potable water & radiant floor heating), induction stove, heat recovery &
ventilation plus the public curbside free electric car charger.
My apologies, for the short notice, and don't worry there will be others.
*Sustainability Implementation Plan
‐‐
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:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 7:30 PM
To:Chris Logan; Dave Shen; Greg Brail; Inyoung Cho; Kari Hodgson; Mandar Borkar; Megan Kanne; Parag
Patkar; Patricia Lau; Philip Burton; Carrasco, Tony
Cc:De Geus, Robert; Goodwin Eileen; PAN; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:Caltrain Electrification Funding not affected by High Speed Rail
In the last several days, there has been a lot of talk about the future of High Speed Rail in California.
Here’s a good synopsis of what it means for Caltrain
http://www.greencaltrain.com/2019/02/state‐continues‐to‐support‐caltrain‐network‐improvements‐with‐scaleback‐of‐
hsr/
1
Carnahan, David
From:rosa huang <rosapaca@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cubberly plan
Hello City council members,
I just want to voice my dissatisfaction with the Cubberly project. City o Palo Alto is destroying a beautiful city by adding
more and more buildings and other structures. Let me elaborate
Mitchell Park‐‐‐People approving the change to th play ground has ruined the city for those of us who actually live in
Palo Alto. There are people coming as far south of Santa Clara and as north of San Carlos on every weekend to hang out
in our park. Mitchell park has become a Zoo like venue. the play ground (Magical bridge) is so crowded with parents and
children who do not even live in palo alto. I have talked to these parents and they like coming to our park, use our
services that we are paying for and making it not available to those of us who actually live here.
I have heard it from them, from using the library to charging their cars for hours (without being monitored). we cannot
take our own kids to the park any more .
Cubberly‐‐You are doing the same thing at Cubberly. I have attended those meetings. People from San Carlos,
Burlingame are attending these meetings and voting because they want to come and use the services. One guy wants to
bring his non‐profit to PA and use Cubberly. Why???
I live in the Greenmadow community. You are destroying a quiet peaceful neighborhood by allowing traffic to come thru
our streets where our kids ride their park and our residence enjoy the quiet weekends and walk with our pets. We will
no longer have peace. It is a safe neighborhood, but as usual, you are voting and moving toward a project that will
destroy our beautiful city and our neighborhood.
ARE YOU GOING TO LISTEN????? Do YOU ACTUALLY CARE?
Stop developing, and catering to others. Your job is to protect the well being of our residence and our city.
Rosa Huang
650‐823‐4289
1
Carnahan, David
From:Donald McLaughlin <donnodot@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:downtown parking garage
I have lived in Palo Alto for over 40 years, and your decision to put off building a new downtown parking garage is the
stupidest decision that I have heard of.
If you’re worried about climate change, allocate a significant proportion of the spaces for hybrid and electric vehicles
and carpools.
Or charge for parking as an inverse function of the rated MPG of the vehicle.
Don McLaughlin
918 Forest Avenue
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 7:43 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Gaines, Chantal; Planning Commission
Cc:Dave Shen; Carrasco, Tony; Philip Burton; Inyoung Cho; Patricia Lau; Parag Patkar; Mandar Borkar;
Greg Brail; Megan Kanne; Kari Hodgson; Chris Logan
Subject:Dumbarton Rail Corridor Meetings
Attachments:DTC-Corridor-Map.pdf; CBTP-February-2019-Community-Meeting-Schedule.pdf; DRC-Project-
Schedule-Oct-2018.pdf
Please distribute to your networks.
Facebook is in a partnership with San Mateo County Transit Authority and Plenary group to study the
possibility of running electrified trains on the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.
(see: https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2018/11/06/dumbarton-rail-project-to-get-full-environmental-
fiscal-analysis)
Most drivers are familiar with the Dumbarton bridge, but off the South side of the bridge, are the remnants of
a rail corridor that used to exist until a suspicious fire burned the tracks in the late 80s. That is where this train
could go.
This article has a map showing how Palo Alto would benefit from the bus routes being considered over
Dumbarton road bridge as part of the project:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/14/proposed-dumbarton-rail-bridge-could-be-first-transbay-railroad-
crossing-since-bart-tube/
Dumbarton Rail is an important piece of the transportation network given the large amount of traffic that
comes from the East Bay to the Peninsula.
Meetings will be held in a variety of locations and times as follows:
Newark Meeting
Saturday, Feburary 23
10:30am-12:00pm
Newark Pavilion
6430 Thornton Ave
Newark, CA 94560
Fremont Meeting
Thursday, February 28
6:30pm-8:00pm
Centerville Community Center
3355 Country Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
Redwood City Meeting
Wednesday, February 27
6:30pm-8:00pm
2
Veterans Memorial
Senior Center
1455 Madison Ave.
Redwood City, CA 94061
Menlo Park Meeting
Saturday, March 2
10:30am - 12:00pm
Menlo Park Senior Center
110 Terminal Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
I hope to see you there.
Nadia Naik
PLEASE JOIN US
San Mateo County Transit District (District) and Cross Bay Transit Partners (CBTP) are engaged
in a public-private partnership (P3) to improve transportation along the Dumbarton corridor in
the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, they are exploring new, environmentally appropriate
alternatives for a high-quality, high-capacity public transit system.
You are invited to join us for an introductory meeting about the future of the Dumbarton Rail
Corridor. Your invaluable participation will help guide the development of this proposed new
connection across the Bay. Doors will open approximately 30 minutes prior for
sign-in and refreshments.
For the convenience of Bay Area residents, we have scheduled several times and locations for
this meeting. Join us when it’s convenient.
Newark Meeting
Saturday, Feburary 23
10:30am-12:00pm
Newark Pavilion
6430 Thornton Ave
Newark, CA 94560
1
Fremont Meeting
Thursday, February 28
6:30pm-8:00pm
Centerville Community Center
3355 Country Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
3
Redwood City MeetingWednesday, February 276:30pm-8:00pmVeterans Memorial Senior Center 1455 Madison Ave.Redwood City, CA 94061
2
Menlo Park MeetingSaturday, March 210:30am - 12:00pm
Menlo Park Senior Center
110 Terminal Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
4
At these meetings you will meet our project partners and learn about project background,
goals, funding, timeline and process. Ample time will be provided for questions and answers.
Refreshments will be served. Servicio de interpretación en español estará disponible.
Please visit the project website or email us
www.crossbaytransit.com info@crossbaytransit.com
COMMUNITY MEETING
POR FAVOR,
ACOMPÁÑENOS
El Distrito de Tránsito del Condado de San Mateo (Distrito) y Cross BayTransit Partners (CBTP)
están comprometidos en una asociación público-privada (P3) para mejorar el transporte a lo
largo del corredor Dumbarton en el Área de la Bahía de San Francisco. Juntos, están explorando
nuevas alternativas ambientalmente apropiadas para un sistema de transporte público de alta
calidad y capacidad.
Le invitamos a acompañarnos para una reunión introductoria sobre el futuro del Corredor
Ferroviario Dumbarton. Su valiosa participación ayudará a guiar el desarrollo de esta nueva
conexión propuesta a través de la Bahía. Las puertas se abrirán aproximadamente 30 minutos
antes para registrarse y tomar refrescos.
Para la conveniencia de los residentes del Área de la Bahía, hemos programado varias horas y
lugares para esta reunión. Acompáñenos cuando le sea conveniente.
Reunión en Newark
Sábado 23 de febrero
10:30am-12:00pm
Newark Pavilion
6430 Thornton AveNewark, CA 94560
1
Reunión en Fremont
Jueves 28 de febrero
6:30pm-8:00pm
Centerville Community Center
3355 Country Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
3
Reunión enRedwood CityMiércoles 27 de febrero 6:30pm-8:00pmVeterans Memorial Senior Center 1455 Madison Ave.Redwood City, CA 94061
2
Reunión en Menlo ParkSábado 2 de marzo 10:30am - 12:00pm
Menlo Park Senior Center
110 Terminal Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
4
En estas reuniones usted conocerá a nuestros socios del proyecto y aprenderá sobre los
antecedentes, objetivos, financiamiento, cronograma y proceso del proyecto. Se dedicará
mucho tiempo a las preguntas y respuestas. Se servirán refrescos. El servicio de interpretación
en español estará disponible.
Visite el sitio web del proyecto o envíenos un correo electrónico.
www.crossbaytransit.com info@crossbaytransit.com
REUNIÓN COMUNITARIA
Community Outreach
Environmental Analysis
Federal, State, and Local Agency Agreements
Technical Feasibility
Project Planning
▪ Execute
Agreement
▪ Assemble
advisory team
▪ Detailed
Action Plan
Implementation
▪ CBTP finalizes longer-term contract with SamTrans
▪ Design-Build Agreement and Process
▪ Operation and Maintenance Agreement
Feasibility
Analysis
Environmental
Technical
Financial
Commercial and Financial Analysis
Environmental
Certification
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q1Q2 Q2Q3 Q3Q4 Q4
SamTrans Board
approves EIR
Construction
Starts
Legend:
Milestone
Note: All dates are
approximate and
subject to change.
Dumbarton Rail (potential)
Dumbarton Rail (proposed)
LEGEND
BART
Caltrain
California HSR (planned)
ACE
Capitol Corridor
Other Rail Lines
Note: Preliminary; subject to change.
San Mateo
B
r
i
d
g
e
N
i
m
i
t
z
F
w
y
Baysho
r
e
F
w
y
Dumb
a
r
t
o
n
B
r
i
d
g
e
CA-8
4
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
CA
-
8
2
I-
5
8
0
Juni
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
F
w
y
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
B
l
v
d
CA
-
2
3
8
I-2
8
0
US
-
1
0
1
CA-92
Union City
Fremont-Centerville
Newark
Menlo Park / East Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Redwood City
San Carlos
Belmont
Hillsdale
Atherton
Menlo Park
0 0.5 1 2 mi
N
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 12:08 PM
To:Sam Liccardo
Subject:FCC slows 5C installations
FCC rules change threatens to delay
5G cellphone upgrade rollout
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/14/fcc-rules-5g-cellphone-upgrade-spark-antenna-
fight/
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:55 PM
To:Gavin Newsom; press_harris@harris.senate.gov
Subject:Fong urges HPV vaccine (430 deaths)
From Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
----------------
Dr. Bryan Fong of Walnut Creek Kaiser writes
'the side effects of the HPV vaccine are mild! '
However,
"430 deaths following the HPV vaccination have been reported following HPV vaccination. Only 1 in
10% are even reported." (See NVIC below)
14 deaths and 373 injuries reported in last 8 months. (VICP)
------------------------.
Dr Fong, wrote in the Mercury Op Ed page Sun. Feb 17.
"The epidemic of throat cancer
Sweeping the industrialized World"
(cure may be HPV vaccine)
Dr. Fong's article on throat cancer in older men does not give info on any study or resulting numbers of
men in numerical terms..just percentages. He recommends HPV vaccine be given to boys as well as girls
ages 9-26 to prevent throat cancer in men 50-70!
---------Fong claims the effects of the HPV vaccine are mild.------------
----------------------------
From NVIC: "According to federal VAERS data, 430 deaths following the HPV vaccination have
been reported following HPV vaccination.67 However, the number of HPV vaccine related injuries and
deaths reported to VAERS is assumed to be underreported as explained below.
"Even though the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 legally required pediatricians and other
vaccine providers to report serious health problems following vaccination to the federal vaccine adverse event
reporting system (VAERS), many doctors and other health care providers giving vaccines to children and adults
fail to report vaccine-related health problem to VAERS.
"The evidence suggests that only one to 10 percent of serious health problems that occur after use of
prescription drugs or vaccines in the U.S. are ever reported to federal health officials who are responsible for
regulating the safety of drugs and vaccines and issue national vaccine policy recommendations. 68 69 70 71 72
"As of July 1, 2018, 387 claims have been filed to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(VICP) for 14 deaths and 373 injuries that occurred after HPV vaccination. To date, the U.S. Court of
Claims has compensated 128 of the 387 children and adults who filed claims for HPV vaccine injuries.73
"For example, an HPV vaccine injury claim was filed and awarded by the VICP for Christina
Tarsell. Christina was a 21-year-old college student majoring in studio arts at Bard College when she received
a series of three Gardasil shots. A talented athlete, artist and honor roll student, she died suddenly and without
explanation shortly after the third shot in June 2008.
"Ten years later, in 2018, the government conceded the case and awarded compensation to her mother
for Christina’s vaccine-related death.74"
2
Editor's Note:
Fong quotes the CDC who owns 13 vaccine patents and pushes vaccines on everyone around the
world. It admits on one of many websites that it just GUESSES at stats for flu deaths. National stats
list flu/pneumonia deaths together.
At least one boy along with 400 girls have died from this vaccine. It has NOT been around long
enough to prove it reduces throat cancer in men. Two countries have had parades in the street against
this vaccine. Japan, tops in world health, will not offer it....only gives it on parent demand.
* GO to National Vaccine Info Center for accurate data.
* VAERS, Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System, a government agency has
paid out over $3 billion for vaccine damage/death in a 10 years period.
* Editor's Note: Dr. Robert Pearl, former CEO of all Kaiser hospitals/clinics in SF Bay
Area, in his book 'Mistreated" last year writes how poorly doctors are trained in medical
schools today.
from: Arlene Goetze, MA, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com, 877 Spinosa Dr.,
Sunnyvale, 408.245.8663
Health Writer, journalist since 1956, freelance to Washington Post, Army Times; formerly employed by Tom
Lawson McCall (Ore. governor) and Bishop of San Jose.) . Editor/Publisher for Catholic Women's Network
1989-2005, now in SCU Archives for education.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 7:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: FAA Interim Response to the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
Attachments:SJC Ad Hoc Interim Response_submitted Feb 14 2019.pdf
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Kazmierczak, Matthew <MKazmierczak@sjc.org>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Kazmierczak, Matthew <MKazmierczak@sjc.org>
Cc: Glenn Hendricks <HendricksCouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov>; Lupita Alamos <LAlamos@sunnyvale.ca.gov>
Subject: FAA Interim Response to the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals
Dear Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Stakeholders,
The FAA released this Interim response to the report produced by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. This document has
been posted to the Committee’s website:
https://www.flysanjose.com/Ad_Hoc_Meetings
Matthew
Matthew Kazmierczak | Manager of Strategy and Policy
Director’s Office
Office: 408.392.3640 | Mobile: 202.374.9098 | mkazmierczak@sjc.org
Mineta San José International Airport
1701 Airport Blvd. Ste B‐1130, San José, CA 95110
flysanjose.com | facebook | twitter | linkedin
Interim Response to
SJC Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on
South Flow Arrivals
February 2019
Page 1
Introduction
This is intended to be a high-level interim response that provides the FAA’s current efforts
regarding the May 2018 “Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals.”
In a future detailed response, the FAA intends to provide full and complete information about the
FAA’s processes, procedures and timeframes. Even if there is no legal requirement to do so, the
FAA remains willing to address community noise concerns, if operationally possible. The FAA
undertakes its community outreach efforts and considers potential adjustments to address
community concerns.
The Northern California airspace is very complex, with traffic arriving and departing from
several major airports, smaller regional airports and military facilities as well. All arrival and
departure procedures within the airspace are interconnected and interdependent, and were
designed to improve safety and efficiency within the National Airspace System (NAS). This
complexity often means that creating new or amending existing procedures will affect other
procedures, creating a ripple effect through much of the Northern California airspace. Therefore,
while we have been evaluating the Committee’s recommendations, it is likely that some of the
airspace procedure recommendations submitted by the Committee will not be achievable because
of the complexity of the Northern California airspace. Additionally, predominant weather does
not often dictate the use of South Flow arrivals for SJC, on average it is in use less than 25% of
the year. The FAA must weigh the impact of these recommendations and whether they would
benefit the safety of the NAS.
National Environmental Policy Act
In addition to its mandate to ensure the safe and efficient use of the NAS, the FAA complies with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Although not specifically
detailed within this high-level interim response, the FAA’s processes and standards for
evaluating noise impacts associated with potential amendments to currently published
procedures—consistent with FAA Order 1050.1F (effective July 16, 2015)—will be followed
before implementing any airspace or procedural changes. Finally, this interim response does not
constitute either a final decision of the FAA or a re-opening of the FAA’s August 6, 2014 final
decision for the NorCal Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM).
Foreword
The following response tables are intended to provide the current status of the FAA’s efforts
regarding the recommendations presented in the SJC Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South
Flow Arrivals report. The table also includes references to the report pages associated with each
recommendation.
Page 2
Those recommendations listed below whose status is listed as ‘Under Evaluation’ means that a
response has been prepared, but is currently being reviewed. The status ‘Addressed Concern’
means the FAA considers the recommendation completed and in-use today to the extent
practicable.
Page 3
RESPONSE TABLES
Request to the FAA 1
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to
explore options and procedure changes that will still allow
for the safe landing of aircraft at SJC AND return to a more
dispersed distribution of aircraft. (Using the success criteria
listed below)
Dispersion of the existing air traffic can mean different
things in each of the impacted cities. Directionally the
Committee recommends that the FAA drive towards: 1) do
not route airplanes over narrow rails; 2) reversion to ground noise patterns prior to 2012 in the same geographic
proportions as before.
Additional criteria by City:
• San José
• Cupertino
• Sunnyvale
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• Santa Clara
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 9-10
Request to the FAA 2A
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA
maintain the use of the Eastern vectoring for south flow
arrivals as much as operationally feasible. This is an important tool in the controller’s toolkit.
Status Addressed Concern
Reference Roundtable Page 11
Page 4
Request to the FAA 2B
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA study
the usage of the Eastern vectoring for south flow arrivals
for the past 5 years and provide an explanation for any changes, increases and/or decreases.
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 11
Request to the FAA 2C
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to document why, when, and how an Eastern vectoring is used into SJC during south flow.
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 11
Request to the FAA 2D
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to
explore a Chartered Visual Approaches from the east and
west. See item V in Appendix A.
Additional criteria by City:
• Milpitas
• San José
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 12
Page 5
Request to the FAA 3
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA initiate
a full procedure evaluation to implement item E and F, the
purpose being to implement the concept of item D.
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 13
Request to the FAA 4
Recommendation Implement aircraft noise monitoring (by appropriate entity)
in areas throughout Santa Clara County to measure the effectiveness of noise mitigation solutions. Noise data captured by sound monitoring should be used by the FAA
to validate the modeling tools the FAA uses as part of its
environmental impact evaluations.
Status The FAA defers to SJC to determine whether and to what
extent the Ad Hoc’s request for a noise-monitoring
program in Santa Clara County can be addressed.
Reference Roundtable Page 14
Request to the FAA 5
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals is aware that for each new potential aviation route into the
San Francisco Metroplex a noise simulation and prediction
is/was required. The Committee requests that the FAA
provide those simulation results that include predicted
noise levels and all other associated data.
Further, The Committee requests that when the FAA posts
a procedure for public comment at the Instrument Flight
Procedures (IFP) gateway, environmental analyses,
including noise assessments, pertaining to that procedure shall be posted along with it, and at the same time.
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 14
Page 6
Request to the FAA 6A
Recommendation The Committee is requesting that the FAA improve the
notification mechanisms to better alert potential affected
communities when procedures are being reviewed. Simply posting to the FAA’s IFP Gateway website at the National level is not sufficient to provide clear, layman
understandable language and transparent information to the
public. There needs to be better regional and local outreach
process that informs public officials and members of the public when changes are being proposed in their region.
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 15
Request to the FAA 6B
Recommendation The Committee is requesting the FAA to ask all affected Airlines to participate along with FAA, SJC, and interested public constituents when discussions regarding existing and
proposed flight path changes are being considered for
adoption.
Status The FAA will defer to the San Jose International Airport
(SJC) to reach out to and hold discussion(s) with their
Airline partners, affected communities and interested
public constituents regarding existing and proposed flight
path changes. If/when SJC invites and asks, the FAA is willing to participate — consistent with available
resources-- in such discussion.
Reference Roundtable Page 15
Request to the FAA 7
Recommendation The Committee is requesting the FAA review these
suggestions and provide a written response about the feasibility of implementation.
Status Appendix A Recommendations are under evaluation.
Reference Roundtable Page 16
Page 7
Request to the FAA 8A
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests the FAA to
initiate a study to look at creating or adopting a single
Aircraft Noise Reporting System for the area, including, but not limited to: Ease of reporting by the public; transparent agency analysis; agency response; and publicly
access reporting results. The user interface for this system
should minimize the number of “clicks” required to log a
complaint.
Status The FAA defers to the SJC airport to consider whether and
to what extent it is practicable to address this Ad Hoc
recommendation to establish an Aircraft Noise Reporting System.
Reference Roundtable Page 18
Request to the FAA 8B
Recommendation The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee requests that the FAA
initiate a study to use the information collected in 8A to
identify and analyze noise trends that should be addressed.
Status The FAA defers to the SJC airport to consider whether and
to what extent it is practicable to address this Ad Hoc
recommendation to establish an Aircraft Noise Reporting
System.
Reference Roundtable Page 18
Appendix A: Noise Mitigation List
Recommendation Recommendations A – WW.
Status Under Evaluation
Reference Roundtable Page 1-7
1
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 11:26 AM
To:Lait, Jonathan
Cc:Council, City
Subject:FW: University Circle Meeting Notice Letter
Attachments:MX-3140N_20190215_092114.pdf
After this first surfaced in 2017, your predecessor told me that East Palo Alto had shut the effort down. Now it has
apparently revived. A new office building at University Circle obviously will make the traffic problems on University even
worse. Is the City aware of the status of the project, and does it plan to appropriately respond? As you may know, Palo
Alto had previously brought a legal action against the original project, which resulted in a settlement that placed a multi‐
year limit on expansion, which has now apparently expired. The Crescent Park Neighborhood Asscn. was also involved. I
anticipate and expect similar vigorous efforts now.
From: Cher Crokaerts [mailto:Cher.Crokaerts@columbia.reit]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 10:43 AM
To: nhbeamer@yahoo.com
Cc: Mark Meehan <Mark.Meehan@columbia.reit>; Mark English <english@pacelineinvestors.com>
Subject: University Circle Meeting Notice Letter
Cheralyn McClurg Crokaerts
Regional Administrator, Western Region
650 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94108
www.columbia.reit
T 415 814 1477 C 805 218 4672
E cher.crokaerts@columbia.reit
This message may contain confidential information. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and delete the message. Tax
statements are not intended to be used to avoid penalties or promote transactions.
February 15, 2019
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Ms Glenna Violette
95 Crescent Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94301
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL & EMAIL
Mr Norman Beamer
1005 University Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
nhbeamer@yahoo.com
Dear Ms Violette and Mr Beamer,
In August 2017 we wrote to you about our intent to file an application for a new development at Un iversity
Circle. One of the points we raised was the intent to schedule a series of community outreach meetings
to discuss our proposed improvements. Accordingly, we, in coordination with the City of East Palo Alto,
are hosting an open house meeting on Thursday, February 281h, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the City of East Palo
Alto City Council chambers, located at 2415 University Ave, Community Room 151 Floor, East Palo Alto, CA.
We wanted to notify you of the upcoming community meeting, and we would also like to offer to meet
sepa rately with you or members of your staff/organization to discuss the project and the status of our
application. Should you wish to set up a meeting, please feel free to contact me with any questions you
may have regarding this matter at 415-814-1482 or mark.meehan@columbia.reit.
Sincerely,
Mark Meehan
Director -Real Estate
CC:
Mark Weinberger (via Certified Mail)
Ellen Garber (via Certified Mail)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Avi Miller <trebecs@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 18, 2019 2:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Global Climate Change
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I wish to urge you to take serious action against climate change. Even though the Trump administration is aiming to fall
short on the Paris climate accords, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our part to cut down emissions in spite of them.
Frankly, at this point no measures are too extreme.
It would be an outstanding success if the city of Palo Alto were to become the first 100% emission‐free city in the world,
and to this end I would like to push for a car‐reduction initiative:
Parking fee and public transit ‐ establish paid street and public garage parking in Palo Alto for gas vehicles carrying less
than two people, and create a local electric bus line. Such a system would generate additional revenue for the city in the
short term and disincentivize single‐driver gas transport in the long term, not to mention reducing the massive clutter of
cars that make downtown crowded, noisy, and backed‐up.
Ideally, I would like to eliminate emissions‐producing transportation in Palo Alto, but one step at a time. I would be so
proud of my home city to see University Avenue completely devoid of cars, with the road open to pedestrian and bicycle
traffic only, being able to sit outside at one of the restaurants and not hear the constant rumble of traffic or smell the
odor of exhaust.
Please make Palo Alto even greener! Thank you.
Sincerely,
‐Avi Miller
1
Carnahan, David
From:Adequacy Assurance <adequacyassurance@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 16, 2019 6:02 PM
To:adequacyassurance@gmail.com
Subject:HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAPPENING IN OUR COURTS/ JURY ACCOUNTABILITY/ COURT-
CORRUPTION / DUE PROCESS TASKFORCE----U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATORS/ PRESS: STOP
THE THEFTS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS, & ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
U.S. Institute of Science
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
____________________________
In Re: HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAPPENING IN OUR COURTS/ JURY ACCOUNTABILITY/ COURT-CORRUPTION /
DUE PROCESS TASKFORCE----U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATORS/ PRESS: STOP THE
THEFTS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS, & ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
Dear Honorable Law Enforcement Officers/ US Citizens,
I would like to bring your attention to the “Juryless Process Abuse Epidemic”, that is currently plaguing our country,
and unlawfully stripping away assets from some of our most vulnerable citizens/seniors/parents/divorcees/property-
owners…a situation that we have become aware of---and seen the evidence. Too often “juryless” courts are being
used as a tool to racketeer/steal assets from American hard working citizens & families, and intentionally wrongly
award them to probate networks including “attorneys“, “guardians”, “fiduciaries”, etc., via cooperating
“probate/juryless judges”, acting in contravention to law. These racketeering uses of our court facilities, "federally
and state defined felonies" (of the corruption, obstruction, grand theft/embezzlement, jury, witness, & evidence
tampering, etc. varieties), are immensely adding-to/creating the civil unrest, chaos, crime & debt rates on the
streets....which in turn is endangering, harming, and KILLING POLICE OFFICERS and the general citizenry alike, this
very day. Just recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reported a 61% increase in police officers killed this very
year...NOW IS THE TIME TO PROSECUTE!
I am of the great hope that you, from your position and dedication to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and your personal stake herein, will take the necessary steps to ensure that these abuses are stopped
and due process is in fact being provided and protected, including minimally:
1.Identify courts operating without juries in your area & jurisdiction, detailing those sitting without a jury in the
courtroom, as well as those without sufficient jury review and oversight of “proposed findings” and litigant
objections, etc.
2.Ensure that in your department, as well as on a state/federal level, that there is an adequate task force apprised
and charged with identifying and prosecuting any/all illegal exploitation of juryless court facilities/functions, which
would include the wrongful removals of proper grand/trial jury function and the facilitation/enabling of organized
2
crime/wrongdoing, "court"/"attorney"/"bar" exploitation of litigants, assets, etc.; and personally ensuring that those
findings are presented to the district grand jury for process, minimally
It has long been proven that Juryless Governance is a breeding ground for organized crime, racketeering, and crime
in general---preventing the same being one of the main reason for the establishment of this country. As these are
urgent matters that expand and exaggerate unnecessarily the crime and debt rates on our streets this very day, they
are well within your authority and best interest to investigate and bring to justice. I look forward to your efforts in
stopping these CRIMES & UNCONSTITUTIONAL activities, RESTORING PROPER GRAND/TRIAL JURY FUNCTION. As
always, my staff and I are available to assist you in any way possible. Please stay safe as you protect our
communities, and may God Bless you and the United States of America.
Sincerely,
U.S. Institute of Science
A Government/Law Studies Research Science Group
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
Email us: AdequacyAssurance@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Adequacy Assurance <adequacyassurance@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:58 PM
To:adequacyassurance@gmail.com
Subject:HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN OUR COURTS/ JURY ACCOUNTABILITY/ COURT-CORRUPTION / DUE
PROCESS TASKFORCE----U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATORS/ PRESS: STOP THE THEFTS FROM
AMERICAN CITIZENS, & ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
U.S. Institute of Science
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
____________________________
In Re: JURY ACCOUNTABILITY/ COURT-CORRUPTION / DUE PROCESS TASKFORCE----U.S. LAW
ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATORS/ PRESS: STOP THE THEFTS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS, &
ENFORCE OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY
Dear Honorable Law Enforcement Officers/ US Citizens,
I would like to bring your attention to the “Juryless Process Abuse Epidemic”, that is currently plaguing our country,
and unlawfully stripping away assets from some of our most vulnerable citizens/seniors/parents/divorcees/property-
owners…a situation that we have become aware of---and seen the evidence. Too often “juryless” courts are being
used as a tool to racketeer/steal assets from American hard working citizens & families, and intentionally wrongly
award them to probate networks including “attorneys“, “guardians”, “fiduciaries”, etc., via cooperating
“probate/juryless judges”, acting in contravention to law. These racketeering uses of our court facilities, "federally
and state defined felonies" (of the corruption, obstruction, grand theft/embezzlement, jury, witness, & evidence
tampering, etc. varieties), are immensely adding-to/creating the civil unrest, chaos, crime & debt rates on the
streets....which in turn is endangering, harming, and KILLING POLICE OFFICERS and the general citizenry alike, this
very day. Just recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reported a 61% increase in police officers killed this very
year...NOW IS THE TIME TO PROSECUTE!
I am of the great hope that you, from your position and dedication to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and your personal stake herein, will take the necessary steps to ensure that these abuses are stopped
and due process is in fact being provided and protected, including minimally:
1.Identify courts operating without juries in your area & jurisdiction, detailing those sitting without a jury in the
courtroom, as well as those without sufficient jury review and oversight of “proposed findings” and litigant
objections, etc.
2.Ensure that in your department, as well as on a state/federal level, that there is an adequate task force apprised
and charged with identifying and prosecuting any/all illegal exploitation of juryless court facilities/functions, which
would include the wrongful removals of proper grand/trial jury function and the facilitation/enabling of organized
crime/wrongdoing, "court"/"attorney"/"bar" exploitation of litigants, assets, etc.; and personally ensuring that those
findings are presented to the district grand jury for process, minimally
2
It has long been proven that Juryless Governance is a breeding ground for organized crime, racketeering, and crime
in general---preventing the same being one of the main reason for the establishment of this country. As these are
urgent matters that expand and exaggerate unnecessarily the crime and debt rates on our streets this very day, they
are well within your authority and best interest to investigate and bring to justice. I look forward to your efforts in
stopping these CRIMES & UNCONSTITUTIONAL activities, RESTORING PROPER GRAND/TRIAL JURY FUNCTION. As
always, my staff and I are available to assist you in any way possible. Please stay safe as you protect our
communities, and may God Bless you and the United States of America.
Sincerely,
U.S. Institute of Science
A Government/Law Studies Research Science Group
Adequacy Assurance-Collegiate (Constitutional) Research Group
Email us: AdequacyAssurance@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Media Advisory: Caltrans to Hold Ribbon-Cutting For State Route 99 Realignment Project
To view this email as a web page, go here.
News Release
February 14, 2019
Sam Yniguez
559-444-2518
sam.yniguez@dot.ca.gov
Toni Tinoco
559-445-6776
Toni.Tinoco@hsr.ca.gov
CALTRANS TO HOLD RIBBON-CUTTING FOR STATE ROUTE 99
REALIGNMENT PROJECT
Who: Caltrans, The California High-Speed Rail Authority and The City of Fresno
What: Ribbon-cutting event
Where: The northeast corner of Princeton Avenue and Marks Avenue in Fresno (see map)
***If weather is unfavorable, the event will relocate to The Verdi Club located less than a block
south of the event site at 2532 N Marks Ave***
When: Friday, February 15, 10:00 am
Caltrans, the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the City of Fresno will mark completion of
the “State Route 99 Realignment for High-Speed Rail” project with a ribbon-cutting ceremony on
Friday, February 15th at 10 am.
The project realigned portions of State Route 99 between Clinton Avenue and Ashlan Avenue 80
to 100 feet to the west to make room for the high-speed rail alignment. Five bridges, including
the Clinton Avenue interchange, were demolished and completely reconstructed as part of the
project with minimal impact to the mainline. Several safety and congestion-reducing measures
were also added along the corridor.
Scheduled speakers include Fresno Mayor Lee Brand, Caltrans District Director Sharri Bender
Ehlert and High-Speed Rail Central Regional Director Diana Gomez.
2
###
SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV
California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 956814
info@hsr.ca.gov
(916) 324-1541
This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US
Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 7:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Hello City Council Members,
I was one of the residents who spoke at the retreat about climate warming. I want to say thank you for holding off on
the parking garage! If you are serious about eliminating lethal pollution, there will be other difficult decisions to make.
I’m grateful you made the right call on this one. Please continue in this courageous direction going forward.
Thank you again, David Page
3115 Avalon Court
From:Tony Ciampi
To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; HRC; Stump, Molly
Cc:FAC@firstamendmentcoalition.org; justice4chinedu@gmail.com; kamala_harris@harris.senate.gov; Senator_@harris.senate.gov;Nathanbarankin@kamalaharris.org; Nathan_Barankin@harris.senate.gov; Marguerite_Biagi@harris.senate.gov;Clint_Odom@harris.senate.gov; Lily_Adams@harris.senate.gov; dustin.brandenburg@mail.house.gov; katie.weiss@mail.house.gov;liz.argo@mail.house.gov; Anthony.Ratekin@mail.house.gov; jill.sperber@calbar.ca.gov; Jilian.Plank@mail.house.gov;kelsey.smith@mail.house.gov; christopher.livingston@mail.house.gov; alexandra.gourdikian@mail.house.gov;Philip_Maxson@mcconnell.senate.gov; asoltani@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org; organizing@aclunc.org; aschlosser@aclunc.org;mrisher@aclunc.org; info@sanjosenaacp.org; naacpsfbr@att.net; actso@naacpnet.org; hollywoodbureau@naacpnet.org;info@lccr.com; info@anamericaninjustice.com
Subject:2nd illegal detainment by Palo Alto Police in 6 months.
Date:Friday, February 15, 2019 8:58:05 PM
Attachments:flag.PNGb 1.PNGb 2.PNGb 3.PNGpa policy disq 1.PNGpa policy disq 2.PNGpa policy disq 3.PNGpa policy disq 4.PNG
pa policy ethics.PNGburns-burger-1_1_orig.pngburns-burger-5_1.pngburns-waite-hopkins-incident_1_orig.pnge7.PNGe10.PNG
e11.PNGe12.PNGe13.PNG
Ed Shikada
Palo Alto City Manager
It is now two, (2) times in the last 6 months that 2 of your officers have unlawfully detained me and searched
me by stating that I was violating a vehicle code when I was not. That is an established pattern and practice
of violating the Constitutional Rights of Citizens.
It's no wonder why you refuse to release the police records:
https://padailypost.com/2019/02/15/palo-alto-police-wont-release-misconduct-files-despite-new-law/
Last night, 2/14/2019 at approximately 11:30 pm Palo Alto Police Officer Daniel Cuevas pulled along side of me
and stated that I was violating a vehicle code for not having the front bike light attached to the bike. I informed him
of the previous encounter I had with Ofc. Conde and that he was wrong. I informed Ofc. Cuevas that the vehicle
code allows for the front bike light to be attached to the person. He refused to acknowledge the information but
continued to assert that the bike light needed to be attached to the bike. He demanded my identification. I began
to turn on the camera to my cell phone to document the illegal detainment and Ofc. Cuevas attempted to grab my
cell phone from me but I pulled it away.
Given the fact that the detainment at this point and time was illegal the use of force and fear to take my personalproperty from me constitutes a violation of Calif. PC 664/211, attempted robbery.
Later, Ofc. Cuevas would later accuse me of violating CVC 21201 (d)(1) for; "not having a light that emits 300 ft."
This is irrelevant regarding the illegal stop; the illegal search and the attempted robbery because Ofc. Cuevas did
not mention this violation as reason for the stop and did not mention this violation until few minutes had transpired
afterward; a few minutes in which I requested several times that Ofc. Cuevas cite the vehicle code that I was
violating. After several requests Ofc. Cuevas continued to refuse to cite the code and then it was only at this time
Ofc. Cuevas changed the reason for the stop from not having a front bike light attached to the bike to violating CVC21201 (d)(1) for not having a light that emitted 300ft because he knew that he was wrong for stating that I wasviolating the law for not having a front bike light attached to the bike.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4
I requested that Ofc. Cuevas confirm that the light could not be seen from 300ft but he refused to do so.
He was going to write me a ticket but I informed Ofc. Cuevas that I would challenge the ticket in court.
At that point he changed the ticket to a warning.
I would later verify that the light I had on at the time of stop, in the "two bulb LED mode", as noted by Officer
Green, can be seen from not only 300ft but at least 400ft.
So not only was the detainment, search and attempted robbery illegal because of the initial reason but also for thebelated back-up reason.
You may make light of these Constitutional violations but it is precisely these types of illegal stops over non existent
violations that quickly escalate into the deaths of innocent and unarmed citizens at a the hands of police.
https://www.justice4chinedu.com/
The deputy driving the car says something like who is this guy, and then speeds up to get alongside my brother.
"The video shows the deputy was driving down the street, noticed my brother walking down the sidewalk from about a block away,
and decided to stop him.
When the deputy pulls up alongside my brother, he shouts at him and asks him what he’s doing, tells him he needs to question him. My
brother quietly answers (it’s inaudible), and then walks to the intersection, looks out for traffic, and crosses the street.
At that point, the deputy calls in a Code 3. A Code 3 means “Emergency, send back-up.”. Ebele Okobi
Full Transcript:
https://www.facebook.com/1180555298/posts/10217260614085642/
At the very least I would think you would want to avoid the headache and hassle that the San Mateo County
Sheriff's Office going through right now in covering up the killing of Chinedu Okobi the brother of Facebook
executive Ebele Okobi.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-executive-ebele-okobi-demands-answers-after-brother-chinedu-okobi-dies-during-police-encounter/?ftag=COS-
05-
10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5bc813cc3ed3f00001fd158a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
Your officers should not be asserting to citizens that citizens are violating a law when the officers do not know the
law the citizens are violating. If your officers continue to perpetrate these violations and someone like Chinedu
Okobi gets hurt or killed the City will be held liable given that you have been overly abundantly informed of theongoing UN-Constitutional acts committed by your officers.
Please do not have any of your officers contact me over this incident as I will not be filing a complaint at this time.
I'm going to wait and see if a third violation occurs within a year.
Tony Ciampi
========================================
=======================================
James Keene
City Manager
Palo Alto
Mr. Keene,
1) At approximately 11:40 pm on 8/9/2018 I crossed Lytton Ave on Kipling St while riding my bicycle.
Palo Alto Police Officer Christopher Conde was traveling west on Lytton Ave. and viewed me and made a left
turn onto Kipling heading south toward University Ave. in order to follow me. Ofc. Conde turned on his
lights and stopped me. Ofc. Conde exited his vehicle and demanded identification from me. I asked Ofc.
Conde why, what law was I violating and he stated that I did not have a rear light on my bike.
(Lie number 1.)
I stated the law does not require a rear light but only a reflector to which he became adamant that the law
does in fact state that a bike needs a rear light and that that a red reflector is not sufficient to meet the
demands of the law.
I informed Ofc. Conde that I never heard of such a law and requested that he cite the actual
ordinance/vehicle code. Ofc. Conde continued to demand that I hand over my identification to which I
responded I will once he provides me with the ordinance/vehicle code that states that I need to have a rear
light.
Ofc. Conde went back to his vehicle and returned a minute or so later with his ticket book and mumbled off
a vehicle code. (Lie number 2)
I then handed over my identification to Ofc. Conde under the threat of arrest for not providing Ofc. Conde
my identification.
Ofc. Conde went back to his vehicle and returned a minute or so later and stated that I was free to go.
I informed Ofc. Conde that there was no vehicle code for the rear light to which he acknowledged by stating
that he “miss-spoke.”
In fact CVC 21201 (d)(1) states, “A red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector on the
rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams
of headlamps on a motor vehicle.”
My bicycle has a red reflector that meets the requirements of this law.
I requested that Ofc. Conde write down the VC which states that a bike needs a red light. He gave me a
piece of paper that he wrote “CVC 21201 (d)(1)” on it.
Ofc. Conde stated that this is the code for bikes needing lights at night.
CVC 21201 (d)(1) states “A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the
highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and
from the sides of the bicycle.”
This CVC does not require a rear light. (Ofc. Conde’s 3rd lie.)
Additionally I had a head lamp that meets the requirements of this law.
2) During this encounter when Ofc. Conde realized that he had no justification to stop me for not having a
rear light he attempted to justify the stop by adamantly asserting that the front head light needed to be
mounted on the bike. That’s not true, CVC 21201 (e)
CVC 21201 (e) states that: “ A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator
and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the
lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=1.&article=4.
This is Ofc. Conde’s 4th lie.
Ofc. Conde had ample opportunity to look up the CVC and actually cited the CVC and therefore would have
known that a head light does not need to be mounted on bike.
3) Again realizing that his stop was not justified Ofc. Conde came up with another excuse as to why he
stopped me by stating that I fit the description of person whom he knows to have been involved in
burglaries in the area.
Once again this explanation has no legal justification as once he came upon me he would know I was not the
person he was looking for.
This harkens back to the days of Chief Lynne Johnson:
=======
Palo Alto police chief’s remarks reignite race controversy
By Mercury News | themerc@bayareanewsgroup.com, Jessie Mangaliman and Patty Fisher |
October 31, 2008 at 6:01 am
Palo Alto Mayor Larry Klein called his police chief’s statements “unacceptable.”
“I don’t think Palo Alto wants to be known as some place that has racial profiling,” Klein said. “It’s against our
core values. It’s unacceptable, unconstitutional and un-American.”
In a news release, City Manager James Keene characterized Johnson’s remarks as regrettable
“misstatements.” The chief, Keene said, “used some descriptions and terminology that could call into
question the department’s high standards and professionalism.” Keene met with Johnson and her top
leadership Friday morning.
“When our officers are out there and they see an African-American, in a congenial way, we want them to find
out who they are,” Johnson said.
“The one suspect around the California Avenue train station is wearing a do-rag,” she said in the interview. “If
my officers see an African-American who has a do rag on his head, absolutely the officers will be stopping
and trying to find out who that person is.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/10/31/palo-alto-police-chiefs-remarks-reignite-race-controversy/
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/10/31/palo-alto-police-chief-says-remarks-about-stopping-blacks-misinterpreted/
Racial profiling uproar continues in Palo Alto as council weighs in
By Bay Area News Group and Will Oremus |
November 11, 2008 at 1:13 am
“This is not just a mistake of words that has happened here,” he said. Rather, racial profiling is “a persistent
problem that has happened here in this community.” Council Member Sid Espinosa
Council Member Pat Burt agreed, noting that Johnson’s comments came in response to questions about why
the department had stationed a cruiser on the border between Palo Alto and neighboring East Palo Alto. Burt
added that the ensuing uproar has revealed a “large gap in our community” between the city’s liberal self-
image and the experiences of people of color.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/11/11/racial-profiling-uproar-continues-in-palo-alto-as-council-weighs-in/
=========
Ofc. Conde confirmed and validated the illegal detention by not issuing a citation or a warning for any
violation of the vehicle code.
I informed Ofc. Conde that he violated the United States Constitution by falsely stating that I was violating a
vehicle code when in fact I was not so that he could search me and my identification.
Ofc. Conde stated that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution yet he had just violated the Constitution
in a most egregious manner.
Ofc. Conde falsely imprisoned me by violating PC 236 and PC 237 (a) by using fraud, deceit and the coercive
threat of authority, “color of law.”
Calif. PC 236. False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.
(Enacted 1872.)
Calif. PC 237. (a) False imprisonment is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the false imprisonment be effected by violence,
menace, fraud, or deceit, it shall be punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
When Ofc. Conde stated that I was detained for violating a non-existent vehicle code he falsely detained me
and committed false imprisonment. I provided Ofc. Conde with my indentification under the threat of arrest
due to the false, fraudulent, detainment. This constitutes a second violation of false imprisonment. Simply
put if I did not provide Ofc. Conde with my identification he could have arrested me for obstruction of
justice. That is the coercive threat he used. It is only because of this threat of false arrest did I turn over my
property, my identification, to Ofc. Conde.
Ofc. Conde violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s “Due Process Clause” and the “Equal
Protection Clause.” Ofc. Conde violated the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by unreasonably
searching me. Ofc. Conde violated California Constitution Sec. 1 and Sec. 7. (a).
I asked Ofc. Conde how many years he had been a cop and he stated 3 years.
Ofc. Conde’s words and actions of violating the U.S. and California Constitutions demonstrate a level of
expertise that would require significant practice. This ability to effortlessly lie, deceive, and commit fraud in
order to violate the Constitutions as been obtained in a short period of time as an officer. This is evidence
that Ofc. Conde was trained by superiors in the police department on how to violate the Constitutions and
laws of California and the United States. Given that Ofc. Conde has only been an officer for three years and
would ostensibly not want to do anything contrary to the directions and approvals of his command staff to
avoid being disciplined it is evident that his actions of violating the Constitions is approved of by the
command staff including Police Chief Robert Jonsen.
People complain about Colin Kaepernick and the NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as being
disrespectful to the U.S. flag and all those people who put their life on the line for the flag and the
Constitution and freedoms which the flag represents.
Ofc. Conde under the direction and approval of his superiors in the police department symbolically
burned the U.S. flag and therefore the U.S. Constitution in the middle of the street last night.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that you informed Chief Jonsen on July 24, 2018 of the bias and
therefore unconstitutional actions conveyed to you on that same day and no corrective measures we
implemented by Chief Jonsen or other command staff.
This is evidence that that the command staff including Chief Jonsen approve of their subordinate officers
violating the laws and Constitutions of the U.S and California.
For Example: If you and Ofc. Binder were truly concerned about the bias/unconstitutional policing
committed on July23, 2018 than you and Binder would be holding Officers Alex Afanasiev and April Wagner
accountable for conspiring with other officers in destroying and falsifying evidence including a crimes scene
in order to falsely and wrongly incriminate a citizens of crime while concealing the unlawful actions of their
fellow officers.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/afanasiev.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/wagner.html
Afanasiev - Corrupt Palo Alto Police
For complete details on how members of the Palo Alto Police destroyed 2taser probes in order to conceal a 2nd taser gun firing because they removedthe video footage of the 2nd taser gun firing from the videos go to:
corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com
Wagner - Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis BurnsViolates The Law
Additionally Palo Alto Police Officer April Wagner asserted in her police reportand Declarations that her bicycle helmet broke during the March 15, 2008incident. This is supported by photographs taken of her bicycle helmet atStanford Hospital approximately an hour after the incident. However Wagner's
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html
Chief Jonsen has been on the job 6 months now and the fact that Chief Jonsen has not terminated the
employment of Afanasiev and Wagner confirms that he approves of police officers destroying and falsifying
evidence to incriminate citizens of crimes.
Afanasiev and Wagner are disqualified by the Palo Alto City’s hiring standards alone.
It is precisely incidents like this one with Ofc. Conde above as to why I record every interaction including
those in which your officers have directed ex-cons to target me.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/false-arrest.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/retaliation.html
Palo Alto City Manager James Keene,
knowing that you can personally respond to me in a timely fashion I want to know what actions you are
going to take to put an end to your police department’s violations of the Constitutions.
Nothing has changed in over 10 years; 15 years.
Tony Ciampi
helmet was photographed undamaged 15 minutes after she claimed it hadbeen damaged and 30 ...
chiefburns.weebly.com
false arrest - Corrupt Palo Alto Police
Palo Alto City Manager James Keene and Police Chief Ron Watson, Atapproximately 7:41 pm on August 1, 2017 two palo alto police officers, KevinMullarkey and Paul Burgio, arrested me at the at the Starbucks on UniversityAve, for outstanding warrants.Since I had no warrants this was a problem.Once the officers had me in handcuffs and outside next to their patrol car theyremoved my wallet and ...
corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gerry Fan <gerry.fan@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 10:53 PM
To:Kou, Lydia; Council, City
Cc:Howard, Adam
Subject:Contest against Mitchell Park PickleBall Invasion: Public meeting for Mitchell Park Court Conversion
Proposal
Attachments:image001.jpg; image004.jpg
Dear Lydia, Council Member
As a fellow Palo Alto citizen, a tax payer for the past 10+ years, I am deeply wounded by this endless pickleball invasion
to Palo Alto, our beloved city.
First, our city facilities should be for our own citizens: park and recreation facilities are supported by tax dollars, and we
should put our citizens first! Out of those pickleball players, how many are Palo Alto citizens? I heard about 60ish out of
its 300+ members. On the other hands, our young generation citizens including kids in school need tennis courts for
training and practicing. Mitchell Park tennis courts is the only lighted courts in the east/lower part of Palo Alto. We have
kids graduated from our high schools and went on to lead top tier university tennis teams; we have young players at
national level like Anushka Khune ( Nationally ranked #5 ) practicing in Mitchell Park, her small sister also practices
tennis at Mitchell. Why the city keeps on driving young kids out of place to practice? those young generations are the
future for the city, and they carry our Palo Alto flags wherever they go! We need those courts to be there and build
more for generations to come, so Palo Alto as a city could stay strong. Probably not to only attract seniors to the city to
drive Palo Alto into extinction.
Second, Park and Recreation department keeps on saying that there is no complaints from tennis players and lack of
tennis player attendance for hearing. One reason could be that: the tennis players are mostly still working: they are still
at work when city hosting meetings. While on the other hand, most pickleball players are retirees, they have no jobs so
they have time to attend everything. I believe tax is mostly being paid by people who are working, and retirees are not
paying tax to support Palo city: they are not working anymore, correct? In this sense, it would be unfair for the city to
deprive citizens who are paying tax now, and donate to seniors from other cities just because they come to Palo Alto to
play pickleball.
Third, whenever pickleball players practice at Mitchell Park, they created fuzzy in Mitchell Park: really crowded parking,
and annoying the magic bridge playground kids with laud noises; and parents have to park very far away, carrying
toddlers all the way to the magic bridge playground! Pickleball players burdens the park and young parents, as well as
our kids. What value do pickleball players bring to Palo Alto?
I heard that court #5 conversion funding is provided by the pickleball club, but the land still belongs to the city, the
precious land should be used for the tax‐paying citizens, not abused by pickleball club members ( with most of members
from other cities ). Pickleball club was chased out by other cities, why Palo Alto against the trend to host them with our
precious land, the most expensive land in bay area?
May you please help us to protect our precious tennis courts to be used by tennis players, the Palo Alto citizens? Keep
our tennis court to attract more young people and young families to come to Palo Alto! What Palo Alto park and
recreation department is doing just opposite of what should be done: it does not make sense to me.
Thank you so much in advance and looking forward to your help!
2
Sincerely yours
Gerry Fan
Citizen of Palo Alto
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Howard, Adam <Adam.Howard@cityofpaloalto.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:39 PM
Subject: Public meeting for Mitchell Park Court Conversion Proposal
To: Howard, Adam <Adam.Howard@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear Mitchell Park Users:
City staff is currently reviewing a plan that would add two additional pickleball courts outside of Mitchell Park
court 5 and converting court 5 into designated pickleball courts. Mitchell Park courts 6 and 7 would remain multi-
3
use courts and courts 1-4 would remain solely for tennis. Staff understands the reluctance of the tennis
community to lose any lit courts, however; we believe this is the best compromise for both pickleball and tennis
players recognizing the high value that both sports provide to the community. The below proposal is designed to
minimize the loss of lit tennis courts and provide enough dedicated pickleball space to handle the increase in
players, while keeping the joint usage option to provide space for both tennis and pickleball during their
respective high demand times.
4
Proposed Plan Overview:
Mitchell Park tennis court 5 becomes (4) designated pickleball courts
Mitchell Park tennis courts 6 and 7 remain multi-use courts with designated pickleball times on
Saturday/Sunday mornings and for city approved classes and tournaments. Tennis receives priority during the
evenings/nights, 7 days a week.
New area created outside of Mitchell Park court 5 becomes (2) more designated Pickleball courts
(2 courts is the maximum that can fit with surrounding restrictions)
Proposed Plan Results:
(8) designated pickleball courts (including the 2 recently redesigned paddleball courts)
(4) designated tennis courts (all lighted)
(2) multi use courts (2 tennis courts or 7 pickleball courts – all lighted)
Staff has looked at other parks/resources in the City that could be used for pickleball but have not had success
finding a viable area. Resources need to be reallocated and shared to meet the growing demand for pickleball
and continued demands for tennis in Palo Alto.
If you would like to provide input please feel free to email Adam Howard (adam.howard@cityofpaloalto.org) or
attend the public meeting on Tuesday February 19th, 6pm-7pm at the Mitchell Park Community Center
(Adobe Room)
Thank you,
5
Adam Howard | Sr. Community Services Manager | Mitchell Park Community Center
Community Services Department
3700 Middlefield Road| Palo Alto, CA 94303
O: 650.329.2192 F: 650.251.9109
E-mail: Adam.howard@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
New Space
2 dedicated Pickleball courts
__ ,..-!>151'1'0
~
1f$(1'94C((
lM: " I
0
-
0
-
~
0
'f
Court S
4 dedicat ed Pickleball courts
o-
>Y [!]
,
~ 0
•
. ... r 4'"'
r
Courts 6 and 7
2 multi use courts
2 tennis courts or 7 Pickleball courts •••
"'; ' ... ·~ '!I ~
... [!]
rf [!] "'
..
0
[!] [!] j (!)
,, ,.,.
.. ,_
1 1
-l· ; .. -(!) " -·
~
""'
' '
J17.1'
~t , /.
•• 91EOFRIH ---.... =:....--,. .. ~...,,. --. -·-···-· • lfltojo( ........ ·-. ""' ....... i.. • v_o,.
MQ11U:.._ -....... _
CfTYOFPALO
ALTO
UfTCHELI. PARK
RESTOAA 'hOH
PROJECT
21 ----T _, __ If ----t I eoc r. MfJOCM!llt
1 '"'40-'UO.OA r:i/ I ,_ ..... __
1
Carnahan, David
From:runlongz@yahoo.com
Sent:Saturday, February 16, 2019 1:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Public meeting for Mitchell Park Court Conversion Proposal
Dear Howard and City Council,
Here is my input regarding the proposal:
1) Why convert court5 as dedicated pickleball courts? That means when no pickleball is going on, no
tennis either? Isn't that a waste of resource?
2) Court 1&2 are dedicated for city tennis coach, that only leaves 3,4,6,7 which let 8 people play
single. On Tuesdays court 3&4 also being reserved by tennis club 5:00-7:00pm, that leave court 6&7
for general public to play tennis; Even court 6&7 are also possibly occupied by pickleball players, that
leaves no general public to play tennis on Tuesdays. Is this fair to tennis community?
3) There are more than 12000 students in Palo Alto, how many of them think they need less tennis
courts and more pickleball courts? Our kids don't speak out, it doesn't mean that seniors and policy
makers should take advantage of them. Please don't set up bad examples for our next generation by
punishing them for being kids. If policy makers think it is ok to invite so many retired senior folks from
all over bay area to Mitchell park to play pickleball, then it will be absolutely a shame to kick Palo Alto
kids to somewhere else to find tennis court.
4) We should consider to convert other tennis courts to multipurpose courts as well so that we won't
draw all Bay Area pickleball players to Mitchell park only. Why should Mitchell Park have to host all
the pickleball players in the Bay Area? and at the expense of Palo Alto tennis community as well as
others who will be competing parking spaces?
5) All other cities should convert their tennis courts to multipurpose courts as well instead of just Palo
Alto. Otherwise it won't be fair that Palo Alto tennis players have to go to Cuesta Park to play tennis
and pay Mountain View city court fees, and Mountain View Pickleball players come to Palo Alto to
play pickleball for free using Palo Alto's tennis courts.
Thanks,
Ron
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 12:39:47 PM PST, Howard, Adam <Adam.Howard@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Dear Mitchell Park Users:
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Li <lzjason@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 4:08 PM
To:Howard, Adam; Council, City
Cc:Gaines, Chantal
Subject:Re: Public meeting for Mitchell Park Court Conversion Proposal
Attachments:ID# 9654.pdf
To Adam and City Council,
Attached please find the Revised Tennis Court Use Policy by our city in Oct of last year.
From the revision I can feel that it stretched far too thin to please the pickleball club. I am not against pickleball sport
itself. It is good if tennis and pickleball can co‐exist on the same tennis courts. But Palo Alto city's policy makes this co‐
existence situation unfair to tennis community. How this happened deserve some investigation. But here is why it is
unfair.
In the previous tennis court use policy it shows a good balance between individual players and group players and among
seasonal or annual events, and importantly regarding the residents' priority to these courts.
If the population of pickleball players grew in the past few years that the city needs to provide more courts and like to
save money by multi‐use of the tennis courts, it can actually be achieved by just allowing pickcleball playing on certain
courts. All other rules can be followed by both tennis playing and pickle playing WITHOUT ANY CHANGE. Just follow the
already posted‐on‐fence court rules, for example, first come first serve with 1 hour limit and group playing must have
reservation proof from the city.
On the contrary, the new policy modified the old one so much that not only it reads awkwardly but also creates
unnecessary conflicts between tennis and pickleball's co‐existence. The reason and motivation is unclear to me. But one
may guess that it is just for the benefits of pickleball club at the sacrifice of the Palo Alto residents. The new policy
allows the pickleball club to host party like events occupying all courts for more than 4 hours sometimes, with the
frequency of more than 4 times a week. It has become a protected violation of individual Palo Alto tennis players' right
due to the new policy.
Please be aware that that club has less than 35% rate of Palo Alto residency (though some may say it is even less than
25%).
There has been a couple of proposals in the past with lots of resistance from the tennis communities. But the city is very
persistent in pursuing converting tennis courts to pickcleball dedicated courts. What is the motivation of this? Can we
please share the initiatives and justifications of all the proposals till today to public?
To my view, we already have a short term solution for the demands of the pickleball club at the sacrifice of the tennis
community. Why do we need another short term solution before a final solution (at Cubberley)? Don't forget it costs
budget and it is our residents' tax money.
Our residents' tax money can NOT be spent like that for a non‐resident pickleball club. Why can't the city publish the
verifies residential rate of that club? If local resident number of that club is over 50 but less than 100, can our city
council tell me which is more important, the 100 picklball players or 1000 of tennis players of the city, let alone the
potential tennis players of our young kids.
2
Best,
Jason
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:53 AM Howard, Adam <Adam.Howard@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Good Morning Mr. li,
Thank you for the feedback. Staff understands that having two popular sports using similar space is difficult but for the
immediate future we believe this combination of designated space for both sports and multiuse space provide a fair
compromise for both communities. The Cubberley redesign project may include new tennis or pickleball courts to help
alleviate some of the space demands, however, that is years out and does not provide a near term solution.
This proposal will still be reviewed by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Palo Alto City Council, starting
on Tuesday February 26th at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Please feel free to attend that meeting to
provide additional feedback.
Thank you
Adam Howard | Sr. Community Services Manager | Mitchell Park Community Center
Community Services Department
3700 Middlefield Road| Palo Alto, CA 94303
O: 650.329.2192 F: 650.251.9109
E-mail: Adam.howard@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9654)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/15/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Revised Palo Alto Field and Tennis Court Use
Policy
Title: Approval of Revisions to the Palo Alto Field and Tennis Court Use Policy
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve revisions to the Field and Tennis Court Use Policy to
include the addition of Pickleball.
Background
The Field and Tennis Court Use Policy was adopted by City Council in 2013 to provide clear
procedures for prioritizing use of athletic fields and tennis courts by the public and organized
sports leagues and clubs. When the policy was adopted tennis was the only racquet sport that
used the courts for drop-in and tournament play.
The City of Palo Alto has seen an increase in pickleball players and requests for pickleball space.
The Palo Alto Pickleball Club (formerly Silicon Valley Pickleball Club) has been very active in Palo
Alto and is currently using Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 5,6,7 on a first-come first-serve basis,
which is not supported by the City’s current court policy. The Mitchell Park tennis courts are not
heavily reserved for U.S. Tennis Association (USTA) match play but are used by drop in players.
The courts at Mitchell Park and are the only lighted courts in south Palo Alto.
The Palo Alto Pickleball Club recently received a proclamation from City Council recognizing
pickleball as one of the fastest growing sports with more than 2.5 million participants. Palo Alto
also hosts the Bay Area Senior Games pickleball matches.
The City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed the policy revisions on
Tuesday August 28, 2018. The majority of public comments came from pickleball players that
are in favor of the policy change but also encouraged staff to continue to work towards
designated courts for pickleball. The tennis players who spoke were generally supportive of the
policy changes, but spoke against the idea of existing tennis courts being converted to
designated pickleball space. The PRC unanimously approved the recommendation to move the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
policy changes forward to City Council.
Discussion
With increased demand for pickleball, the Community Services Department and the Parks and
Recreation Commission began looking into available space to provide designated pickleball
courts. With high demand on Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 5,6,7 by pickleball, staff proposed
converting those courts to permanent pickleball courts. The proposal was met with heavy
resistance from the tennis community, specifically around the idea of losing lighted courts. The
tennis community preferred a method that kept the courts available for joint use. As staff
continues gathering information and creating additional proposals for permanent space it’s
important that policy changes are adopted to allow pickleball use of the courts while also
recognizing the value of the lighted courts for the tennis community. The policy change allows
for pickleball to have dedicated play time, reserve space for tournaments and provides the
opportunity for evening/night play.
Staff understands that dedicated pickleball courts would provide the best solution for both
sports and are working towards this resolution by evaluating different alternatives. This policy
change will legitimize the use of court space for pickleball in the meantime.
Summary of Current Policy and Recommended Changes:
Issue Current Policy New Policy
Recommendations
Comments
Court Usage
Courts are only
available for tennis
use.
Change language to
allow more flexibility
on the courts rather
than only allowing
tennis.
Designate priority
hours for tennis and
pickleball on Mitchell
Park Courts 5/6/7.
Any hours not listed in
priority hours are
available first come
first serve
Priority times
• Tennis Priority
Hours
o 4pm-10pm
on Tuesday
and
Thursday
o 2pm-10pm
on Saturday
and Sunday
• Pickleball Priority
Hours
o 4pm-10pm
on Monday
and
Wednesday
o 8am-2pm
on Saturday
and Sunday
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Court
reservations/tournaments
Reservations only
allowed for USTA
Match Play and Palo
Alto Tennis Club
weekend/tournament
use.
Allow tournament
reservations for
pickleball with
residency
requirements.
Allow department to
allow special events
like Senior Games to
reserve more than 50%
of courts
Large events have
been allowed to
reserve more than
50% of courts in the
past, this is just
updating the policy to
reflect current
practice.
50% policy Only 50% of tennis
courts can be reserved
for USTA Match Play
This policy is not being
changed, however, in
cases where odd
number of courts exist,
the extra court will be
left available for drop
in use.
Example: 9 available
courts, 5 would be
reserved, leaving 4
available. Staff will
now only reserve 4
courts, leaving 5
available.
Next Steps
Staff will assess the policy again with both the pickleball and tennis community in six months or
less and implement additional changes as needed.
Staff continues to identify alternatives for dedicated pickleball courts and will review the
alternatives with the tennis and pickleball community and the Parks and Recreation
Commission prior to bringing a proposal to City Council.
Resource Impacts
Increased usage of the courts for pickleball is not expected to impact resources.
Attachments:
• Court Usage Policy Revised With Markup
• Court Usage Policy Revised
XII. Court Usage
1. : Locations: Courts are available at the following locations:
o Cubberley Community Center (6)
o Mitchell Park (7 lit courts)
o Rinconada Park (9 lit courts)
o Hoover Park (2)
o Peers Park (2)
o Terman Park (2)
o Weisshaar Park (2)
o Gunn High School (7 lit courts)
o Palo Alto High School (7 lit courts)
o JLS Middle School (6)
o Greene Middle School (4)
2. : Multi-Striped Courts & Priority Times:
Mitchell Park Courts 5, 6, 7 are striped with both Tennis and Pickleball lines. These multi-use courts
have designated hours that give either Tennis or Pickleball priority to play on the courts during that
time. If courts are not being utilized by the priority sport, dby specific sport during the priority time,
then either sport may play on a drop-in basis. However, the players of the non-priority sport players
must vacate the court within 15 minutes if players for the priority timed sport wish to play during
their priority time, whether as a drop-in or with an issued permit. .
Tennis Priority Hours
o 4pm-10pm on Monday, Wednesday and FridayTuesday and Thursday
o 2pm-10pm on Saturday and Sunday
Pickleball Priority Hours
o 4pm-10pm on Tuesday and ThursdayMonday and Wednesday
o 8am-2pm on Saturday and Sunday
Hours outside of the priority times are available for first-come first-served play of
either sport.
(See: Section XII, #5)
Entire court should be used for one sport. No playing Pickleball and tennis on the
same court.
During priority times, reservations can only be made for the sport that has priority,
unless approved by CSD Director.
3. Courts are available for reservation for Palo Alto Tennis Club and and USTA tournament/match use
only. Mitchell Park Courts 5, 6, 7 are available for reservation by Pickleball organizations but only for
approved tournaments and only during Pickleball priority hours. Tournaments may reserve more than
50% of available court space but require approval from Recreation Department..
B: A: Court Fees fees for reservation:
a.i. Residents: $5.00-$10.00 per court per hour
b.ii. Non-residents: $7.00- $20.00 per court per hour
.
4. 4. Courts are not available for reservation by individuals for private use, including private lessons,
picnics and individual play. No person shall provide or offer Ttennis or Pickleball lessons for
compensation on City-owned tennis courts except as part of and approved as a City-sponsored program.
4.
5. 5. Courts are available for drop in use on a first-come, first-served basis (with the exception of priority
hours, see Section II). with the exception of Mitchell Park courts 5, 6, 7. Each court use is subject to
a one-hour time limit whenever there are others waiting to use the court.
5.
6. The City brokers all City and District tennis courts (district courts available weekends, holidays and
after 4pm on school days) .
7. 3. Only 50% of the available courts at any location can be reserved at the same time and date unless
permitted by the Recreation Department for special requests/tournaments.. All other courts will remain
open to the general public.
8. 6. Courts are for raquetracquet sports only unless expressly allowed via permit issued by the
Community Services Department. No rollerblades, skates, skateboards, or pets are permitted on any
court.
8.
9. No individual may solely occupy and use a court if other individuals are waiting to play on that court.
9.
8. All steel racquets must have guards.
10.
11.10. Only non-marking soled shoes are allowed on the courts.
A: Locations: courts are available at the following locations:
o Cubberley Community Center (6)
o Mitchell Park (7)
o Rinconada Park (9)
o Hoover Park (2)
o Peers Park (2)
o Terman Park (2)
o Weisshaar Park (2)
o Gunn High School (7)
o Palo Alto High School (7)
o JLS Middle School (6)
o Greene Middle School (4)
B:) Multi- striped courts:
Mitchell Park courts 5, 6, 7 are stripped with both tTennis and Pickleball lines. These multi- use courts
have designated hours that give either tennis or Pickleball priority to play on the courts during that time.
Tennis priority hours
o 4pm-10pm on Monday, Wednesday and Friday
o 2pm-10pm on Saturday and Sunday
Pickleball priority hours
o 4pm-10pm on Tuesday and Thursday
o 8am-2pm on Saturday and Sunday
Hours outside of the priority times are available for first- come first- served play.
Reservations can only be made during priority hours and only for the sport with priority during those
times.
XIII. Permit Rules & Regulations
1. Permits cannot be transferred or assigned to any other person, group or organization for any reason.
1
2. Users must pick up and remove any trash generated by their activity.
2
3. The misuse of City or District facilities or the failure to conform to facility regulations, established
policies (including the Wet Field Policy) and procedures or any other Federal, State, or local law, rule
regulation or ordinance shall be sufficient grounds for the immediate revocation of the permit and/or the
denial of any future applications. No refund will be granted.
3
4. Permit holders shall restrict their use to only those fields or courts specifically reserved and paid for, as
designated in their permit. Other fields or courts may be scheduled by other groups and may not be
available. Permit holders must be in possession of their Use Permit in case there is a need to address the
question of who has priority use or reservation for the field or court in question. If the permit holder
cannot use a field or court due to unauthorized use by another party, the permit holder should contact the
Palo Alto Police Department at 650-329-2413.
4
Complaints from surrounding neighborhood residents as to the permittee’s activity noise level, litter and debris,
and/or disregard of parking regulations could lead to the cancellation of the permit or reservation, the forfeiture
of the security deposit, and the denial of facility use in the future.
XII. Court Usage
1. Locations: Courts are available at the following locations:
o Cubberley Community Center (6)
o Mitchell Park (7 lit courts)
o Rinconada Park (9 lit courts)
o Hoover Park (2)
o Peers Park (2)
o Terman Park (2)
o Weisshaar Park (2)
o Gunn High School (7 lit courts)
o Palo Alto High School (7 lit courts)
o JLS Middle School (6)
o Greene Middle School (4)
2. Multi-Striped Courts & Priority Times:
Mitchell Park Courts 5, 6, 7 are striped with both Tennis and Pickleball lines. These multi-use courts
have designated hours that give either Tennis or Pickleball priority to play on the courts during that
time. If courts are not being utilized by the priority sport, during the priority time, then either sport
may play on a drop-in basis. However, the players of the non-priority sport must vacate the court
within 15 minutes if players for the priority sport wish to play during their priority time, whether as a
drop-in or with an issued permit.
Tennis Priority Hours
o 4pm-10pm on Tuesday and Thursday
o 2pm-10pm on Saturday and Sunday
Pickleball Priority Hours
o 4pm-10pm on Monday and Wednesday
o 8am-2pm on Saturday and Sunday
Hours outside of the priority times are available for first-come first-serve play of
either sport.
(See: Section XII, #5)
Entire court should be used for one sport. No playing Pickleball and tennis on the
same court.
During priority times, reservations can only be made for the sport that has priority,
unless approved by CSD Director
3. Courts are available for reservation for Palo Alto Tennis Club and USTA tournament/match use only.
Mitchell Park Courts 5, 6, 7 are available for reservation by Pickleball organizations but only for
approved tournaments. Tournaments may reserve more than 50% of available court space but require
approval from Recreation Department.
A: Court fees for reservation:
i. Residents: $5.00-$10.00 per court per hour
ii. Non-residents: $7.00- $20.00 per court per hour
4. Courts are not available for reservation by individuals for private use, including private lessons, picnics
and individual play. No person shall provide or offer Tennis or Pickleball lessons for compensation on
City-owned tennis courts except as part of and approved as a City-sponsored program.
5. Courts are available for drop in use on a first-come, first-served basis (with the exception of priority
hours, see Section II). Each court use is subject to a one-hour time limit whenever there are others
waiting to use the court.
6. The City brokers all City and District tennis courts (district courts available weekends, holidays and
after 4pm on school days).
7. Only 50% of the available courts at any location can be reserved at the same time and date unless
permitted by the Recreation Department for special requests/tournaments. All other courts will remain
open to the general public.
8. Courts are for racquet sports only unless expressly allowed via permit issued by the Community
Services Department. No rollerblades, skates, skateboards, or pets are permitted on any court.
9. No individual may solely occupy and use a court if other individuals are waiting to play on that court.
10. Only non-marking soled shoes are allowed on the courts.
XIII. Permit Rules & Regulations
1. Permits cannot be transferred or assigned to any other person, group or organization for any reason.
2. Users must pick up and remove any trash generated by their activity.
3. The misuse of City or District facilities or the failure to conform to facility regulations, established
policies (including the Wet Field Policy) and procedures or any other Federal, State, or local law, rule
regulation or ordinance shall be sufficient grounds for the immediate revocation of the permit and/or the
denial of any future applications. No refund will be granted.
4. Permit holders shall restrict their use to only those fields or courts specifically reserved and paid for, as
designated in their permit. Other fields or courts may be scheduled by other groups and may not be
available. Permit holders must be in possession of their Use Permit in case there is a need to address the
question of who has priority use or reservation for the field or court in question. If the permit holder
cannot use a field or court due to unauthorized use by another party, the permit holder should contact the
Palo Alto Police Department at 650-329-2413.
Complaints from surrounding neighborhood residents as to the permittee’s activity noise level, litter and debris,
and/or disregard of parking regulations could lead to the cancellation of the permit or reservation, the forfeiture
of the security deposit, and the denial of facility use in the future.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Li <lzjason@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:43 PM
To:Howard, Adam; Council, City
Subject:Re: Public meeting for Mitchell Park Court Conversion Proposal
Hi PA city council,
I am writing to protest the proposal as included in the email below by Adam Howard. Quote from the email by Adam is
"Staff has looked at other parks/resources in the City that could be used for pickleball but have not had
success finding a viable area. Resources need to be reallocated and shared to meet the growing demand for
pickleball and continued demands for tennis in Palo Alto." I don't think a viable area can't be found, for
example the newly being planned Cubberley Community Center is a much better place for the pickleball
community.
There has been lots of confusion and frustration in the tennis community in the past couple of years regarding
the pickleball's aggressive and greedy behavior toward our tennis courts in MP.
This link is a post by Palo Alto Daily: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/01/05/new-pickleball-courts-
planned-for-mitchell-park#comment_form which has spurred lots of tension between tennis and pickleball
communities.
The city should do its best to alleviate the situation. But all the proposals by the Community Service
Departments have been biased toward the pickbleball side.
Someone says it is because the Community Service Department is not willing to build new courts for pickleball
and most of the players in the pickleball club are seniors and those seniors have lots of free time to attend the
meetings held by the Community Service Department. It is not fair to tennis community.
Some voice says that the three tennis courts are under-utilized. This is not true. There are two dedicated
pickleball courts in MP too. They are even more under-utilized than tennis courts.
Someone also argues that in the past couple of years there are lots of organized activities by the pickleball
club in MP and they occupy the tennis courts to demonstrate the tennis courts had better be used for
pickleball. This is not true either. Public tennis courts are not allowed to be occupied by any private club and
hence provide fair opportunities for individual players. But the pickleball club of the bay area is somehow given
the permission to occupy the 3 tennis courts contiguously for more than 4 hours. Because the club organize
people to come to the courts to play in certain time, they come out to tennis courts in large numbers at a time.
This kind of behavior is specifically prohibited by the tennis rules by Palo Alto city for tennis clubs so that any
organization can NOT monopoly most of the courts for anytime longer than one hour. I am not sure why
pickleball clubs are allowed to do that. It creates unfairness to individual tennis players.
So it it not a good solution to mix the two sports unless we enforce the same rules to both equally. It is best to
separate the two if the rules can NOT be enforced otherwise tennis community is in the unfairly treated
situation in MP.
Cubberley is being for new development. Why can't the city build a new home for pickleball in Cubberley? It
wastes money to tear down the tennis courts and build new pickleball courts on top of them. It cost even more
money for use tennis lights for pickball playing due to the lights are overkills and cost lots of energy.
I sincerely hope our city council can reconsider the proposal included in Adam's email.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Andonian <aandonian@avenidas.org>
Sent:Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:08 AM
To:Gloria Pyszka; Council, City
Cc:BoardOfDirectors; jdong@embarcadderomediagroup.com; Ellson, Penny
Subject:RE: Avenidas needs a continued presence at Cubberley
Hi Gloria,
Thank you for sending us your feedback on Avenidas maintaining a presence at Cubberley. You'll be happy to
know that we are, in fact, doing just that! We are working with the City to keep offering our programs out of
the I building at Cubberley, even after we move back to our downtown location.
Like you, we have heard from many South Palo Alto residents that you find having this kind of programming
nearby to be quite useful to you, and we're thrilled to be able to continue operating out of this facility.
Sincerely,
Amy Andonian | President & CEO
4000 Middlefield Road, #I-2, Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 289-5440 (office) | (650) 326-3048 (fax)
From: Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 7:55 PM
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Amy Andonian <aandonian@avenidas.org>; BoardOfDirectors <BoardOfDirectors@avenidas.org>;
jdong@embarcadderomediagroup.com; Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Subject: Avenidas needs a continued presence at Cubberley
Cubberley's redesign is ongoing with final decisions not far away. Is Avenidas planning to keep a
satellite presence at Cubberley?
In a recent year, Avenidas reported that it has served “over 7,500 people and hosted 233 classes in
only 5,600 square feet of program space.”
These stats did not report the level of convenience of Avenidas’ downtown location to many Palo
Altans, especially to those who live, for example, south of Oregon Expressway.
2
A sample of neighborhoods that are located a considerable distance from Avenidas include Barron
Park. Charleston Gardens, Monroe Park, Walnut Grove, Greenmeadow, etc. Only a partial list. To
what extent are these residents and others able to enjoy the convenience of programs in the
downtown location?
Southern Palo Alto residents will continue to enjoy one of the two Comida lunch programs . especially
the new one at Stevenson House on East Charleston. A second location is in the Masonic building
downtøwn. Comida has been a valuable and popular service over the years for anyone who needs,
or just wants, lunch and camaraderie.
When they temporarily used Cubberley during the downtown renovation, Avenidas learned that senior
Palo Altans from outside of the downtown area enjoyed Cubberley’s programs and Comida on East
Charleston, Why? Because the distance was substantially reduced.
Step up to the plate by seeking continued space at Cubberley. Then, you will be able to say that you
offer programs that are convenient to a citywide representation Palo Alto’s seniors.
Gloria Pyszka
284 East Charleston
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 16, 2019 8:11 PM
To:Ken Kershner
Cc:Council, City; Josh Becker; Levin, Adina; Pat Burt; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: Cancel the parking garage and redirect the funds into This Vision of Integrated Mobility
Hi Ken,
Thanks for including me in this information. Palo Alto is already a regional node with the most CalTrain boardings
besides SF and SJ. I think this type of system could work very well as we also have better weather then in the
Netherlands.
Here is another view of what could (is projected) to happen in the Bay Area by a professor at Stanford, Tony Seba:
Here is the info on Tony Seba’s presentation on technology
disruptions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duWFnukFJhQ.
In the beginning he talks about technology disruptions in general. The first few minutes are very worth
while and the rest of it is also good as he also talks about policy disruptions, which is where the city can
play a roll.
At 20:00 into the presentation, he talks about his Clean Disruptions of batteries, EVs, autonomous
vehicles, ride services and solar energy. This is what his book, Clean Disruptions, is about.
If you want to cut to the chase on parking, see 1:01:00 in the video to hear him talk about 80% parking
reductions with the peak happing in 2020. This means, if he is correct, that Palo Alto will have a very
large, $50 million stranded asset, empty parking garage(s) almost before they are built. This would be
the biggest mistake ever by forward thinking Palo Alto, even if only half of what he is talking about is
true. And we will be paying for this for years to come while we have more pressing issues like pensions
and grade separations to pay for.
Thanks,
David
On Feb 16, 2019, at 4:28 PM, Ken Kershner <ken@triomotors.co> wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Ken Kershner <ken@triomotors.co>
Date: Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 3:17 PM
Subject: Cancel the parking garage and redirect the funds into This Vision of Integrated Mobility
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Adina Levin <adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com>, <Patrick.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org>,
2
<Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>, Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>,
<liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>
I'm so glad the Council is reconsidering and I urge you to cancel the downtown parking garage.
Those costs per net new space are obscene.
Palo Alto has a chance to be a regional leader in Transit Oriented Development.
Here's a vision of integrated transporation that is NOT car‐centric !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjGXXU48N4&feature=youtu.be
Start at the 10 minute mark for the tutorial on how the Netherlands does it.
The Bay Area comparison is about minute 19.
Let's put the money into Integrated Mobility and develop Palo Alto as a regional transit node!
Ken Kershner
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 14, 2019 8:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you very much !
Dear Mayor Filseth and Palo Alto City Council members,
Thank you for taking the climate change focus area seriously having a thorough reconsideration of the Downtown
Parking Garage at the Policy and Services Committee. These are precisely the actions needed to be impactful and
forward thinking. We have the creativity and innovation to develop and promote a series of mobility options in Palo Alto
that do not require significant parking. With real alternatives and encouragement, community. members will have
options that work for them and will further reduce green house gas emissions.
Concerned community member,
Gail Price
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, February 18, 2019 10:58 AM
To:Steve Levy
Subject:The Impending California Retirement Wave
Attachments:Numbers-Feb-2019-California-Retirement-Wave.pdf
Nearly 5 million California workers will retire between 2015 and 2030. Current levels of foreign
immigration and domestic migration are FAR below the level needed to replace retiring workers and fill
new jobs--even if all of today's children in California get a good education. In addition there are challenges
in matching the skills needed to fill the 7,5 million job openings that will be created from the retirement
wave and job growth.
Three policy areas need positive actions.
1) National immigration for workers at ALL skill levels needs to be substantially increased.
2) More housing affordable to low and middle income residents needs to be built throughout the state.
This is needed to reduce housing cost based domestic pout migration and to send a signal that you can
come to California and find affordable housing even if you are not in the highest income brackets.
3) A variety of education and training policies will help but one stands out. That is to allow unauthorized
immigrants (Dreamers and others) to learn and earn legally and come out of the shadows. This will increase the number and skill level of our workforce.
Steve
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
1
February 2019
The Impending California Retirement Wave—Numbers and
Policy Implications
Approximately 4.7 million California workers will retire between 2015
and 2030—roughly 25% of the 2015 workforce. During this period the
state is projected to add 2.8 million jobs. That leaves 7.5 million job
openings to fill but there were only 4.6 million young Californians
likely to join the workforce by 2030.
Thus the state is short nearly 3 million workers to replace retiring
residents and provide for new job growth. This potential shortage
raises policy questions about immigration, housing, education and
workforce training. One bottom line is that housing and
immigration are critical economic competitiveness policies in
addition to their social justice importance.
Let’s look first at how these projections were derived and then at the
implications for public policy.
4,695,945
2,821,743
4,565,916
2,951,771
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
California Labor Force Trends 2015-
2030
Retirees New Jobs Entrants from 2015 New Workers Needed
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
2
The State’s Population is Aging Even as Older Workers Work
Longer
Nearly 80% of the state’s working age population growth to 2030
projected by the California Department of Finance is in residents 55
and older and most of that is for residents aged 65 and above.
Labor force participation rates (the share of the population in the
workforce) for older workers have risen and are expected to continue
increasing.
20.3%
6.4%
31.8%
41.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
16-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Share of Growth in Population 16+
for 2015-2030
39.2%
40.2%
37.0%37.3%
35.0%
36.0%
37.0%
38.0%
39.0%
40.0%
41.0%
U.S. California Sh
a
r
e
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
Labor Force Participation is Rising
for Residents Aged 55 and Above
2017 2007
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
3
But this trend is offset by the fact that participation rates for workers
aged 55 and above are far lower than those for workers aged 25-54.
And participation rates decline sharply as workers reach age 65.
Here is an example of how the retirement projections were
developed. The chart below shows the number of workers aged 50-
54 in 2015. By 2030 these workers would be aged 65-69. Their labor
force participation rate would decline from 80.0% in 2015 to 34.7% in
2030 even as participation for residents aged 65-69 increases from
81.9%81.2%
39.2%40.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
U.S. California
Participation Rates in 2017 Drop
Sharply After Age 55
25-54 55+
72.5%
62.5%
26.9%23.8%
6.5%5.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2017 2007
Participation Rates Continue Falling as
Residents Age in California
55-64 65-74 75+
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
4
30.3% to 34.7%. The result is a projected retirement of 1.2 million
workers by 2030.
The number of new entrants from the children in 2015 was projected
by assuming they would participate in 2030 at the same rate as in
2017. The number of new jobs comes from existing CCSCE
projections. These projections could vary but any variations are
unlikely to change the major findings.
Labor force participation rates could rise faster than projected,
reducing the number of retirees and increasing the number of today’s
children in the workforce in 2030. Job and population growth could be
higher or lower than projected but these changes would not affect the
net workers shortage much if at all
Policy Implications
Where might the 3 million additional workers come from?
A part of the 3 million has already occurred thanks to falling
unemployment and rising labor force participation between 2015 and
2018. Reduced unemployment added approximately 350,000
workers. And increased labor force participation rates added more
than 400,000 workers from the existing population.
2,112,978
916,135
1,196,843
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2015 2030 decreae
Retirement of California Workers
Aged 50-54 in 2015
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
5
But unemployment rates are unlikely to decline further from here to
2030. And some increase in labor force participation rates is already
included in the projections, though even more is possible.
Immigration and Housing Policies
The rest of the new workers will need to come from migration into the
state from the rest of the country or abroad. Foreign immigration has
been a steady contributor to California’s population and workforce
growth but these levels alone if they were to continue are not quite
enough to fill the projected workforce needs.
And the current evidence is that the administration is placing
restraints on current legal immigration despite some words to the
contrary. Other evidence is that foreign student enrollment in U.S.
colleges (an indicator of future workforce intentions) is down as the
country is no longer seen as welcoming immigrants.
But the foreign immigration trends are now almost completely offset
by growing outmigration of California residents to other states. So the
net growth from migration is now well below the levels needed to fill
the job openings created by retirements and job growth. Moreover,
while many immigrants come to work, not all do. So 200,000
immigrants a year does not translate into 200,000 additional workers.
-200,000
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
California Migration Trends
Net Migration Foreign Immigration Domestic Migration
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
6
The growing out migration is primarily the result of a lack of housing
affordable to low and middle-income residents.
So in terms of numbers (finding enough workers), California needs
national immigration policies that favor expanded workforce-based
admissions at all skill levels.
And to make sure the workers can remain in California and decrease
housing based out migration, California needs state, regional and
local policies that provide strong incentives to build more housing and
lower the cost of housing, particularly for low-income residents and
the “missing middle”. This is the only way to diminish out migration
and retain more low and middle –income workers and their families.
California needs more housing affordable to residents at all
income levels. This is one of many instances where an
economic competitiveness and social justice agenda point in the
same policy direction.
The need for reform in immigration and housing policies is discussed
widely already and the purpose in this note is not to repeat a growing
body of discussion and ideas. The point here is to make the
connection between workforce and the economy and immigration and
housing as, hopefully, another voice in promoting change.
Workforce Policy Implications
More than 70% of job openings in California between 2018 and 2030
will come from the need to replace retiring workers not from job
growth. And the diversity of job openings is largest among the
replacement jobs. Some sectors like production jobs or administrative
support jobs are likely to remain flat or decline, but retirements will
provide job opportunities for residents and worker needs for
employers.
This finding suggests a high priority in education/training efforts
towards occupations and industries with the greatest number of job
openings and opportunities.
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
7
Beyond the numbers there are substantial issues of skill match. The
retirees include a large number of well educated workers and an even
larger number of experienced workers. Even though the raw number
of today’s children who will enter the workforce by 2030 nearly
matches the number of retirees, the skill and experience profiles do
not match.
As with immigration and housing, there has been a lot written on how
best to upgrade the skills of today’s workforce and better prepare the
next generation of workers.
The surge of interest in pre-school education is a hopeful sign but
unlikely to have much impact before 2030.
Similarly, the emphasis on increasing college enrollment is a good
objective, but it is also true that many of the replacement jobs do not
require a four-year degree.
The replacement statistics support the objective of increasing post-
secondary education and training with an emphasis on shorter, more
focused training, certificates that meet industry standards and
programs like apprenticeships.
4,226,351
1,721,743
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
Retirees New Jobs
Most Job Openings Will Come From
Replacing Retirees 2018-2030
385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com
8
One large area of opportunity is improving opportunities for
unauthorized immigrants already living in California.
The latest Pew Research Center estimates count 2.2 million
unauthorized immigrants in California in 2016. While that is down
more than 500,000 from the peak, it is still a large number and
accounts for roughly 1.4 million California workers and some
additional number of Dreamers not yet in the workforce.
Bringing these residents out of the shadows will encourage more to
join the workforce, better utilize the skills and experience they already
have and encourage more to acquire skills that can help replace
retiring workers and improve their economic well-being.
Data Sources
The labor force participation rate estimates come from the American
Community Survey. The projected increases for workers aged 55 and
above were developed by CCSCE based on national trends projected
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The state population estimates
and projections by age group come from projections published by the
California Department of Finance in 2017. The job estimates for
2015-2018 come from the California Employment Development
Department. The state job projections were developed by CCSCE in
2018.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 11:33 AM
To:Sam Liccardo; Sara Cody
Subject:5G--5 towns LIMIT in Marin Cty
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
From Marin Independent Journal, Feb. 14, 2019
Novato considers 5G network restrictions
5 towns already limit 5G in Marin Cty
By WILL HOUSTON | whouston@marinij.com |
February 14, 2019 at 5:12 pm |
Novato is considering joining other Marin communities in regulating equipment for the
next-generation wireless network known as 5G.
This week, the City Council voted unanimously to consider crafting regulations on 4G and
5G equipment, with the discussion possibly taking place as soon as March.
Councilwoman Pat Eklund said she brought the item before the council based on input
from local residents and because of her own interest in the topic as a former Environmental
Protection Agency employee.
“I’m pleased because I believe we need to take action soon,” Eklund said Thursday. “And we
are fortunate here in Novato because our city attorney did an emergency ordinance for the
town of Sonoma. He’s already on top of the issue and hopefully we can get it agendized
soon.”
Some of the restrictions the council will be vetting include whether to ban small cell
installations in residential areas or streets; requiring setbacks from schools, hospitals and
other areas; visual and viewshed protections; permitting requirements; notification of
residents; and creating a committee to “study the viability of a fiber optic network,”
according to Eklund’s report.
Several local communities have already adopted some form
of regulations on the cellular facilities, including San
Anselmo, Ross, Mill Valley, San Rafael and Fairfax.
A decision by the Federal Communications Commission last year does limit how much
authority local jurisdictions have over 5G installations.
Under the FCC’s new policy, local jurisdictions can charge no more than $270 per year per
cell site in access fees.The FCC rules also set timelines for granting approvals for antennas,
requiring cities and counties to act on applications for deployments on existing structures
within 60 days. Applications for entirely new installations must be acted on within 90 days.
While supporters say 5G networks will allow for faster download speeds for mobile
devices, opponents cite potential health risks caused by microwave exposure.
Novato-based attorney Harry Lehmann provided a letter to the City Council on Tuesday
2
outlining his arguments in favor of banning 5G technology in Novato, saying it would be
“morally wrong” to allow it.
“5G does not create a ‘risk’ of injury, like some essential medicines, because the
participation of our bodies in microwave saturation is not a choice,” Lehmann wrote.
“5G thus creates a constant hazard, not just a risk of injury.”
The health risks of 5G networks and cellular radiation have been a topic of debate. The U.S.
Centers for Disease Control states that more research is needed to determine whether there
is a health risk.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 17, 2019 5:32 PM
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 02-06-19 UAC meeting -- Utilities Workforce Update item
Commissioners,
At your 02-06-19 meeting (agenda here)
https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68793
Item IX.2 was a staff presentation about "Utilities Workforce Update: Succession Planning, Recruitments and Vacancies."
Please see, below the "######" line, a transcript of this item, with my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###").
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: A video of the 02-06-19 UAC meeting can be found here:
https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-262019/
The presentation slides for Item IX.2 can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68792
##########################################################################
0:52:40:
Chair Danaher: All right. So, we'll go on to agenda item number 2. We do have one citizen comment from Herb
Borock. Would you -- would this be a good time?
0:52:50:
Herb Borock: [unamplified] Whatever you like ...
0:52:51:
Chair Danaher: Yeah. That would be -- Always appreciate your thoughts.
0:52:59:
Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair Danaher. And good evening. I have two comments. The first has to do with reconciling
the number of -- vacancy status on three different ways that it's presented here. On slides 2 and 3, where it's by -- I guess
by division, or units. You know, within each of those, the numbers add up. And, if my math is correct, it comes to 42.5
. However, on slide 5, it's 43.5. And then, on slide 7, two of the management positions, the assistant director and the
manager of operations, are not highlighted in the previous charts. So, trying to get all those three together, I think, would
be helpful.
2
The second comment is a request for more information, which I believe you can have this evening from personal
knowledge from the staff who are here. You have, on slides 4 and 6, bar graphs of vacancies by division and retirement
eligibility by division. I believe it would be helpful to have both of those kinds of charts by bargaining unit -- by the Service
Employees Union and by the Management and Professional Association. I suspect that the Management will be very high
in the number that are eligible for retirement. And, related to that, you would also need to know -- and, again, I believe
there's personal knowledge here this evening -- the retirement rules on CalPERS for base salary. That is, there's been a
long wait for a contract, and, finally, there is a new salary increase for everybody in Management and Professional. And
the question is, how long would it take -- you know, is it 12 months of salary, or three years of salary? What is used to
determine the base salary? And how much time would it be to vest that higher salary that they have now? And to max
that against the eligibility for retirement? Thank you.
0:55:20:
Chair Danaher: OK. Thank you, Herb. So, commissioners, this -- a number of you have raised at various times --
questions about workplace continuity, or workforce continuity. And shortage of staffing. And at our last meeting, we
asked for presentations on this. So, I'm really pleased the staff has come forward. Judith and I talked with them on
Monday. We don't need to go into line-by-line detail on particular positions. But we'd like to have a good discussion on
the whys and wherefores of recruiting and retention.
0:55:56:
Dave Yuan: So, before we begin, we have a few people joining us tonight. We have Tomm Marshall here. He's
Assistant Director of Operations. And we also have Sandra Blanch, Assistant Director of Human Resources. And also
Irene Silipin, Senior Management Analyst from HR, as well.
0:56:11:
Chair Danaher: OK.
56:13:
Dave Yuan: All right. So, in the 2018 Utilities Strategic Plan, we did identify workforce as one of the four priorities. The
objective was to ensure the we have long-term -- staff long-term, to continue to provide essential utility services. So,
tonight, we're going to give UAC an update of the Utilities workforce, including vacancies, retirements, or
recruitments. And also succession planning.
0:56:41:
So, this first slide [Slide 2] is just a snapshot of the department. Of the five divisions. Operations is on the next slide
[Slide 3].
0:56:47:
But the red font denotes the number of vacancies. And also the vacant titles, in each of the respective divisions. And this
is just a snapshot of when it was two weeks ago.
0:57:02:
Commissioner Schwartz: Can I just ask one question? The Assistant City Manager / General Manager. So, before Ed,
they weren't the same position.
0:57:14:
Dave Yuan: No. It was just a Utilities Director only. Utilities Director ...
0:57:16:
Commissioner Schwartz: Right. So, are we assuming next time that we are going to get somebody who has to do both
roles? Or can we get somebody who is a Utility person, and that's what they do?
3
0:57:27:
Dave Yuan: In the upcoming budget, we are proposing to reclass that title back to a Utilities Director.
0:57:32:
Commissioner Schwartz: OK.
0:57:34:
Dave Yuan: Ed was a special breed.
### In the wake of the 2004 Utilities scandal, Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison took on the additional task of
Director of Utilities in August of 2005.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2007/02/07/rebuilding-palo-altos-brutilities-department
But I don't think her title was changed.
0:57:36:
Commissioner Schwartz: [laughs]
0:57:37:
Dave Yuan: All right. Then, for this one. This is, as you can see, Operations [Slide 3]. This has the highest number of
vacancies throughout the department. There are currently 26 vacancies. And Electric Operations has the lion's share of
them. Which is -- we have 18 positions. And, as you can tell, it's all across the board. And that represents about a 26
percent vacancy rate. We'll discuss more about Electric Operations in the subsequent slides.
0:58:04:
Here's a chart of vacancies and filled positions [Slide 4]. So, again, there are vacancies throughout. But I think we are
reaching a critical point right now in Electric Operations, where it may impact our daily operations and our emergency
response time.
0:58:22:
And this is just the status of all our vacancies -- the 42.5 positions [Slide 5]. So, there are 32 currently under
recruitment. But I just want to note, there are 8 of them in the orange pie slice, that have been -- are hard-to-fill
positions. These are the lines person -- system operators. That's a very unique skill. And it's a very competitive
market. So these are all out for recruitment for more than 6 months. Sometimes even years.
0:58:50:
Tomm Marshall: So, Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director, Utility Operations. And so, we were going to, just now, talk
about key positions with the electric utility [Slide 7]. One of the main areas is the lineperson / cable splicer. These have
been vacant for -- We've had vacancies in this area -- you know, ongoing probably for 10 years. We've never really been
full in that position for at least 10 years. Today, we're currently down around 6 people. We had a number of retirements
at the end of this year. And we've had a number of positions that have been vacant for an extended period of time. The
next position on there is the compliance technicians. They actually are the people who go out and do our
inspections. Typically, those are linemen also. They're usually linemen that were, typically, injured on the job at some
point. They can't do the line work anymore. And we put them in the field to do this inspection work. And this is an
inspection job that requires line knowledge. And it's usually going to end up being a field person, like a lineman, to do
that. So, when we look at this, we're not just really 6 vacancies. We're looking at 8 vacancies, right now, for people with
those skills. Journeymen's skills. We currently have two system operators. This has been ongoing for a number of
years. We're now to the point where we have 3 on staff. At one point, we were down to one system operator on
staff. We have 2 current operators. We have a training operator. We're in the process of hiring another person to come
in as a training -- in training in this area, as well. And we still have one vacancy to fill. And we're continuing to recruit for
that. On the management side, we have one position that's still been open for a long time, which is the Assistant Director
of Engineering. That's been open -- what -- almost 2 years now? And we're doing -- you know, rotations and training in
that position. The other 3 positions up here -- my position [Assistant Director, Operations], the Manager of Electric
4
Operations, and Electric Supervisor -- are all looking at retirement in the next two to three years. So, there's going to be a
number of additional management vacancies that come up.
1:01:00:
So, this next slide [Slide 6] is current eligibility -- retire- -- by division. And, you see, there's a number -- a lot of positions
we still have where people can retire. I will say, we just went through the UMPAPA negotiations. There was an increase
for people. There were a lot of people looking at leaving in December of this year. They are not in these critical
positions. But they're in other positions in the utility. And we're likely to see a large number of people leaving the City at
the end of this year, as well.
1:01:33:
So, the question is, why are they difficult to fill [Slide 8]? Well, this is an industry-wide problem. All utilities are faced with
this. We're especially acute here, because of the high cost of living. And the people that we're bringing in are doing long
commutes. We have people that come in every day from Lodi
### Lodi is 100 miles away.
and other places. And, you know, after a while, they begin looking for closer jobs, so they don't have to make that two- or
three-hour commute every day. Or, each way. I mean, there are four -- sometimes five -- hours of commuting per day to
get here. We've seen wage escalation, across the industry, with other cities, where the pay rates have typically been
higher than ours, as they've escalated faster than we've been able to keep up with their changes. And another thing with
these jobs -- these lineman jobs. They are five-year-training jobs, to become a lineman. So, they're going to be in training
for five years. They come out of that, they're sort of at a minimum level. They can't really be completely on their own,
working, at that point. It takes about another five years -- almost 10 years of training -- to get them up to the level where
we can send them out, to lead a crew and work on their own. So, that's one of the, you know, major issues we have. We
bring people in. And we do have people. Right now, we have 4 apprentices. We have -- Two of those apprentices --
they're just about to top out at the 5-year mark. But we don't -- We have to be able to keep them here. One of those
apprentices is living in Lodi. And we don't know that they will stay. And so, that's one of the issues we have also --
retaining them, once we bring them in. We train them. And then they go off, possibly, to other utilities. So, that's an issue
for us as well.
1:03:17:
So, just a general comment about recruitments. [Slide 9]. We are able to recruit for entry level. We've been able to get
people to come into our apprenticeship programs, and fill those. So, we've been able to do that. We have not been able
to attract people at the mid level, that come in with skills already in place. So, one of the issues we're having right now --
we can't have -- I can't have, like, 10 apprentices and 4 linemen. There's not enough people to train those people. So we
have to keep a balance. So we're continually looking for people we can bring in at this mid level, that can also help us
with the training of our apprentices. One positive thing: we did interview 2 linemen today. And we may be able to hire a
couple people, to help us out. At the senior level -- at the AD level and things -- we've been having difficulty finding
people with the skills we need to fill -- I mean, one of the things with the AD jobs is, they're across electric, gas, water,
and wastewater. So, there's not a lot of people out there that will come in with that experience, to cover all those utilities.
1:04:28:
So, some of the things we're doing short-term [Slide 10]. We're continuing to do things internally. Working out of
class. Working job rotations. And, where we can, we've been doing promotions within the City. Currently, there's labor
negotiations going on with SEIU. I can't really comment too much on that, because I'm not really familiar with what's
going on. But those are ongoing. I know there is some discussion in those labor negotiations about the linemen and
compensation. But I don't really know the status of it, to tell you where that is. But we've had some discussions about
whether that position needs to be adjusted, to be more competitive in the marketplace. UMPAPA is going to come up for
negotiation for the managers in June of this year. And there'll be a whole negotiation in and around that. We mentioned
overstrength positions. That's where the City holds, basically, extra positions. When we have people that are going to
retire, sometimes we can get this overstrength position, if we know somebody's leaving, so we can bring somebody to
work in parallel with them, before they leave. And that's what those are for. It says CalPERS exemption. That's where
we're able to bring back employees to work, to help us out, that recently retired, before they wait 6 months. Because you
have to wait 6 months before you can come back. But there's some exceptions we can do, for, like, emergency situations,
and training issues, that we can bring them back earlier. So, we're also looking at that, as well. To help with the
5
training. And then, we use contract service for a number of things. One thing, we do use contract services for line
work. We have a contractor coming in this month, to do -- to essentially act as our own crews.
1:06:14:
Long term strategies [Slide 11] . So, one of the issues is to explore the idea of market-based compensation. That's
something that we are working on with the HR department, to figure out how we might do that, and where that's going to
go. We're hiring more resources for recruitment. We're evaluating retention pay options. Again, that's in conjunction with
the HR department. Working on succession planning, professional development, recruiting branding. And market-based
compensation, which we've already mentioned. So. And then, we also are looking at departmental
reorganization. Possibly. So.
1:07:04:
Chair Danaher: We're done [Slide 12]? Thank you. Good presentation. I'm sure -- a lot of questions here. But who'd
like to start?
1:07:11:
Commissioner Johnston: So, I'm not at all sophisticated about these labor negotiations. But am I understanding correctly
that, basically, you can't change the salary for positions like lineman without having that negotiated as part of the --
1:07:28:
Tomm Marshall: Correct. That would be part of the negotiations.
1:07:32:
Commissioner Johnston: So, if you were going to go to a market-based compensation system, that all would have to be
negotiated as well.
1:07:40:
Tomm Marshall: Yes. That would be negotiated. There's a -- There's an agreed process where the salary levels get
set. Or, the City has a process for doing -- how the salaries are set. And so, if that were to change, there would have to
be some negotiation with both sides, to figure out what that new arrangement would be.
1:07:58:
Commissioner Johnston: And how long would those negotiations likely take?
1:08:04:
Tomm Marshall: Um. I don't -- I don't know. I mean, I think, it would take time. I mean, it could be settled in this labor
negotiation. There could be sort of a side agreement for particular positions, if the union was agreeable to that. That
happens, from time to time. I can't really say at this point, because, again, I'm not directly involved in that, whether that
would be the outcome of this. There could be a side agreement for these positions. But that's a possibility, as well. To
try to alleviate this particular problem.
1:08:31:
Dave Yuan: I just want to comment. For at-risk positions, I think the City does have the right to meet and confer with the
union, to -- for certain positions -- for market realignments. So, it doesn't have to be just during the negotiations window.
1:08:42:
Tomm Marshall: Correct. Yeah. We meet and confer. I think we can get a side agreement -- essentially where we end
up at. A side agreement with the ...
1:08:49:
6
Commissioner Johnston: Because it sounds like we're kind of hamstrung, in solving some of these problems. They have
to have these negotiations first.
1:08:59:
Tomm Marshall: Um. I mean, I agree. There's a process you have to go through to get to the end. It's not something we
can just -- over -- just make -- decide to make a change and have it happen.
1:09:08:
Dave Yuan: And one of the challenge with the linesperson is that, as we negotiate, other cities and municipalities also
negotiate over their linesperson classification. So, we don't know where they're heading.
1:09:17:
Tomm Marshall: I mean, an example is, we're significantly behind Santa Clara right now. And we've been told that
they're already doing another increase. So, it's really difficult for us to keep -- keep up with what's really going on.
1:09:37:
Commissioner Forssell: But, just to A.C.'s question of how long it takes, is it weeks, or months, or years?
1:09:41:
Tomm Marshall: Not -- It's probably not years. It's certainly -- probably -- months, for sure.
1:09:47:
Chair Danaher: We have an HR specialist who **. And **.
1:10:07:
Sandra Blanch: Good evening. I'm the Assistant Director in Human Resources. To respond to your question, the current
contract term and date was December. And we've been negotiating for about six months now. So, it -- the time period
which it takes to negotiate a contract varies. I will say that it seems that in the last three contracts, we have been
addressing the lineperson salary. But it's a moving target. You know, it's difficult to keep up with the market. As soon as
we negotiate a new salary, our competitors do the same. We're fighting to recruit and retain the same candidates. We
see them going from our City to Santa Clara. And if you look on our competitors' websites -- Roseville, Alameda, Santa
Clara -- everyone has a job opening for lineperson / cable splicers. So, we're not in a really unique
situation. Unfortunately, you know, we -- I think we have three recent retirements just in the last month. So that, you
know, makes this a more critical point in time. But, as Tomm mentioned, we are looking at proposals to include retention
pay.
1:12:07:
Chair Danaher: Tell us about the -- more about the trainees. People come from out of college? Or out of high
school? Go to vocational school? What's the typical background?
1:12:16:
Tomm Marshall: They come from a number of places. Sometimes, they could be just high school graduates. What we
see now is -- there's line -- quote -- "colleges," where people go to get the training. And so, they typically have
introductory programs, where somebody can go, and get sort of the basics. They aren't in an apprenticeship yet. But
they go, and get sort of a basic knowledge of the skill set for this. And so, what we're seeing now is, people will go and
take that initial course at a line college. And then, they will apply for a job with us, as an apprentice. And so, we'll pick up
an apprentice for that process.
1:12:55:
Chair Danaher: Um hum. One more comment on that. In a lot of businesses have had to look for ways to improve their
training programs, to make them faster. New tools, and the like. Has that been happening in this industry?
7
1:13:11:
Tomm Marshall: Um. Well, I don't know if I know enough to really comment on it a little bit. I think it -- We send our
people off to training. So, it's a combination of two things. One, you've got to go and get this training at a training facility,
to learn the basic skills. And we send people off, for two-week stretches or so, to go out to Northwest Line
College. Which is somewhere in California -- I don't remember exactly where.
### Northwest Lineman College, Oroville, CA?
https://lineman.edu/students-home/campuses/california/
https://california.lineman.edu/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsbP7l7DB4AIVtyCtBh1u-ghOEAAYASAAEgJoAfD_BwE
But they go there for a few weeks. And then, the next part of that training is, they have to come back, and they work in
the workplace. And physically work. For another period of time. And then we'll send them off for the next set of
training. So, it's a combination of the school training, and physical things they need to do there, plus having to work and
get the skills they need, on -- doing things on an everyday basis. Like climbing poles, and -- You know, you go learn how
to climb it. But you got to do it -- you know, more often than that, so you have the skill, so you can actually do it -- work off
the pole, if that's what you need to do. If that makes sense. So, it's a combination of schooling and real-life experience.
1:14:17:
Chair Danaher: Yeah.
1:14:17:
Tomm Marshall: And it -- I don't know if there's a way to get it done much faster than the five years. 'Cause it's a pretty
complicated skill set they have to learn.
1:14:27:
Chair Danaher: OK.
1:14:33:
Commissioner Forssell: I'm curious. When the staffing shortages are being filled with contract services, how does the
cost of that compare to -- had the position been filled internally?
1:14:45:
Tomm Marshall: So, I mean, that's a complicated question. A little bit. Because there's benefits and other things that go
into our -- all employees. But I would say, under the current market we have today, it's probably cheaper to have our own
employees, because everybody needs linemen. PG&E -- long time never hired a contract lineman. That's something
they do regularly now. So, we're all competing, sort of in the same market, for contractors, now, as well. And we've seen
-- the prices have been increased.
1:15:13:
Commissioner Forrsell: So, twice as expensive to have a contractor?
1:15:15:
Tomm Marshall: You know, I don't know the exact number ...
1:15:17:
Commissioner Forssell: Three times? 20 percent higher?
1:15:19:
Tomm Marshall: I would say it's probably -- and I'm purely guessing -- maybe between 25 and 50 percent higher. Yeah.
8
1:15:28:
Dave Yuan: And the recent contract we just established with a doc crew was a $1.5 million per year, for three years. So,
$4.5 million total.
#### Council approved this contract on 10-15-18. Here's the staff report.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67111
It was Item 6 on the consent calendar According to the action minutes,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=39983.73&BlobID=67520
Council Members Tanaka, Kou, and Holman pulled it. But later, Holman changed her mind, so Item 6 remained on
Consent, and passed, with Kou and Tanaka voting "no." According to the video,
https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-10152018/
2:45:03 Kou voted no on Item 6.
2:45:15 Tanaka asked to pull Item 6. Kou second. Holman third.
2:52:04 Holman asked when Item 6 could return to Council. Staff couldn't say. Holman withdrew her third, saying it's a
safety issue. But she was concerned that there was only one bid, and that it was on consent.
2:53:56 Tanaka explained his no vote on Item 6. Only one bid. Big contract.
2:54:49 Filseth pointed out that the IFB went to 228 contractors, and the City got only one bid.
2:54:57 Kou explained her no vote on Item 6. It didn't go to Finance Committee. She wanted more discussion and
understanding about it.
That's on an as-need basis. Depends on context.
1:15:30:
Commissioner Forssell: Sorry, I didn't understand that. I just heard some millions of dollars. To do what?
1:15:44:
Dave Yuan: The contract service to help out with the -- augment the linesperson. It's a $1.5 million contract per year.
1:15:51:
Commissioner Forssell: And that replaces how many people?
1:15:54:
Dave Yuan: It's usually a crew of -- I would say -- three.
1:15:57:
Tomm Marshall: So, that's replacing, probably, a single crew. Or maybe a crew and a half.
1:16:02:
Commissioner Forssell: And how many people are in a crew?
1:16:03:
Tomm Marshall: Three to four.
1:16:10:
Chair Danaher: Judith, please.
1:16:11:
Commissioner Schwartz: So, I'm curious ...
1:16:13:
9
Jon Abendschein: I'll just say one thing. Don't forget that that $1.5 million is fully loaded with, you know, equipment and
overhead and so on and so forth.
1:16:20:
Commissioner Forssell: Sure.
1:16:23:
Commissioner Schwartz: So, I think that -- you know, this -- that if we just try to deal with this in just the context of
standard recruiting, and whatever, and salary, it's going to be really hard to sort of fix this, this way. So, I have questions
in terms of -- First of all, what are we doing to recruit from PG&E? Because, given that they are now having some
serious difficulties, I've got to believe there are people who would be experienced, who might be looking for something
that's a little more stable than it would have been in the past.
1:17:02:
Tomm Marshall: So, we do have contacts with PG&E. I mean, this whole thing with the bankruptcy and all that is
relatively new. And so, that's sort of sorting out. But we do have contacts that we have with PG&E. And we try to recruit
there. One of the issues we do have with people coming over is, there -- most other places, the linemen are in the IBEW,
which is a trade union for the electric trade. And we don't have that here. So they have to make a decision to leave that
trades union and come over, and be represented by SEIU. And we've had people do that. So, I'm not saying -- It's just
another sort of decision-making that that person has to make -- whether he wants to leave a trade union and come over
and work in the SEIU.
1:17:46:
Commissioner Schwartz: I think another big thing is housing. And even if we can't buy -- townhouse -- you know,
whether we can buy, you know, a townhouse complex, or something like that, in Palo Alto, at least in neighboring things,
so that we can give people a place to live that's closer in. I mean, I think that we really need to be looking at this in kind of
a creative way. And, I mean, things like, you know, maybe we can get their kids scholarships at schools that are closer in
this area. You know, whether it's private schools for younger kids or, you know, qualified kid, you know, to go to Stanford.
### I don't think Stanford would allow itself to be used this way.
Or something. I mean, I think that we've got to look at this in a way that is not normal. And, if we can't do something like
that, they we have to, I think, do a go / no-go at what point can we really not operate a utility. And I think that one of my
concerns about some of the discussions we have about adding new functionality to our utility comes from -- if we can't
staff what we're doing, how can we staff a new function that could be labor-intensive?
### Maybe it's just me, but I hear this as a cheap shot at citywide municipal FTTP. And I'm not convinced by it.
I just don't -- We're going to have all the same problems. OK? So, I think we should at least try to solve it for what we
have.
1:19:11:
The other thing is, like, going to the lineman rodeo, and having a big presence. It's sort of a competition, where linemen
from all over the country come to compete. And it's a great training circumstance or whatever. And maybe we need to go
there and talk about how great it is in the Bay Area. I mean, 'cause I think one of the things that we have going for us
here is, this is a really fabulous place to live. I mean, it's really nice to be here. And so, if we can figure out a way that
people can have a decent quality of life, you know, these are very critical positions for -- you know, to have our utility
workers be able to be supported and be able to live in a reasonable distance from Palo Alto, if not in Palo Alto, is
something that would benefit all of us as a City. And if -- And so, I guess I'd like to say, is there some way that we could
look at -- you know, have a design session or something, where we look at this in a creative way, to say, what weird
things can we come up with, that, maybe, we hadn't thought of in a normal situation, but it really is something that we
have to be able to do. And think outside the box a little bit. Because if we can't, we really need to understand -- before
five years shows up and everybody's out the door. You know, we need to be planning this in advance. If we have to sell
off part of our utilities. Or do something else.
10
### At 1:16:47, Commissioner Schwartz hopes to recruit people from PG&E because CPAU looks more stable. But this
kind of talk doesn't make CPAU look so stable.
I mean, I think it's -- it's -- this is significant. And I -- And I think it is -- it's not necessarily being treated with the urgency
that it deserves. Because it's -- it's very -- it's very substantive. And the problems aren't going away. And I think that a
few salary increases or signing bonuses are not going to s- -- are not going to solve this. So, I think it needs to be more
systemic in the way we look at this.
1:21:17:
Dave Yuan: So, one thing we have been doing recently is attending more job fairs. Our strategic workforce team. They
have been attending trade schools, and schools, and job fairs. Even at the lineman schools. So, we are getting our name
out there. Trying to do more marketing.
1:21:33:
Chair Danaher: Please.
1:21:34:
Commissioner Segal: So, a couple things. I do agree with Commissioner Schwartz that we need to be thinking out of the
box. I'm sort of curious to know how much, if at all, that all the labor union -- puts any kind of limitation on what we can
think about, or what we can do, to try to recruit and retain -- Well, let's start with that.
1:22:00:
Sandra Blanch: Well, first we have to come up with a proposal. But, as it was mentioned before -- I mean, even if we are
not -- you know, if it's not a period where we're in current negotiations, we could always request to meet and confer with
the union, and ultimately bring a side agreement to Council for approval. But the first step is getting, you know, the
executive leadership team and the City Manager to review a proposal, and get the -- you know, make a recommendation
that would be feasible, to present to Council.
1:22:53:
Commissioner Segal: It would be interesting -- maybe you already do this -- to interview people who are leaving -- not for
retirement but for other reasons -- to understand why they're leaving.
### Why not also interview people who are leaving for retirement?
Where they're going. What might have been able to keep them here.
1:23:10:
Tomm Marshall: So, we've had people leave. Typically, they're leaving for pay. And --part of it -- moving to an area
where the cost of living is more affordable for them. You know, I think the whole issue of housing is a critical issue. I
have at least one employee that lives in their car during the week. And that's -- you know, we see more and more
difficulties with people being able to afford to come in. And I think the flip side of that also is, if they're living a long ways
away, and we have an emergency, they're not here. It'll take them an hour, or two hours -- if there's an earthquake, it
might take them 3-4 hours for them to get back in here, with traffic is bad and they can't move. So, luckily, we've been
able -- we have a few people now that are relatively close. We have 3 or 4 people that can get here in a relatively short
period of time. But I got a large number of people -- you know, it's going to take a significant amount of time for them to
get in here. But they -- you know, we have to come in in triage, right now. Make things safe. But it could extend the --
you know, the recovery time. Because we have to get people in here.
1:24:20:
Commissioner Segal: Well, maybe it is time to start thinking about some kind of housing. At least during the week. Or,
whoever would be the, you know, on-call for any kind of emergency. So that -- maybe they're not commuting every day,
but, you know, cut that in half. That could have a huge impact on quality of life. And then, one other comment. On the
long-term strategies, I wasn't sure if these are what you've implemented now, or they're thoughts. Because I would just
strongly encourage to have a succession strategy, especially -- you know, we know when people are up for
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:WHEN? Why not NOW?
WillpF supports such measures. Palo Alto is foot dragging to say the least.
r ahlquist, WILPF
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2019/02/13/menlo-park-council-splits-on-law-to-help-
displaced-renters-relocate
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
li w t;,,.,le/ ~ lb
Jx~.fi~
~~J~../~,
VJ~t'&~
~ 0 ,_,,,/ L; f: f ll':f IC-.
~~., u ?J ot.s<
CJ~ --1 -4-< -< ("j~ I
["Tl-0 l.D :;v)> :;:ir:r ..,, tho
:% o)> -n~
Office of the Clerk <i? ~S'
Please distribute to all CitBoun~mbers
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
s!i€1 ~253 i ~~Jll•ln1 •1lp11l11l•'ll·ll11plllllJl1l 'l"lli'1l•"1"